Is Luck Real?

[blazarwolf]

Bignose,

 

That was a very keen, isightfull, and clear response. I appreciate it greatly. It hit on many accords. I agree with you whole-heartly apon the respect issue. To say words are often difficult for me is a farse, to say spelling/grammer, and managing the perception of such is difficult is a understatment. Still I could go on for hours as to why I shouldent put precidence into managing such.

 

It was not compleatly sub-conscious that i knew i-Now may have just mispercived my thoughts. It has occured to me a few times i should go back and study english. This is compleatly against what is i am good at, even though there would be many benifits. This can even be shown in this reply (tried to use periods and proper paragraphs). My reliance on Elipsisis, excessive use of commas, and run on sentences I am very aware of.

 

I suppose I really do beleive that people should be able to see through incapacity... and ability to such would be usefull in there own lifes.. Im not as hard to understand as Tim Peek, nor as dictorally intellegent. Not to be Nuerotic, but perhaps there isnt much of a place here for me, and i should return to something else.

[SkepticLance]

I do not care much whether someone spells well or not. It is the accuracy and perception of their thoughts that count.

 

I went through High School with a chap who was hopeless at grammar, spelling, literature and all the other aspects of the English language. He took two extra years to graduate High School since he could not pass the mandatory English section. At University, he thrived. Turns out he was brilliant at physics, and he used mathematics like his first language. Who cares that he could not spell. The guy was a genius!

[iNow]

Not to be Nuerotic, but perhaps there isnt much of a place here for me, and i should return to something else.

 

There's no reason to assume that, blazarwolf. My larger point was that an understanding of Heisenberg uncertainty would require reading about it, and not knowing how to spell Heisenberg correctly would imply that you hadn't read much about it at all.

 

My point was not to suggest that proper spelling is the most important thing ever (although, it is important to one who wishes to learn and share ideas with others). My point was that misspelling the name of someone so important to present day knowledge implies (not only a lack of respect, but) a lack of understanding.

[pioneer]

The Heinsenberg uncertainty principle results from not taking into consideration electron relativity. The reference clock of the nucleus is running faster than that of the electron. This principle works under the assumption of only one reference. The gold color of the metal gold is due to a relativistic affect where the surface electrons time and distance shift the reflected light. This is a dramatic affect that you can seen with the eyes. Other electron affects are more subtle. Heinsenberg made this principle at a time when relativity had not yet been proven in the lab with hard data.

 

Here is an example to show the affect. Say we have a train moving at relativistic velocity, but we can't use relativity in our mathematical analysis. We can only assume a single stationary reference. We notice the train appears to get narrower. What has happened is space-time is contracted so we get this distortion on our plotting grid, due to the relativistic reference. Since there is only one reference we can use, we need to normalize this back to the singular grid. Although we normalize distance and time, and stretch out the train with the math, it still looks narrow, experimentally. The two ends should be at x1 and x2, on the normalized grid, but only one is these ends overlaps in experiments. Plus our grid does not take into consideration mass increase since we can't use relativity. We can know momentum by direct experiment, but not knowing that mass has increased, our velocity will be off since was are assuming a constant mass. It gets all confused with uncertainty, with experiment only able to solidify one thing at a time.

 

Once we assume two references, and SR, so we can take into consider time, distance and mass changes, we can pin the train down with exactitude. What was assumed uncertain was only the result of an assumption made before we had proven SR with experimental data. It may even have been political since Einstein did not like the dice approach, such that anything Einstein did would also be ignored, if he had been outwardly critical of this approach.

[Sisyphus]

The Heinsenberg uncertainty principle results from not taking into consideration electron relativity.

 

No, it's a mathematical consequence of wave/particle duality. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[iNow]

I propose his colon.

[blazarwolf]

No, it's a mathematical consequence of wave/particle duality. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

Or he could just be very informed/intellgent, and be trying to explain something very complex in 3 paragraphs... The argument that i didnt know much about HUP was brought up, I doubt anyone here knows much to the math and proof behind it.

 

He went into the propertys of color reflection of fundemental particles... this has been an interest of mine for a long time, something I know nothing about.

 

I Understand proof apon observation (ala Hubble) Ive always wonderd about proof apon math... that is those 88 pages (general relativity), how one could use math (lorntze, yes mispelled!) to prove something so complex. The idea of the forementioned doesent seem so complex to me, but to proove it with math.... this I dont understand...

 

This is why I will always be a student and not a prodigy... and have a keen interest in history. To that, Analogys seem to be a fundemental study of mine, I love them. If anyone did not know what I was talking about, do challenge me to clarify.

[Sisyphus]

Or he could just be very informed/intellgent, and be trying to explain something very complex in 3 paragraphs...

 

No, that isn't it. Believe me, he's a regular. He talks about very complex subjects and uses correct grammar and such, so it's easy to be fooled if you don't know any better. He doesn't represent accepted science. He has his own ideas about things which he believes are more logical than accepted theories, but which are usually just based in misunderstanding existing science. If he were really a secret genius on the verge of revolutionizing physics, he would at least be able to demonstrate that he understands existing physics.

 

I Understand proof apon observation (ala Hubble) Ive always wonderd about proof apon math... that is those 88 pages (general relativity), how one could use math (lorntze, yes mispelled!) to prove something so complex. The idea of the forementioned doesent seem so complex to me, but to proove it with math.... this I dont understand...

 

Well, luckily here we have math confirmed by observation, which is generally how these things go.

[paganinio]

summary Definition of luck from wikipedia:

"Luck (also called fortunity) is a chance happening, or that which happens beyond a person's control"

 

If luck is chance, it negates a persons freewill.....

 

 

Strictly saying, everything is beyond a person's control. Let's say I expect to see the letter "R" on screen when I press the R key on my keyboard, but there is always a very small possibility that it won't show up. (Maybe the keyboard just happens to break at that moment.)

 

Therefore, everything is a coincidence.

 

But the word "coincidence" usually refers to something that is not likely to happen. Even in this case, coincidences happen about four times everyday in a person's life.

 

edit: and in Jack Bauer's life, coincidences happen about 40 times everyday.