Science
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- Morning_star0
Physicists at University of Queensland, Australia have simulated time travel using particles of light. The researchers achieved this by simulating the behavior of a single piece of light–a particle of energy–traveling on a closed timelike curve (CTC)–a closed path in space-time. The work may help to understand the longstanding problem of how time-travel could be possible in the quantum world and how the theory of quantum mechanics might change in the presence of closed timelike curves.
- utopian0
- Just beaches, yes? No deserts, no rivers, no lake beds, no sea floor, no subterranean sand layers? That's science is it?Morning_star
- It is.monospaced
- OK. So science is lots of guessing, speculation and incorrect assumptions. Got it.Morning_star
- No, not at all. It's full of educated guesses, which are extremely accurate.monospaced
- Not like stupid faith-bases systems. honestly, are you trying to bring sceince down to retard religion level?monospaced
- Not at all. But that <, is just a load of old bollocks dressed up as science. It's a totally subjective 'calculation', it's not testable in any way. It has as much scientific value as asking how long's a peice of string.Morning_star
- testable in any way. It has as much scientific value as asking how long's a peice of string.Morning_star
- the question is clear on whats includeddrgs
- It's still a meaningless answer unless you're evaluating the method.Morning_star
- Look, at least it's an educated guess. Just because it doesn't meet your standards doesn't mean it's not scientificmonospaced
- utopian0
^^^^^^^^
There are 100 Earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world. Think about that next time you’re on the beach.
- utopian0
^^^^^^^^
All together, that comes out to the typically quoted range of between 1022 and 1024 total stars, which means that for every grain of sand on Earth, there are 10,000 stars out there.
- 100,000,000,000 stars in
100,000,000,000 galaxies
eachsarahfailin
- 100,000,000,000 stars in
- IRNlun60
- We are so insignificant on so many levels.utopian
- nice explanationscarabin
- me gustasarahfailin
- Morning_star0
"And if physical science, whatever it may have to say about the origin of life, leaves us necessarily in the dark about consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of intelligibility for this world."
- Thomas Nagal. Philosopher, Atheist.- except for the fact that physical reality does provide basic forms of intelligibilitymonospaced
- we are living proof, except for yurimonmonospaced
- I think what the quote was aludingto was that our universe is only experienced through consciousness. And that lens could effect absolutely everything we interact with. If you don't understand the lens how would you understand what your seeing.Morning_star
- could effect absolutely everything we interact with. If you don't understand the lens how would you understand what your seeing.Morning_star
- seeing.Morning_star
- Something traumatic happened to monospace that made him forget who he really is.yurimon
- i hope you're not suggesting we throw our hands up in the air while saying "we can't explain consciousness so let's not bother with science"scarabin
- with science"scarabin
- My point may need further clarification but essentially there is growing (published and peer reviewed) evidence to suggest that consciousness is more fundamental to this universe than we have understood. The materialist position isn't as strong an argument as it once was. Scientific discovery and theorising is fundamental yet there seems to be an illogical opposition to a non materialist experimentation merely because of scientists dogmatic approach.Morning_star
- that consciousness is more fundamental to this universe than we have understood. The materialist position isn't as strong an argument as it once was. Scientific discovery and theorising is fundamental yet there seems to be an illogical opposition to a non materialist experimentation merely because of scientists dogmatic approach.Morning_star
- an argument as it once was. Scientific discovery and theorising is fundamental yet there seems to be an illogical opposition to a non materialist experimentation merely because of scientists dogmatic approach.Morning_star
- opposition to a non materialist experimentation merely because of scientists dogmatic approach.Morning_star
- monospaced0
"Your brain is a complicated system with lots of particles interacting, and it’s unlikely to expect that quantum coherence is responsible for the nature of consciousness, because quantum coherence gets destroyed in most physical systems—because of the many particles interacting—in a small fraction of a second. ... Anyone who makes a claim about consciousness is probably lying, because we don’t understand the nature of consciousness. And there are lots of people who try to make their living by being hucksters about this. In particular there are those awful people who promote things like that silly, nonsensical book The Secret, which suggests that if you think about it, it will happen. If you want it, it will happen. That somehow your desires can affect the universe, and that is the worst garbage, the worst misrepresentation of science mechanics. It’s fraudulent, it’s a lie, and people should ignore those people, and moreover ridicule them.”
