Warp Drives... [Archive] - CoolROM.com Forums

Aravisian

05-10-2009, 05:55 PM

Any idea what else could cause a billiard ball to change on the molecular level into another one. Like a 7 to a 1.
Quantum entanglement is still being disputed. If you are trying to claim that quantum entanglement actually explains something... I suggest you read more about it.

Couldn't tell you since I learn most of this off the discovery channel.
The sensationalism channel? not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable and verifiable source.
Well wiki's ok for it i guess.
Wikipedia is pretty good for a quick synopsis.
Armchair physics or "laymans physics" is pretty common on the net as a debate point- but the real answer to the question is to attend a University.

Not the answer anyone really wants to hear...

Reading about such topics on the net is a bit like being described an atom in Elementary school. In grade school, the atom is depicted as a red ball and a blue ball clumped together with a smaller green ball orbitting them.
Not...exactly...accurate... But sufficient for creating a very fundamental basic understanding.
Once you pass on to high school Chemistry class, the teacher says, "Forget those balls, it's more like THIS..."
Then you move on to College Chemistry class and they say, "Forget what you learned in high school. That's Garbage- it's more like THIS...."

Comparing String theory, Quantum Theory, BBT or (Kaku?) dimensional physics to ummm.. comic books.. seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I understand that this is first and foremost a gaming forum... But let's keep fantasy separate from reality here...
I love Final Fantasy- but there's simply no such thing as Gaia...

Hopefully, the LHC will help provide greater insight into some of the nagging questions about Quantum Theory, tunneling and entanglement. The basic premise so far is, "We have some theories that are a work in progress. We are researching and studying to expand our knowledge and achive better models that define our reality."

But we simply don't know yet.

But if a person TRULY wants to understand what we have theorized so far, they really need to get proper instruction at a University.
Internet physics will allow one to say an atom looks like an apple with a cherry orbitting it.

Agent Smith

05-11-2009, 02:31 AM

Technically that's not a 100% certainty either, it's merely from our perspective currently that we perceive dimensions, the problem with the theory is that it's flawed currently, it doesn't take into account the other theories of dimensional space, which state that another dimension is possibly a third dimension as well, another problem with dimensional theories is that in dimensional theory, a being of a higher dimension would be a god in this one, even if there was a god in this one, that one would be higher, anyway the dangers of messing with dimensions is the potential to bring about an eldritch abomination or something similar, as well as if you entered the fourth dimension let's say, you might end up causing tears in space/time, or even possibly a merging of the dimensions.

Keep in mind that dimension theory does not disagree with religion, nor does it disagree with anything, i'm just saying that people need to be careful before theirs a apocalypse, oops! moment.

Or bring forth something like Steve King's The Mist or a Doom type invasion.

tatsuya1221

05-11-2009, 07:26 AM

Wikipedia is pretty good for a quick synopsis.
Armchair physics or "laymans physics" is pretty common on the net as a debate point- but the real answer to the question is to attend a University.

Not the answer anyone really wants to hear...

Reading about such topics on the net is a bit like being described an atom in Elementary school. In grade school, the atom is depicted as a red ball and a blue ball clumped together with a smaller green ball orbitting them.
Not...exactly...accurate... But sufficient for creating a very fundamental basic understanding.
Once you pass on to high school Chemistry class, the teacher says, "Forget those balls, it's more like THIS..."
Then you move on to College Chemistry class and they say, "Forget what you learned in high school. That's Garbage- it's more like THIS...."

Comparing String theory, Quantum Theory, BBT or (Kaku?) dimensional physics to ummm.. comic books.. seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I understand that this is first and foremost a gaming forum... But let's keep fantasy separate from reality here...
I love Final Fantasy- but there's simply no such thing as Gaia...

Hopefully, the LHC will help provide greater insight into some of the nagging questions about Quantum Theory, tunneling and entanglement. The basic premise so far is, "We have some theories that are a work in progress. We are researching and studying to expand our knowledge and achive better models that define our reality."

But we simply don't know yet.

