SamBridge

It seems according to what I did that it may actually be a myth. I tried pouring water down my sink 3 different ways. From the left side, the right side and the middle. When I poured from the left side, the water went clockwise. When I poured water from the right, the water drained counter clockwise. When I poured down the middle, the water became split around the drain and entered going in both directions from either side. I did not notice any change in velocity in the water flows when compared to each other.

Well being an administrator I trust you can find the two different topics that shows I do not think that. While I do not think math is "ethereal", I do have to respect that it is a logical system in many respects and can make predictable results. You're right that it isn't continuous, it wouldn't be a normal type of function if there were literally infinite points going vertically up and down, but conceptually doesn't it make sense that you can put "nothing" into something an infinite amount of times? I mean there's all sorts of math that basically indirectly does stuff like that, like derivatives and integrals, they use infinitesimally small numbers, in reality it doesn't make sense to have an infinitely small box, yet somehow we find the exact area. What where do you find that exact area? In none other than exactly on a horizontal asymtote.

It could hypothetically work but as you know there's conservation laws and the big bang definitely wasn't deterministic not only because of all the science we have but we don't have any evidence to know that.

Yeah well as I said I think time is a factor, and honestly for no reason at all I feel like giving people like staff moderators and long-time members points and not always other newer members that still make intelligible posts. I don't do it of course, but the fact that someone who tries to be as logical as me irrationally wants to do it and I don't even know exactly why, that says that the reputation system can't be a 100% accurate thing, or even a 90% accurate thing. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, but reputation doesn't make sense. Your not retarded just because you don't understand how Newton's laws work, your not cognitively dissonant just because you don't see enough evidence for or against the existence of god, I mean what the heck? It doesn't make sense, I don't even know what reputation is measuring I don't see any units. No that's not right, people come here to answer questions or to get questions answered and/or cause they like debating. For me it's a combination of all three. Most people I know don't like debating philosophy or physics at all, and on the internet it's not really that personal of a thing.

Well distance isn't the right term, I mean more like space is required for higher energy fields to exist, or for larger fields to occupy a larger area, which the casimir effect shows. I still don't see how the energy is "borrowed". There's virtual particles all around us, where is that energy coming from, why does the fabric of space need it, how does it get returned, and why isn't the fabric of space being depleted of energy exactly?

I'm not understanding this "geodesic" thing. I understand manifolds and extra dimensional shapes, but why wouldn't you see the baseball if it looped around exactly to it's starting point if you were merely a by-stander and not the pitcher? From the way I think of it the universe would have to be 5 dimensional because the universe would have to loop 3 dimension coordinates around which wouldn't be possible without an extra dimension to warp those 3-D coordinates, then that whole hyper torus would have to be relative from every frame of reference, which would require an extra dimension to bend the 4 dimensional hyper-torus into that sort of shape from every 4 dimensional surface.

I see what you're saying in a way, but it doesn't quite match up to the only possible thing that I can think of that it applies to: The Casimir effect. Certain probabilities are excluded with less space aren't they? What does that have to do with borrowing energy for mass to travel distance? It takes more "space" for a higher energy mass particle to travel, but they were still "traveling" before they stopped existing, the different fields can exist over different areas of space depending on their energy, that's what i'm getting from you, but that's all I'm getting, there's something missing from your picture.

if it's the internet even if it doesn't actually matter people still infer based off of it. Like me, I assume that people with a really high reputation often know what they are talking about as if they are 100% correct. It would probably be better if I did research once in a while, but I figure they have a high likelihood of being right because they have a good reputation usually. But that's not what I should do unless it's something pertaining to common knowledge, what I should do is research what they are saying because they are bound to eventually be wrong about something. If everyone's "reputation" was neutral or people didn't have an actual "reputation" , then I think no ones statements would be taken as 100% accurate but not as 100% wrong, which is how it should be because without evidence you don't know, which encourages you to seek evidence. Well I did not say they don't make intelligible posts, not that I'm saying you said I did, but the amount of time they've been here definitely is a major factor, over time things just cool down,it becomes less likely they will make some kind of demagogic mistake. It's not all based like that but you have to admit for an internet forum that is a part of it.

But if you just have the logic of math on its own without humans to make all sorts of inferences and explorations, how would you find infinity? Where does it "naturally" occur in the logic of mathematics and it's proof? Ok yeah so if you can't seemingly do operations on it or if it doesn't pass the vertical line test or w/e other test, but how do we know the answer couldn't be some thing or some number? Couldn't "infinity" be thought of as one thing in of itself? How do you prove that it isn't some value?

So it must be related to the potentials they travel. It takes "more" energy for mass to travel a greater distance from it's parent emitter, and mass-less particles have, well, no mass, which also makes sense in classical physics if you look at photons, I guess it answers part of the question, I still don't see completely how it works, how is the energy not stolen from the particle and how does it get back? And what is actually happening at least mathematically at the moment the energy needed to sustain their existence becomes too much? Why doesn't this effect happen with normal matter?

