Crazy Monday Poll - A serious one

[Sinitster]

Interesting read , topic ..

Not one that would normally interest me .

no, humans are inherently egotistical, and we think that we are better than the rest of the animal kingdom.

well aren't we? we are by far the smartest species out there.

One would like to think this , but are they ?

Ants work in colonies as one , for the one goal .
Bee's seem to do the same , wolves live in packs , elephants in herds , tuna in schools , etc etc , as most other creatures on this planet .

Humans cant even live together in the same country together without fighting !

Without destroying what is there , draining the earth of what it is !

Now i am far from being "green" , nor am i saying either of the main contributers to this topic are left or right ..

It is just an observation and perhaps an opinion on being the "smartest" species on this planet ..

sheeeesh , even a fungis can destroy the "human" species ....




I believe in myself and the beings around me !

Have fun and enjoy !


hehe , nice vid that one

[Stubbyholder]

Simple

We are all part of a big video game being controlled by aliens

Unfortunatly my controller is currently on Tilt

[Origami]

Hii Jack and Hi to old man Swanky

below is the Answer to the Eternal Question....

Where to sit @ a Poker Table ??

Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime

There are two kinds of dimensions, spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character.

Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow says that it "...gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa." (Barrow 2002: 204). This is because the law of gravitation (or any other inverse-square law) follows from the concept of flux, from N = 3, and from 3-dimensional solid objects having surface areas proportional to the square of their size in a selected spatial dimension. In particular, a sphere of radius r has area of 4πr². More generally, in a space of N dimensions, the strength of the gravitational attraction between two bodies separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN − 1.

In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if we fix T = 1 and let N > 3, the orbit of a planet about its sun cannot remain stable. The same is true of a star's orbit around the center of its galaxy.[9] Ehrenfest also showed that if N is even, then the different parts of a wave impulse will travel at different speeds. If N > 3 and odd, then wave impulses become distorted. Only when N = 3 or 1 are both problems avoided. In 1922, Hermann Weyl showed that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism works only when N = 3 and T = 1, writing that this fact "...not only leads to a deeper understanding of Maxwell's theory, but also of the fact that the world is four dimensional, which has hitherto always been accepted as merely 'accidental,'become intelligible through it."[10] Finally, Tangherlini[11] showed in 1963 that when N > 3, electron orbitals around nuclei cannot be stable; electrons would either fall into the nucleus or disperse.

Properties of n+m-dimensional spacetimes

Max Tegmark[12] expands on the preceding argument in the following anthropic manner. If T differs from 1, the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover, if T > 1, Tegmark maintains that protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.) If N > 3, Ehrenfest's argument above holds; atoms as we know them (and probably more complex structures as well) could not exist. If N < 3, gravitation of any kind becomes problematic, and the universe is probably too simple to contain observers. For example, when N < 3, nerves cannot cross without intersecting.

In general, it is not clear how physical law could function if T differed from 1. If T > 1, subatomic particles which decay after a fixed period would not behave predictably, because time-like geodesics would not be necessarily maximal.[13] N = 1 and T = 3 has the peculiar property that the speed of light in a vacuum is a lower bound on the velocity of matter; all matter consists of tachyons.

Hence anthropic and other arguments rule out all cases except N = 3 and T = 1—which happens to describe the world about us. Curiously, the cases N = 3 or 4 have the richest and most difficult geometry and topology. There are, for example, geometric statements whose truth or falsity is known for all N except one or both of 3 and 4.[citation needed] N = 3 was the last case of the Poincaré conjecture to be proved.

For an elementary treatment of the privileged status of N = 3 and T = 1, see chpt. 10 (esp. Fig. 10.12) of Barrow;[14] for deeper treatments, see §4.8 of Barrow and Tipler (1986) and Tegmark.[12] Barrow has repeatedly cited the work of Whitrow.[15]

String theory hypothesizes that matter and energy are composed of tiny vibrating strings of various types, most of which are embedded in dimensions that exist only on a scale no larger than the Planck length. Hence N = 3 and T = 1 do not characterize string theory, which embeds vibrating strings in coordinate grids having 10, or even 26, dimensions.

[bennymacca]

not sure what you are getting at there mate. interesting read anyway

[trishan]

LOL Bruce.

I hated studying Kant in a legal theory subject. Hardest stuff to understand. Level 50 thinking.

[maccatak11]

What if God was one of us,
Just a slob like one of us,
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home...

[Swanky]

Interesting.... very interesting.....

Actually haven't heard that song for ages.

[Adrian]

for the record, i voted yes above.

Good to know. That obviously makes 2 of us!

secondly, the science that i am talking about is all very real. im sorry to say that the fact that you dont' believe in it comes from a lack of understanding and knowledge of the science. nothing more. thats not a fault of yours, you just haven't studied science. its all VERY real and tested by experiment, not just made up out of thin air.

No, you cannot argue that its real. You are ignoring the fundamental flaws of humanity. It is only real to the extent of observability and measurability. The reality is that human beings, with all their limits and failings, having the ultimate determination as to what is real and what isn't, is simply laughable. It's actually a completely ludicrous idea. Humans cannot observe everything in the first place. We can only see a small portion of the light spectrum, for instance. We can only hear a small portion of all possible sounds. What hope have we seriously got? Yes, we can make machines to see and hear beyond our capabilities, but only to the extent that we can predict where these other non-observable things actually exist. What about things that we have no hope of predicting? How do we measure that? Does it not exist merely because we can't see it? Of course not.

All the rigorous methodology, testing, experiement, data collection, and all the rest of it, can never overcome this.

ok. well then how is anything true? by this flawed logic, you can argue against anything. murder? sure why not, the science, while providing proof that i did it, is wrong. i can get away with anything.

Ah. You're finally getting it.

How can anything be true indeed. Well, some things are obviously true. Some things are obviously observable, because they exist within the realm of human observability.

Other things can, and almost definitely do, exist beyond the realm of human observability. Science can never tell us about them, and therefore, to depend on science for everything is flawed logic.

And when you start discussing the nature of God, his existence, the beginning of the universe, wehre life comes from, and all these other things which clearly fall into the non-observable category, you can't use science to prove anything about them. Yes, we might have a few logical correct conclusions, but we really know very little.

Here's a nice analogy I though of in the shower this morning. If we say the universe is like a large room. The scientist is a little guy on the other end of the room looking through the keyhole of the closed door. Yes, the scientist can observe some things going on in the room, he can see the furniture, some things hanging on the wall maybe, a few decorations, a few people chatting. But how can you ever accept that the observer knows everything that is going on in the room?

of course thats rediculous.

No, it's highly plausible.

[Adrian]

thats psychology mate

No it isn't. Psychology is the study of the way humans and animals think. Nothing to do with knowledge at all.

[Adrian]

not as far fetched as you think. if you wanna start a thread about quantum mechanics, i could tell you all about some seemingly far fetched things, like particles being in 2 places at once, or weirder things still.

Yes, I know all about Schroedinger and his cat as well...

That's not weird. Of course it's possible for something to be in two places at once.

God, for example, can be everywhere at once.

the problem with string theory is that it cannot be tested by experiment. so its not really science, because thats what scientific method is based on - testable theories via experiments

And this testability requirement is why science will always fail to answer everything. Because not everything can be tested.