But if a person TRULY wants to understand what we have theorized so far, they really need to get proper instruction at a University.
Internet physics will allow one to say an atom looks like an apple with a cherry orbitting it.
See this is the main problem i have with scientists as a whole, they believe that their research is 100% fact, they believe it infallible, E=MC2 comes to mind with that, all i'm saying is science isn't a god, nor will it ever be.
Keep in mind when i say this that i know of a higher power, however i don't get in the religion V science debate, both sides are pretty full of themselves if you ask me, since neither want to admit when their wrong(though one is far worse than the other one, shouldn't be hard to figure out which i'm referring to with my defence of one side).

Either way i'm not going to get into a convo about this on the forums, this is borderline flamebait and i want nothing of it.
Or bring forth something like Steve King's The Mist or a Doom type invasion.

The doom monsters could be called eldritch abominations.

Darth Gazak

05-11-2009, 09:43 AM

Wikipedia is pretty good for a quick synopsis.
Armchair physics or "laymans physics" is pretty common on the net as a debate point- but the real answer to the question is to attend a University.

Did/Do you attend University, and if so what did you study?

I'm in no way challenging your scientific background or merit, I'm simply interested. It's likely that I will study Physics next year as part of my University course, so it will be nice to have a like minded person on these forums.

Aravisian

05-12-2009, 12:33 AM

See this is the main problem i have with scientists as a whole, they believe that their research is 100% fact, they believe it infallible, E=MC2 comes to mind with that, all i'm saying is science isn't a god, nor will it ever be.
Tatsuya, you seem to have some personal bias here.

I realize that I am a nube and all... But what you just said is complete and utter nonsense. And it came completely out of left field. Perhaps I missed something....
But where exactly did any scientist come blustering in here threatening God?

Scientists do not believe that their theories are 100% fact. Not even close.

It would be irrational and unscientific to do so and scientists that behave in that manner are often chided.

If scientists thought such, they would not modify theories with new evidence.
They would not experiment and make careful observations.

What science is is the development of theories.
Theories are ideas that are designed to present the most accurate model of reality in order to describe reality.
In science, there is no such thing as a theory that is 100%. It can never be achieved. Nothing can ever be understood by us 100%. there will always be a certain percentage- even if it's infinitesimal (or even if it's a large percentage) of DOUBT.
This is why science continuously observes and experiments. This is why cases don't get closed. Theories are constantly being tested against the evidence. The testing never stops. Ever.
The more a theory survives the tests and is complimented by evidence and supported by observation- the more confident the scientist is that the theory is accurate and valid.
But if a theory should be contradicted by observational evidence... Should the theory fail testing- It goes into the Trash Can.

Many theories are extremely well supported by the evidence. For example: Chemistry. Your basic chemistry is very well understood and countless experiments from independent verifiable sources will confirm the same results.
It's allowable to treat it as fact. It is understandable as to why scientists show confidence in the theory.
Some theories, like Relativity, are completely supported by observation and the evidence SO FAR- but we are still devising the technology to study it deeper. These theories are not treated as "Faith" or 100% fact by any means. Any rational scientist will discard a faulty theory upon learning new evidence that refutes it. It is understandable that a scientist will be confident in Relativity, but any scientist that has studied relativity will happily admit that we cannot see all that we need to see, yet, to study it in greater depth.

That is how science works.

Now, scientists are human and some will become attached to their theories. That's only human nature. But the scientific process is solid and helps account for human fallibility.

Keep in mind when i say this that i know of a higher power, however i don't get in the religion V science debate, both sides are pretty full of themselves if you ask me, since neither want to admit when their wrong(though one is far worse than the other one, shouldn't be hard to figure out which i'm referring to with my defence of one side).
It seems to me that you say what you said out of a personal bias rather than any personal understanding.

Whether or not you believe in a Higher Power is utterly irrelevant to scientific theory.

Science does not deal with Faith, God, religion nor does it theorize about God.
Science has no determination as to God. God is unfalsifiable.

I have no idea what bearing your belief in a higher power has to do with Warp Drives, Relativity or science (The science which developed the internet, computer, quantum mechanics used to understand how to store Massive volumes of information on a physical harddrive for example- a Nobel Prize Winner) or even the science used to develop the machines you use, medicine you use and the great deal of science you take for granted and rely upon in daily life.