— Lawrence Krauss, physicist
- lookin' at you, yurimonmonospaced
- contradicts this though. http://physicsworld.…yurimon
- that what im saying you dont understand nature of consciousness so all points are null and muteyurimon
- if he says that we dont understand the nature of consciousness then he can make statements like he does. kinda idiotic for a physicist to contradict himselfyurimon
- idiotic for a physicist to contradict himself and make strong statements after the fact of acknowledging we dont know.yurimon
- hey Mono, I know nothing about electrical work but let me come over and rewire your apartment, yeah that kinda crazy..yurimon
- There are pubished, peer reviewed quantum physics experiments showing action at a distance i.e. mind influencing matter. Lawrence Krauss is talking crap.Morning_star
- matter. Krauss is talking bollox.Morning_star
- http://www.livescien…Morning_star
- Oh man, the comments from both of you make you look even more stupid and ignorant than before. Good show, idiots.monospaced
- Hey mono, i've given you a claim about matter being effected at a distance. Evidence against your position. Care to provide evidence that contradicts the claim that action at a distance is not only possible but prooved? Or you just gonna be an arrogant crowd-follower as usual.Morning_star
- evidence that contradicts the claim that action at a distance is not only possible but proved? Or you just gonna be an arrogant crowd-follower as usual.Morning_star
- crowd-follower as usual.Morning_star
- No, just saying that it has nothing to do with consciousness controlling jack shit. You'd know that if you knew anythign abut itmonospaced
- spooky action at a distance is quantum, but you'd have to be a retard to think thoughts control realitymonospaced
- just like praying doesn't work, and you can't wish for more intelligence, no matter how hard you trymonospaced
- Does measuring the results of a double slit experiments effect the results?Morning_star
- Yes, but there exists no evidence and no process by which thoughts can actually translate into changemonospaced
- measuring isn't the same as conscious effect, and if you knew anything more than what that article says, you'd understandmonospaced
- you'd understand, but keep on posting the same ancient shit and making idiotic assumptions about itmonospaced
- right now you sound as cray-cray as yurimon ;)monospaced
- Consciousness is one of the potential explanations for the collapse of the wave function. A quick look at physics blogs will show you that.Morning_star
- show you that.Morning_star
- anyway, trying to use the slit experiment as a pathetic excuse for mind-control is just ludicrousmonospaced
- Why? Particles can act on each other at ridiculous distances. Experiments with positive significant results are out there that seem to show that intention (human) influences outcomes of the slit experiment.
You seem to suggest that we know everything there is to know about physics and this universe is entirely material and we are just biological machines.Morning_star - that seem to show that intention (human) influences outcomes of the slit experiment.
You seem to suggest that we know everything there is to know about physics and this universe is entirely material and we are just biological machines.Morning_star - are just biological machines.Morning_star
- and that we know everything there is to know about physics.Morning_star
- Hey Mono I dont anything about speaking french but I'm going to write a novel in french.yurimon
- er dont know...yurimon
- utopian0
- or... How the 4% of the universe we can detect evolved.Morning_star
- sarahfailin0
^Re the above convo.
You're right about distance from the center of gravity creating a difference in gravitational force. In fact, since gravity affects time, time actually passes slightly faster at higher elevations. So if you had a twin sibling that that lived at 1 foot higher elevation that you, after a 79 year lifetime, they would be 90 billionths of a second older than you. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/rel...It's called Time Dilation and it actually has a tangible effect once you get further away from the surface of the earth. Astronauts come back with their clocks a little ahead of what they would have been had they stayed on earth. It also is affected by your velocity-- with time passing slower the faster you're moving. At light speed, time for a traveler on a spaceship would come to a stop and they would seem to arrive at any destination instantly, though time would pass normally for everything around them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim…
Finally, it's theorized that if you were to fall into a black hole-- the singularity of which is an infinite curvature of space-time-- and if you were somehow able to stay alive and look outward at space around you, you would actually witness the end of time before just before you hit the singularity. Time passes faster and faster for the outside world as you approach the singularity (relative to you anyway), and in fact time ends when your distance from the singularity = 0. Pretty crazy, eh?
- uan0
pretty cool use of drones
- uan0
N is the force of Earth's gravity on a mass of about 102 g = (1⁄9.81 kg).
(N: The newton is the International System of Units derived unit of force).
- sarahfailin0
- cool... I don't know a lot about it... but is the mass from the center of the object, or from the edge?monospaced
- physics and gravity are so fascinatingmonospaced
- yeah i think distance is calculated from the center of gravity of the object. any conflagration of objects could be 1 object.sarahfailin
- be considered just 1 object. like a solar system, for example, or a galaxysarahfailin
- interesting... so if one is on the surface of a larger planet, the gravity is decreased by their distance from its centermonospaced
- and hence, a planet 17x the mass isn't necessarily 17x the gravity, but closemonospaced
- ok, geek level overloadmonospaced
- Some dense motherfuckers live up in here.wagshaft
- enlighten us, wagshaftmonospaced
- is one dense if they aren't intimately familiar with gravitational physics?monospaced
- maybe they're using the word dense meaning dense with knowledgehereswhatidid
- Don't git yer panties in a twist. I'm just jerkin your collective chains.wagshaft