Bubbles in space

[Thales]

Quark is you user rating based on your total number of posts.

 

In order to learn the maths to descibe what your thinking about, i'd say 5 maybe 6 years...depending on your ability. To be honest seeing as this is more of a hobby for you, you'd be better off starting with general/special relativity. The maths is relatively simple(compared to Quantum Mechanics) and the idea's brought up are interesting to say the least.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Quark is you user rating based on your total number of posts.

 

In order to learn the maths to descibe what your thinking about' date=' i'd say 5 maybe 6 years...depending on your ability. To be honest seeing as this is more of a hobby for you, you'd be better off starting with general/special relativity. The maths is relatively simple(compared to Quantum Mechanics) and the idea's brought up are interesting to say the least.[/quote']

Thanks for that. I don't know of any paid work available in this sort of field so hobby is as good as it gets.

[AtomicMX]

You mean imagination can[/i'] have logic.

Has logic in the sense that you imagine something based on experience.

(suggest you psichology and dream studies)

 

Logic is a tool, it is not the defining be-all-and-end-all of knowledge. As the Vulcans say, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end", and nobody knows more about logic than the Vulcans

Do you smoke marihuana?

 

Oh **** off with your unjustifiable opinions.

So you.

[DreamLord]

Has logic in the sense that you imagine something based on experience.

(suggest you psichology and dream studies)

 

Imagination is not based on experience' date=' dreams may be. But if I imagine that I could fly is that based on experience? Is that logical? Not really. I've never flown before. And it doesn't logical for a human to fly.

 

*spell it psychology

 

 

Do you smoke marihuana?

 

It's spelled marijuana actualy. The "J" is pronounced as an "H".

[Sayonara]

Has logic in the sense that you imagine something based on experience.

(suggest you psichology and dream studies)

I understand what you mean. I suggested you change "has" for "can have" as the former implies that logic is always present' date=' whereas this is not true.

 

 

Do you smoke marihuana?

So you.

You're the one with the problems here. Sort yourself out.

[AtomicMX]

I am not, just you get rude i get a little rude either.

But, do you smoke marihuana?.

 

For dreamlord, in my country is Marihuana, and it isn't pronounced as "J" .

 

I understand what you mean. I suggested you change "has" for "can have" as the former implies that logic is always present, whereas this is not true.

Yes yes, but its implied anyway, but in this way, perhaps you did not noticed, the logic is in the case for example, if you "imagine" a dragon, was because you read plenty monsters books, and dogs, and monsters, then in your mind you can permute that, then you get the logic of something you imagine, what i mean, is that you cant invent from nothing...

 

There is the logic.

 

If you (all) do not understand what i mean, then please say no, and i'll explain this a little more.

 

And it doesn't logical for a human to fly.

Of course it is, for example, if you see a bird that is an animal, then a human says, i am an animal, if it can fly, so do i, then he see, how did it fly, and so and so.....

 

there is where the "imaginations" logic.

[Severian]

In principle you should be able to make something travel at the speed of light by restoring electroweak symmetry. If you do that (essentially returning the Higgs boson to the mifddle of the wine-bottle/mexican-hat) then locally nothing would have mass, and everything would travel at c.

 

Of course, your particles in your body would then feel a very strong 'weak' force and you would die horribly, but still....

[Sayonara]

I am not' date=' just you get rude i get a little rude either.

But, do you smoke marihuana?.[/quote']

I'm not being rude, I'm being abrupt

By "the one with the problems" I mean that your view of biology etc is your opinion only, and you won't be received well talking about it on a science forum as if it were universally accepted as a non-science.

 

For the record no, I do not smoke marijuana (although I do smoke). In my experience every single person I have met who smokes it regularly are the most dull people you could ever expect to meet.

 

 

For dreamlord, in my country is Marihuana, and it isn't pronounced as "J" .

We pronounce the J as an H anyway, so I don't see that it matters.

 

 

Yes yes, but its implied anyway, but in this way, perhaps you did not noticed, the logic is in the case for example, if you "imagine" a dragon, was because you read plenty monsters books, and dogs, and monsters, then in your mind you can permute that, then you get the logic of something you imagine, what i mean, is that you cant invent from nothing...

I understand what you mean, I am saying that it only applies because you said it applies. It's not necessarily so.

M.C. Escher, for instance, would definitely disagree that logic is a prerequisite for constructs of the imagination.