If science was as nonsensical and faith-based as you just tried to claim it is- That computer, Your internet, the medical care- NONE of that would work at all, would it?

Science does not deal with religion. Your personal attack on it can only be assumed to be based on a personal feeling of feeling threatened by science. You feel that scientific theory that is well supported by the evidence threatens your beliefs, even though science merely observes and records.

This is a personal issue for you. I would strongly suggest you confront it within yourself, rather than attacking complete strangers to you.
Either way i'm not going to get into a convo about this on the forums, this is borderline flamebait and i want nothing of it.

I think that would be best as well. The only flaming I have yet seen came from your post, in a general and random ad hominem attack on people that you do not even know.

Don't misunderstand me, Tatsuya, You have been extremely helpful to me on other areas of the board and I think you ROCK for having uploaded as you have.
But I find your behavior in this particular thread as lacking in merit and and I confronted it accordingly.

Did/Do you attend University, and if so what did you study?

I'm in no way challenging your scientific background or merit, I'm simply interested. It's likely that I will study Physics next year as part of my University course, so it will be nice to have a like minded person on these forums.
The reason I had said what I had said is because a person cannot get a proper education in something like this on the internet.
For one thing, there is way too much FLUFF on the internet. For another, a student needs proper instruction in order to assimilate knowledge so that they don't become scattered or confused.

Example: Higher Mathematics. Imagine yourself self teaching using Wikipedia and looking up functions for differential equations.
Since you are untrained, you are most likely going to just follow links- which are haphazardly placed at best.
You will be unaware that you must develop fundamental understandings in things like Limitation Theory first- and without anyone to inform you as to such, you would miss it. You would then either misunderstand or not understand other elements of the mathematics.

So, armchair physics discussions on the net are all fine and good and can be enlightening- They just cannot be considered an education. It cannot be treated a valid or factual. Too many folks like to get online and try to show off their smarts- spewing out misguided notions and assumptions, made up theories and basic nonsense.

tatsuya1221

05-12-2009, 04:48 AM

Tatsuya, you seem to have some personal bias here.

I realize that I am a nube and all... But what you just said is complete and utter nonsense. And it came completely out of left field. Perhaps I missed something....
But where exactly did any scientist come blustering in here threatening God?

Scientists do not believe that their theories are 100% fact. Not even close.

It would be irrational and unscientific to do so and scientists that behave in that manner are often chided.

If scientists thought such, they would not modify theories with new evidence.
They would not experiment and make careful observations.

What science is is the development of theories.
Theories are ideas that are designed to present the most accurate model of reality in order to describe reality.
In science, there is no such thing as a theory that is 100%. It can never be achieved. Nothing can ever be understood by us 100%. there will always be a certain percentage- even if it's infinitesimal (or even if it's a large percentage) of DOUBT.
This is why science continuously observes and experiments. This is why cases don't get closed. Theories are constantly being tested against the evidence. The testing never stops. Ever.
The more a theory survives the tests and is complimented by evidence and supported by observation- the more confident the scientist is that the theory is accurate and valid.
But if a theory should be contradicted by observational evidence... Should the theory fail testing- It goes into the Trash Can.

Many theories are extremely well supported by the evidence. For example: Chemistry. Your basic chemistry is very well understood and countless experiments from independent verifiable sources will confirm the same results.
It's allowable to treat it as fact. It is understandable as to why scientists show confidence in the theory.
Some theories, like Relativity, are completely supported by observation and the evidence SO FAR- but we are still devising the technology to study it deeper. These theories are not treated as "Faith" or 100% fact by any means. Any rational scientist will discard a faulty theory upon learning new evidence that refutes it. It is understandable that a scientist will be confident in Relativity, but any scientist that has studied relativity will happily admit that we cannot see all that we need to see, yet, to study it in greater depth.

That is how science works.

Now, scientists are human and some will become attached to their theories. That's only human nature. But the scientific process is solid and helps account for human fallibility.

It seems to me that you say what you said out of a personal bias rather than any personal understanding.