If your equation cannot generate the same units on both sides of the equation, then it doesn't make sense. Think about it, does it really make sense if I say "kilograms = beauty"? That's what you're doing if you don't have dimension analysis, units are just as important in physics and without keeping track of them we wouldn't be able to have all the knowledge we have and if they do not generate the same unit on both sides of the equation then something's wrong. Either you aren't using the right things for the equation or something is fundamentally wrong with what your using.

I said in my second post that this isn't about my reputation and there's is documentation proving I complained about it not only when my reputation was good but on the very first day I signed up (or at least within the first 3 but I'm pretty sure it was the first 24 hours), I used myself is an example but I'm not comparing myself to Galileo, I hardly knew him. I can guarantee that even moderators and staff members have gotten some kind of bad reputation from some random people maybe even spammed negatively, but you don't see it because it's canceled out by so many other good marks because they've been here so long. It shouldn't have to take "so long" though to see if they are actually experts though, it took them a very long time to get a good reputation, but why should it take that long when they were themselves then entire time they were here? Surely there can be some more accurate way.

So light red-shifts over time as it travels over vast distances of space, eventually to the point where it would be immeasurable by our current technology, but for the faint radio photons we do manage to pick up, how do we determine that it wasn't a photon that traveled in the opposite direction from it's sources and then looped around the universe in a 4 dimensional hyper-sphere?

It actually does seem like you could model the "growth" of matter as a Fibonacci sequence, you could reduce either to sigma notation and then into terms of "n" and plot the sequence, almost like the growth of a population in a way, but we don't actually have evidence that matter is being "created" anywhere, at least not in such massive scales, we simply discover more of the universe and find that it does not appear to have a finite boundary. You can reduce either to sigma notation into. By the way what does that graph actually represent? I see no labels on the axis. It would make sense that you could model the amount of matter with a Fibonacci sequence, but really we don't have enough evidence to support the universe works that way.

If I say 1/0, how do I proved it's "undefined" and not some actual number? I can't use "undefined" in algebra to solve for a variable, why should it be a real solution? I could see how it makes sense orally, but it seems like there's weird unpredictable guidelines for where human assumption comes in and what the math carries out to be. Like if I say "x approaches infinity", that's used in all sorts of algebra but that's not an actual numeric thing that's just us basically saying "as x increases indefinitely", but in mathematics x never actually has a value of infinity. But anyway, if I say 1/0=undefined, and I have x = 0 * undefined, shouldn't I logically be able to solve for it if "undefined" is actually the correct answer? It honestly seems like the answer is infinity, but there's no way to actually prove something is equal to infinity using math because it's not a real number, so it seems like some sort of dilemma I could literally put "nothing" into something an infinite amount of times, it never get's used up because it's nothing. I'm doing it right now as you're reading, I'm putting "nothing" into 1 bottle.

It seems like virtual particles from what I've gathered are almost like the invisible gears of atoms, they mediate forces, but somehow they don't exist until they are measured, it's like they are made out of math more than anything in the real world. But perhaps "real" can mean something different, perhaps literally they are coefficients of an imaginary number and thus do not contain real value until some measurement happens that corrects that, I see imaginary numbers popping up a lot in quantum physics. There's also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle "They exist for a limited time", but what causes them to stop existing? Yeah I know there's mass, but what about mass makes them stop existing? The virtual particles without mass can travel indefinitely can't they? But what is it about mass? Perhaps can a Higg's field answer that? After running into too many Higg's particles their probability becomes so localized it is considered "measured"? But then how is it's energy conserved by the parent particle?

I'm not seeing exactly how this warp drive thing doesn't violate relativity in some way. Space is warped by some sort of exotic matter, but you can't travel past the speed of light by falling into a black hole, why is it expected you can do so with much less mass?

Well just as a general point, it seems as though every great scientist has faced some major problem of "bad reputation", and I know there are people who don't really properly follow scientific procedure, but how can you completely trust its accuracy. I could see how over maybe a minimum of a year that you would get a good reputation, but only in the same manner that the Church only forever Galileo in the last 30 years, it's just that over time things cool down and people then learn to not make posts that are of a risk to attract scrutiny, but people shouldn't have to fear scrutiny at all even if they have a bunch of positive points, if something is actually wrong there should be evidence for it and if something is actually right there should be evidence for it. Newton hid calculus for nearly 20 years just because he didn't want to deal with scrutiny.

I think the reason the change is sudden is because that's how it's mathematically modeled, or not to say math causes things itself, but it happens because it isn't a real movement, it's simply a correlation, and not a causation. There is nothing "causing" the electron to jump, as soon as it posses more energy, it's probability instantly correlates to different coordinates. If I say 1+1=2 that correlation is always true and it does not take time to be true, similarly it does not take time for the square of the probability amplitude of an electron to have the the probability they have at different distances from the nucleus, it's just a correlation that is true.