 

In the flight example there is no logical link between animals and flight, which is where it falls down. "A bird is a flying animal, I am an animal, therefore I can fly" is an instance of the Composition fallacy. There doesn't even have to be flapping involved tbh.

[AtomicMX]

can common matter continue being as it is at a speed of 2.999999 ^ 8 ?

[Severian]

can common matter continue being as it is at a speed of 2.999999 ^ 8 ?

 

Why not? One of the things that relativity tells us is that every frame is equivalent. If you were in a starship travelling at these speeds the only thing that would tell you you were moving at all would be looking out the window (or the engine noise). You could only tell if it was accelerating from inside the ship.

[AtomicMX]

errr... what? i did not understand your point.

 

what i mean.. is that c is the umbral between wave and particle..

 

being in the particle side, the matter would be still the matter it was?...

(not changing its agregation state? or something)

[Martin]

Why not? One of the things that relativity tells us is that every frame is equivalent. If you were in a starship travelling at these speeds the only thing that would tell you you were moving at all would be looking out the window (or the engine noise). You could only tell if it was accelerating from inside the ship.

 

Special Relativity tells us this, as you very rightly point out Severian. Maybe it is worth adding that General Relativity has a slightly different message since it allows for a preferred frame which is at rest with respect to the expansion of the universe. Or with respect to the CMB or, as people say, the "Hubble flow"

 

If one is moving very near the speed of light in a star ship one notices that the Cosmic Microwave Background ahead of the ship is blueshifted to, say, UV, or perhaps X-rays. One is careful not to look out of the window in the front of the ship. Looking out the back window is very different, but not so interesting. One can, I suppose, tell one is moving just by the CMB.

 

Stopping the ship and coming to complete rest would be defined by getting so the CMB looks approximately the same temperature in all directions, and then the distant galaxies will be receding at roughly similar speeds at similar distances in all directions (one is stationary with respect to the expansion of space)

 

it is interesting that GR and SR superficially appear to send a contradictory message (although not really)-----in SR there is no preferred frame, as Severian pointed out, and no non-relative idea of being at rest.

[DreamLord]

Yes yes, but its implied anyway, but in this way, perhaps you did not noticed, the logic is in the case for example, if you "imagine" a dragon, was because you read plenty monsters books, and dogs, and monsters, then in your mind you can permute that, then you get the logic of something you imagine, what i mean, is that you cant invent from nothing...

 

OK, that may be true for us, but what about the first man who thought up things like dragons? Were they logical for him? I'm not saying logic doesn't apply to some dreams and imaginative thoughts, but it doesn't always apply.

 

 

Of course it is, for example, if you see a bird that is an animal, then a human says, i am an animal, if it can fly, so do i, then he see, how did it fly, and so and so.....

 

And yet, I know I cannot fly. But I imagine that I can. Kids can imagine lots of things that aren't logical. I can imagine lots of things that are illogical. My drawings prove that. I have a few art works that I would be very surprised if anybody could find logic in them.

[AtomicMX]

OK, that may be true for us, but what about the first man who thought up things like dragons? Were they logical for him? I'm not saying logic doesn't apply to some dreams and imaginative thoughts, but it doesn't always apply.

 

If you see a lizard and you see something with wings, then you can mix them. and thats where the logic resides, if you cant see this as logic.. well... then i am wrong.

for example kekule. he imagined dancing mokeys, and he was working with carbon atoms, then imagined the benzen.

 

there is the logic. i do not want to go off topic. i can challenge to a debate if you want, but not here (this topic).

[Sayonara]

I don't think you can necessarily say that using components of things that have already been experienced to make something new "has logic". What is it supposed to mean?

[AtomicMX]

That it follows a logic path, but i am failing to understand the logic's definition...

 

no i am not failing, but well i got plenty clases of "social sciences" in high-school due my branch... and i am trying to follow the definition..

 

Logic: the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference

 

But i understand the points of everyone, what i am trying to settle, is the difference.. between "common" (normal) and Logical (or logic)

[Sayonara]

What I am trying to say is that just because someone knows about birds and their ability to fly (to borrow your example), it does not mean there is a logical path to them imagining themselves flying.

 

Transferring inhuman abilities to a representation of yourself isn't even very logical to begin with.

[AtomicMX]

well.. i agree with you if thats the way logic works...

 

but then ... logic between people is different... is what i am understanding.... because for me would be logical.... there is where i think i am missing the point (logic) .. :S