Whether or not you believe in a Higher Power is utterly irrelevant to scientific theory.

Science does not deal with Faith, God, religion nor does it theorize about God.
Science has no determination as to God. God is unfalsifiable.

I have no idea what bearing your belief in a higher power has to do with Warp Drives, Relativity or science (The science which developed the internet, computer, quantum mechanics used to understand how to store Massive volumes of information on a physical harddrive for example- a Nobel Prize Winner) or even the science used to develop the machines you use, medicine you use and the great deal of science you take for granted and rely upon in daily life.

If science was as nonsensical and faith-based as you just tried to claim it is- That computer, Your internet, the medical care- NONE of that would work at all, would it?

Science does not deal with religion. Your personal attack on it can only be assumed to be based on a personal feeling of feeling threatened by science. You feel that scientific theory that is well supported by the evidence threatens your beliefs, even though science merely observes and records.

This is a personal issue for you. I would strongly suggest you confront it within yourself, rather than attacking complete strangers to you.

I think that would be best as well. The only flaming I have yet seen came from your post, in a general and random ad hominem attack on people that you do not even know.

Don't misunderstand me, Tatsuya, You have been extremely helpful to me on other areas of the board and I think you ROCK for having uploaded as you have.
But I find your behavior in this particular thread as lacking in merit and and I confronted it accordingly.

The reason I had said what I had said is because a person cannot get a proper education in something like this on the internet.
For one thing, there is way too much FLUFF on the internet. For another, a student needs proper instruction in order to assimilate knowledge so that they don't become scattered or confused.

Example: Higher Mathematics. Imagine yourself self teaching using Wikipedia and looking up functions for differential equations.
Since you are untrained, you are most likely going to just follow links- which are haphazardly placed at best.
You will be unaware that you must develop fundamental understandings in things like Limitation Theory first- and without anyone to inform you as to such, you would miss it. You would then either misunderstand or not understand other elements of the mathematics.

So, armchair physics discussions on the net are all fine and good and can be enlightening- They just cannot be considered an education. It cannot be treated a valid or factual. Too many folks like to get online and try to show off their smarts- spewing out misguided notions and assumptions, made up theories and basic nonsense.

Actually, i do have one personal bias, science believes it's infallible, that is the only issue i have, for instance, i have no wish to read your rant on how i'm wrong(mainly because i've heard the same thing 1000's of times over, in that science tests blah blah), since i'm sure that we know that the andromeda galaxy is some billion upon billion of miles away, see that is my argument, i hate guesses, and science many times says it's a fact with at best an educated guess.

See i'm not trying to get into an argument here, but what i'm referring to is simple as this, unless you can prove it with actual proof and not guesswork it's not fact, evolution theory, star ages, life on other worlds, gods and goddesses, time travel, even higher dimensions.

My point is science is supposed to work on laws and such, i.e. the truth, however science in itself requires alot of faith in scientific law, which makes it more of a religion in of itself than anything.

Anyway as i said, this has nothing to do with religion in of itself to me, i technically believe in a big bang, as well as evolution for most creatures(humans excluded in that) and i've already stated how i feel about self righteous people, in the end i guess it's because science reminds me of puritans in the 1700's and catholicism in the 1300's, nothing ever seems to change, people always get a god complex and believe themselves infallible with their voice being god's will, all science itself is is removing the god part.

Oh and when i said "science is not a god", i meant that it's not infallible, even though science itself claims that gods cannot exist, nor can their be a higher dimension or a soul, science cannot and will never be able to prove it, since in this world, it's a far higher level of existence.

I'd like to point out one final thing, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion, believe what you want, athiest, christian, shivati, daoist, shinto, budhist, zoroastrian, muslim, arian, jewish, voodoo, native american folklore, what have you, i really don't care, i didn't have the luxury of being able to have faith, since i always know more than i'm willing to say, i simply despise the "holier than thou" way of thinking that all religions and science (though science is a athiestic religion imo, since it requires faith) tends to anger me alot.

I have nothing against science itself, i just believe that it goes too far is my point.
Anyway i did not flame in my earlier post, as to flame in that post would require me to be attacking a person or religion/ethic, and as i've pointed out i'm not attacking science itself, but the ego of it.