Well I mean this isn't about just my own reputation, the reason it takes literally months to build a good reputation from what I've gathered is because there are people who use it with no real reason other than they don't like admitting they're wrong. If you make 20s of posts in a day, you will get them marked, but I've been monitoring my reputation and believe it or not it was actually "good" or really near "good" at one point, and on average I get 1 maybe 2 markings all of the posts the whole entire day, and this has been the case since I came here and after the event which in one 24-36 hour period my reputation jumped from 7 to -16. This is not a coincidence, if you're following the rules, which I am, because I have no warning posts, then it still takes a lot of posts and time for your reputation to change in either direction but it would go faster without emotional uses. Now I'm not here just trying to make a case for myself, but I don't think it what I'm saying is bad or based off of my current reputation, I made complaints about the reputation system when my reputation was good and even the very first day that I signed up here and I think maybe even the day after when my reputation was of course neutral. Ok well I don't mark posts ever I did not now there was some daily limit. But is it for an individual post, or of a user, or at all? And was it always like that? Well, would you at least rather have a little less work not having to worry about some religious fanatic marking down a bunch of posts? But I think in my system it wouldn't be hard to detect as much, because it wouldn't really be as easily able to be used for emotional purposes as well in the first place, it's just "you correctly answered my inquiry", so I suppose it would take some testing. You would do some beta testing to see what the average amount of marks are in a day, and if someone's marks significantly exceed that then a few staff members would be notified. I don't know how complex that is to program, I assume there are components of this site that can recognize things like that already so it would be a matter of building off of them and modifying them. I don't think it's necessarily the "norm" either, but it also has no clear scientific purpose. What does it even actually mean if I have a bunch of positive or negative marks? And how do you know for sure? The current reputation system is open ended like that; demagogic in that manner. At least with the new one you have a better sense that if they have many inquiries answered it means they have a lot of experience answering questions in an understandable way as something definite and concise. If you don't like the exact way I laid it out that's fine, but I would push for some version of it.

So normally it takes months to build a good reputation as any good experienced member will tell you, but often times the reputation system is abused for emotional purposes while the reputation itself doesn't seem to have a logical place in concluding of something is logical or not, so instead I propose a new type of reputation system: Instead of having "I like how you talk, therefore you are logical and a good scientist" and "I don't like how you talk, therefore you are illogical and are a bad scientist" and all sorts of other non scientific uses r illogical fallacies, we simply have a button for each post that you can press that says "This post answers your current inquiry". That way the reputation is actually more based off of answering questions and logically in an understandable manner rather than some easy demagoguery. You can ask any staff member (I would think if they were on ever) that negative spamming can also be a problem. This essentially get's rid of that while also providing a more accurate concept of someone's work for answering questions. And since spamming is easy to recognize as I've been pointed out, if someone crates an alt account and brings their new reputation up it can be found out. You might ask "well why not keep the current one if it's the same work to keep track of spamming?". Well its not, instead of having to worry about both positive AND negative spamming, staff members would only have to keep an eye out for positive spamming. I'm not saying the current reputation system has no validity, but I think this is a much better way to go about that sort of thing.

. I wouldn't consider the things you presented as "opinions", or at least most of them, I would consider them almost like theories, they are hypotheses based off of the evidence from an experiment, which seem to have logical correlations to the results, I suppose there is some room for mixing and matching, but an opinion is more like something you "feel" is right, not a logical statement directly based off of evidence from an experiment. Things like "Further work is needed in this area" isn't exactly an opinion, if you do not have enough experimental data to confirm something, then that's that, it's not a question, you don't have enough data to formulate a likely pattern and no other opinionated statement can change that. See, an opinion you can change your mind about at will, but this is not true of experimental data. I can randomly say "I like this type of ice cream" then a few seconds later say "Now I don't like this type of ice cream". However, he cannot just randomly say "I don't have enough data" and then say "I do have enough data" according to his knowledge unless he his lying about one of them. If at the time of his knowledge there wasn't enough data and he missed something, that's not an opinion, that's just the relative amount of information he has. If it is possible to provide higher gas temperatures and there is not a scientific experiment that denies that, then that's that, no matter what even if he wants to change his mind opionatedly, that correlation that "it is possible" still exists according to his knowledge.

So what about just at the boundary of the bubble? What if there was a piece of the ship that extended past the bubble?

Well at least for mammals we can get some kind of accurate sense by seeing how fast they accomplish a task or what they can remember and how much they can keep track of, this works partly for other animal kingdoms as well but they have different enough brains where we can't get accurate results, but I know we can measure some non-mammal animal counting abilities. Birds for instance can have an emotional capacity comparable to teenage humans, however the only math we can really see them doing is keeping track of how many twigs they use to build a nest or figuring out which flight paths to take or ect, which we still haven't nailed down exactly.

I'm still not seeing how you can magically ignore relativistic effects with the warp bubble. It makes sense in a way because of how it's warped, but it doesn't completely make sense.