Radical Edward Posted June 22, 2003 Posted June 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Is this a casual coincidence, that object having greater energy has a greater time of existence or life? I think that is not. The value TC of object defines its energy. Its energy decreases with reduction of TC. So, where the time is directed ? it is not the case that an object with greater energy will live longer at all.
Michael F. D. Posted June 25, 2003 Author Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward it is not the case that an object with greater energy will live longer at all. The nucleus of atom has a greater energy and , accordingly, the greater time of existence. All other the more complex objects are a systems which unites atoms. The relationships in these system are weak and time of their existence can be small.
Radical Edward Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. The nucleus of atom has a greater energy and , accordingly, the greater time of existence. All other the more complex objects are a systems which unites atoms. The relationships in these system are weak and time of their existence can be small. an isolated neutron is heavier than an isolated proton, however isolated neutrons have a half life of 15 minutes, wheras isolated protons have a very long half life indeed.
greg1917 Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 The idea of a Time Cycle adds nothing to physics as current laws and observations adequately explain every event you've drawn reference to. Plus Rad E is perfectly correct when he says that its not the case at all that 'higher energy means a longer existence' which is grandoise, sweaping non-explained statement in the first place.
Michael F. D. Posted June 26, 2003 Author Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 The idea of a Time Cycle adds nothing to physics as current laws and observations adequately explain every event you've drawn reference to. Plus Rad E is perfectly correct when he says that its not the case at all that 'higher energy means a longer existence' which is grandoise, sweaping non-explained statement in the first place. Robert Burns: Whence we came? Where we leave? A death leers in a birth already I don't guarantee the literal accuracy in quote, but a meaning is valid. What he had meant ?
Sayonara Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 "Someone saying something I don't remember about the nature of human existence makes theory X correct".
greg1917 Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Why are you quoting Burns at me? Am I supposed to recite Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy in return?
Michael F. D. Posted June 26, 2003 Author Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Why are you quoting Burns at me? Am I supposed to recite Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy in return? Because the great poets and writers much more finely perceives our world. Their philosophical assotiations much closer to realities, than all an academic investigations. His the words are just caused for the delight in my soul, finally. They are assonant at my thoughts. I'll translate his thoughts on a language of physicists. He has said, that since a moment of appearance in realities of a certain object , the countdown of time of its existence (TC) begins.
superchump Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Because the great poets and writers much more finely perceives our world. Their philosophical assotiations much closer to realities, than all an academic investigations. His the words are just caused for the delight in my soul, finally. They are assonant at my thoughts. I'll translate his thoughts on a language of physicists. He has said, that since a moment of appearance in realities of a certain object , the countdown of time of its existence (TC) begins. Sorry, poetry does not equal physics Just because someone has a way with words and a vast imagination doesn't mean they in any way qualified as an example to explain scientific concepts.
greg1917 Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Thats utterly ridiculous and spectacularly random. Not only does the poem have NOTHING to do with the time cycle theory you are talking about, but it is to do with emotion which is a far cry from physics which is devoid of such human concepts. You cant translate poetry into physics any more than you can try and paint a fresco with rocks and a hangover.
Michael F. D. Posted June 26, 2003 Author Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward an isolated neutron is heavier than an isolated proton, however isolated neutrons have a half life of 15 minutes, wheras isolated protons have a very long half life indeed. The nucleus of atom contains the bounded protrons and neutrons. The characteristic of complex object is not just an amount of characteristics of the component objects. This already other object with the other characteristic
Michael F. D. Posted June 26, 2003 Author Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Thats utterly ridiculous and spectacularly random. Not only does the poem have NOTHING to do with the time cycle theory you are talking about, but it is to do with emotion which is a far cry from physics which is devoid of such human concepts. You cant translate poetry into physics any more than you can try and paint a fresco with rocks and a hangover. Why no? It is possible to consider the poem as the reliable observation of nature. It not worse than observations which made with microscope, for instance. The birth and death this a most conclusive evidences of existence of the cycles of time for all objects.
Sayonara Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Poetry has no place in the scientific method. End of story. Any more claims that it can and I'll lock this thread too.
JaKiri Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. It is possible to consider the poem as the reliable observation of nature. No it isn't.
Dave Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward It makes you wonder if he did actually have a solution though. How big is Wiles'? I only saw the program on TV about it, and he was working on it for quite a while, so I imagine it must have been quite substantial. It was split into two papers, the main one was about 135 pages from what I remember, and the smaller one wasn't very long, but the major one depended upon it. As for the rest of the thread; this is probably why I don't read pseudoscience apart from when I'm bored :\
JaKiri Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by dave As for the rest of the thread; this is probably why I don't read pseudoscience apart from when I'm bored :\ I just read whatever's on the front page.
Michael F. D. Posted June 28, 2003 Author Posted June 28, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Poetry has no place in the scientific method. End of story. Any more claims that it can and I'll lock this thread too. Seems, you want to make the collection of my topics (I see at first, that my topics are settles down in Pseudoscience & Metaphysics.) . Well, we'll leave the poetry at rest. Then all of dividends will be my. I expect of disclaimers of my point stated in original thread. So?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now