Either way i'm done with this argument, heh, how ironic, only religion/science can get me to have a large discussion like this.

Anyway now i am done, i only answered to clarify my view(well, to be fair i know alot more than i say on this subject, i just on average don't care), to be frank, this is what happens when someone has lived as long as me, we tend to be cynical.

Aravisian

05-12-2009, 10:08 AM

Actually, i do have one personal bias, science believes it's infallible,
Actually.. no.

This seems to be your own perception. But that does not mean that it is real...
So before you try to act as though your bias has merit- Let's examine your following claims to see if it does.
i have no wish to read your rant on how i'm wrong(mainly because i've heard the same thing 1000's of times over,
Calling it a rant does not make it into one. Perhaps you should read what you are trying to contradict rather than ignoring it with an appeal to argumentum ad absurdum.

It is perfectly reasonable and possible that you are wrong Tatsuya.
And there's nothing wrong with BEING wrong as long as a person can be open minded enough to honorably recognize when they are.

in that science tests blah blah), since i'm sure that we know that the andromeda galaxy is some billion upon billion of miles away, see that is my argument, i hate guesses, and science many times says it's a fact with at best an educated guess.
"Science" is just a word. It does not do anything.
There may be some people that treat things as facts- but how do you wish it be presented?
If it's scientific to say that water is Hydrogen2 and oxygen... Would you prefer that scientists say, "We're very nearly almost completely extremely sure that water is Hydrogen2 and oxygen... but we're not perfectly 100% sure without any doubt whatsoever."?
That would be ridiculous to do so.

Whether you like to believe it or not, many of the scientific theories you were taught in school are very accurate.
And THAT is the true problem with your personal bias. You wish to undermine that accuracy by claiming that if it's not "Proven."

Proofs only exist in Mathematics.

An example:
How do you PROVE beyond all shadow of a doubt that your perception of reality is real? Can you prove that you can eliminate all doubt that this is in fact a dream you're having while locked up in a padded room somewhere drooling on yourself?
No, you cannot.
It's unfaslifiable- You cannot prove a negative.
Science does not set out to "prove" anything.
Had you read my "rant" above, you would have a much better understanding of science. Instead, you are using your misconceptions as a basis for your bias.
Science doesn't PROVE anything. Science observes, tests and continues to observe and test in order to model theories that most accurately describe reality.

My point is science is supposed to work on laws and such, i.e. the truth, however science in itself requires alot of faith in scientific law, which makes it more of a religion in of itself than anything.
Again, you have misconceptions about science.
The laws are determined by observation and testing- experimentation.
Water is wet.
Fire = Hot.
However, by the scientific method, it is not PROVEN that water is wet or that fire is hot...
It is THEORY.
However, the theory is extremely well supported by the evidence. Because it is so well supported, that is why you often perceive it as presented as fact.

nothing ever seems to change, people always get a god complex and believe themselves infallible with their voice being god's will, all science itself is is removing the god part.
Above, I pointed out how you have misconceptions about science and the scientific method.
They are perfectly understandable, but it might help you to think about them and consider the possibility that your perceptions are flawed.

It is not "Faith" to create a theory to explain what observation shows, if you are willing to modify that theory with new evidence or discard it if the theory fails to match observation and evidence.

even though science itself claims that gods cannot exist,
More misconceptions.
Science never makes any such claim.
nor can their be a higher dimension or a soul, science cannot and will never be able to prove it, since in this world, it's a far higher level of existence.
Science never makes any such claim.

Souls and Gods are irrelevant to the scientific method. Science does not determine that they do not exist- Science determines that they are unfalsifiable- You cannot TEST the existence of something immeasurable.

You cannot prove to me that invisible elves don't exist.

I have nothing against science itself, i just believe that it goes too far is my point.
Anyway i did not flame in my earlier post, as to flame in that post would require me to be attacking a person or religion/ethic, and as i've pointed out i'm not attacking science itself, but the ego of it.
Tatsuya, this entire statement is complete contradiction.
You DO have a problem with science and you then say it's the ego.
But that ego seems to be based on your perceptions-- Which are in turn based upon your misconceptions as I have outlined above.
If you say, "It's hot today. I'm hot."
Should I turn to you and demand proof,; demand to see a thermometer lest I be declared a meglomaniac?
well, to be fair i know alot more than i say on this subject
I can assure you-- I know much more on the subject than you do. As demonstrated by my having to point out numerous glaring misconceptions on your part.

ETA: On a side note I will point out that this is exactly why I said above that if a person wished to get an education in higher science, they must attend schooling.

And Tatsuya; I am equally frustrated as you are over a very similar problem. When I see someone make a statement like "Science says there is no God" it frustrates me to no end, just as you get frustrated if someone were to say, "Andromeda is 2.54 million light years away and that's an absolute proven fact."
Because science does not say either one of those things.
ATHEISTS say there is no God. Atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of one. But it's not a science either. Atheism has no relation to the scientific method.

You say you do not wish to argue, but for me, it's just as important to address such misconceptions.
You basically just claimed that water is dry and I am saying, "But the evidence strongly suggests that it is wet."

Aravisian

05-12-2009, 10:35 AM

do you know where i can read about these dimensional theories cause i haven't heard anything about them, it would be greatly appreciated

also what you described about beings from higher dimensions sounds like Mr. Mxyzptlk from the superman comics

For fun reading, I would recommend Michio Kaku. "Ten dimensions and beyond" was interesting.
If you really want to read some stuff that will blow your mind... continue on into String/Brane theory and M-Theory.

Be forewarned, however, that much of the popular works by Kaku do not fall into mainstream physics (Even Hawking has a better chance) simply because, as Tatsuya points out, these theories are not theories at all. They are untested Hypotheses that require more faith in research than in current observation or tested experimentation.
Some of it is considered ATM because it is in direct contradiction to mainstream observation and evidence (WMAP and BBT) but string and brane theorists hope to reconcile that when our technology advances enough to make much more detailed observation (Specifically because we have weak theories of Gravity. We understand WHY it works but do not know HOW it works.)
Similar to Einstein and Bohr, they seek the TOE- Theory of Everything. A theory that explains gravity and merges Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

Again, Hawking is a moderate choice for reading.

A last warning: You really should read a great deal about Quantum Mechanics and Lie Algebraic groups before trying to understand string theory. It's complexities (Mostly resultant from a lack of predictability) are greater than Relativity- and there are very few people that can truly claim to even understand that...

ETA: A further bit. I had to Google "Mr. Mxyzptlk" and since I am also working, I am a bit slow here... But I was warned in another thread about double posting on the same topic, so I am adding this as an edit to be OT.
Higher dimensions in Dimensional theory is a lot different from how it's described in Superman and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

To give an example: Imagine a series of six squares in the shape of a Cross. Top square. Three in a row perpendicular to the top square and two perpendicular to that row pointing downward.
These squares are lying flat. That's Two Dimensional or Second dimension.
Now, Fold those squares at the lines upward into the third dimension and you can make a cube.
Imagine a flatlander. A little man that lives in the second dimension. He's a 2D being. He can see the squares, but not the cube. Try as he might, he cannot fathom how those squares can be folded into the 3rd dimension or what a cube would look like.
Now imagine the same configuration of cubes assembled into a cross. That's a Tessaract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract). A tessaract can somehow be folded into the forth dimension to make a Hypercube- A cube that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside.
But try as we might, us little 3rd dimension beings cannot fathom how one might do such a thing or what a hypercube might actually look like.
This that I am giving is an analogy and an example- NOT exact science. But it clarifies what dimension is- Another dimension- as depicted in Superman and TMNT is not at all like some strange Picasso painting.. But rather the same exact thing as ours- only expanded outward further than we can see.
Assuming the fourth dimension- A fourth dimension being would see us just fine, but we would have difficulty perceiving him. He would by no means seem Godlike, however. But he Might seem to be able to do magic tricks like separating metal chain links. Nothing more than that. No mysterious powers...
Imagine the 2D Man- the flatlander again. Imagine you poke your finger through his space. He would not see your finger as you do. He would see a dot (tip of your finger when it first makes contact) that suddenly expands into a circle (moving along your finger to the middle let's say). Step up to the third dimension and have a 4D man poke his finger at us. We would see a circle that suddenly expands into a blob ringed around itself. But it wouldn't like like a finger to us anymore than ours did to the flatlander.
This is, assuming the forth dimension.
According to Einstein, the fourth dimension is Time.
According to Kaku, there are as many as 26 dimensions. Many of them are curled up very tiny- an elastic effect from snapping backward after the Big Bang. However, 11 of the dimensions are (supposedly) in their expanded state.
None of this seems to have any relevance to the Superman and TMNT representations.
The closest a person may be able to come to that kind of situation is with Brane theory.

But again, I must point out: String and M-theory are not Mainstream Science. They are not really Theories. They are hypotheses that remain untested.

Brane theory (Hypothesis!) allows for multi-universes and connections or interactions between them.

tatsuya1221

05-12-2009, 03:21 PM

Well all i have to say, is the canary in the cage.

That riddle explains it, now i'm just outright tired of this, so i'm done, besides, i still have to be a mod, even if i disagree (i/e, i can't have an opinion).

GameGeeks

05-12-2009, 03:26 PM

Tatsuya, I think you can toss that out with descussions. I think the only time that should apply is in arguments. Besides ideas and opinions are what make the world go round. Well, that and money.

tatsuya1221

05-12-2009, 03:38 PM

Tatsuya, I think you can toss that out with descussions. I think the only time that should apply is in arguments. Besides ideas and opinions are what make the world go round. Well, that and money.

Unfortunately this is far too hot a topic, trust me on that, i sent him a pm with my proof of flaws, however i doubt that matters, since whether he agrees with me or not, i have no desire nor intent to try and convince him of my views, i just wish people would admit when theirs are flawed.

And fyi, i'm not saying mine are 100% accurate either, i'm just saying i've been alive long enough to have a pretty good idea.

GameGeeks

05-12-2009, 03:42 PM

I can agree with that. If someone can prove me wrong then I can admit it. Though I still hate you for proving me wrong about the multi emulators. :p

Aravisian

05-13-2009, 07:55 AM

The irony is how the article (it's an old article now) interprets what is feasible and what is not.

Relativity does forbid FTL strictly, but the trick seems to be in getting around Relativity.
To give an analogy that puts the OP into perspective: It's not impossible to transport myself to China without me moving at all. All I need to do is move the entire Universe around me until China is beneath my feet. In doing so, I will have bypassed Relativistic effects.
Sounds nice, right?
Problem is... How does one go about moving the Universe?
The energy requirements alone would be prohibitive... Simply because much more energy would be required than actually exists within the Universe.[[Note to Tatsuya: These concepts are supported heavily by observational evidence and measurements from satellite experiments. The math is the same- I may as well have just stated that Water is Wet as fact. Statement of what's well supported by evidence is not necessarily arrogance- we actually DO understand how things move in space pretty well. ]]

But that in itself is a minor problem.

Consider a fish in a fish bowl- We cannot see what's outside of our Universe. We don't know if there is anything at all outside of it or if there are multi-verses or what...

Either way, Yahoo's lil filler was not very exciting and was old news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Darth Gazak

05-14-2009, 02:13 AM

i sent him a pm with my proof of flaws

I would much appreciate it if you instead posted your responses in this thread. I find this discussion very intriguing. It's a far cry from the more common debates on CoolROM and, in my opinion, is in no way inappropriate for a forum such as this.

Aravisian

05-14-2009, 04:54 AM

I would much appreciate it if you instead posted your responses in this thread. I find this discussion very intriguing. It's a far cry from the more common debates on CoolROM and, in my opinion, is in no way inappropriate for a forum such as this.

To be brutally honest...
Tatsuya was more than happy to attack "Science" but when pressed, had no desire whatsoever to support his claims. Even privately.
I disagree with Tatsuya that it will inevitably digress into a flame war.

I like Tatsuya so far. I may have a very strong disagreement with him about his perception on this issue. So don't misunderstand what I said above as me being mean... I am just frustrated when someone promotes such things but won't back it up.

I received some private messages and no, I would not disclose what was said. But I can say that I received no- as in zero- "proofs of flaws."

I really had not expected any in any event. It's not easy to claim that Known Properties are a belief system based upon faith (http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eLessonsHtml/Diodes/Diode1.html).

kaosdeity

05-14-2009, 06:43 AM

Wow, there are so many contradictions here that I don't even know where to start. :)

Reading about such topics on the net is a bit like being described an atom in Elementary school. In grade school, the atom is depicted as a red ball and a blue ball clumped together with a smaller green ball orbitting them.
Not...exactly...accurate... But sufficient for creating a very fundamental basic understanding.
Once you pass on to high school Chemistry class, the teacher says, "Forget those balls, it's more like THIS..."
Then you move on to College Chemistry class and they say, "Forget what you learned in high school. That's Garbage- it's more like THIS...."

...So, armchair physics discussions on the net are all fine and good and can be enlightening- They just cannot be considered an education. It cannot be treated a valid or factual. Too many folks like to get online and try to show off their smarts- spewing out misguided notions and assumptions, made up theories and basic nonsense.

...I really had not expected any in any event. It's not easy to claim that Known Properties are a belief system based upon faith.

That link you posted is exactly the same as what you bashed in your first claim. It also binds you 100% to the second one. I think it would have been best to leave it out.

Scientists do not believe that their theories are 100% fact. Not even close.

...Proofs only exist in Mathematics.

...I love Final Fantasy- but there's simply no such thing as Gaia...

What equation is it that disproves the Gaia theory? Or are you referring to the Gaia world in FF9, in which case, how would you know? You'd have as much luck disproving this as you would disproving God.

Science does not deal with religion. Your personal attack on it can only be assumed to be based on a personal feeling of feeling threatened by science. You feel that scientific theory that is well supported by the evidence threatens your beliefs, even though science merely observes and records.

A cult is a religion. Science is a cult; they base almost all of their theories on their laws, and those that they don't, they base on faith, another aspect of religion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but to claim science does not deal with religion is asinine. Perhaps they don't deal with OTHER religions, but that is only because they are too involved in their own.

I think that would be best as well. The only flaming I have yet seen came from your post, in a general and random ad hominem attack on people that you do not even know.

Really? Then you missed a few.

Quantum entanglement is still being disputed. If you are trying to claim that quantum entanglement actually explains something... I suggest you read more about it.

...The sensationalism channel? not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable and verifiable source.

...Wikipedia is pretty good for a quick synopsis.
Armchair physics or "laymans physics" is pretty common on the net as a debate point- but the real answer to the question is to attend a University.

...I can assure you-- I know much more on the subject than you do.
Tatsuya had a problem with science in general, whereas you seem to have a problem with specific people and specific sources. He says science is flawed, you say these sources and people are flawed and compare them to elementary kids. Either tatsuya was justified (as you seem to think he attacked you) or you were out of line (as you obviously attacked them). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

"Science" is just a word. It does not do anything.
Everything is just a word, that's just a silly statement, irrelevant to my point, but i loled and it makes for good comical relief.

My point is, you have to expect people to be a little upset when you come in here and basically say that their theories, their sources, and this thread in general are stupid. Not exactly a good way to get started in a forum. Boasting about your own superior knowledge has a similar effect. Is my response to your posts a bit rude? Yup. Is it much different from what you did yourself? Nope. While I want to believe you were simply trying to contribute to the topic, the way you went about it was completely wrong.

And there's nothing wrong with BEING wrong as long as a person can be open minded enough to honorably recognize when they are.

Aravisian

05-14-2009, 11:28 AM

That link you posted is exactly the same as what you bashed in your first claim. It also binds you 100% to the second one. I think it would have been best to leave it out.
What link and what bash?
Please be more specific.
What equation is it that disproves the Gaia theory? Or are you referring to the Gaia world in FF9, in which case, how would you know? You'd have as much luck disproving this as you would disproving God.
Irrelevant.

Clearly, you misunderstand the tenants of Logic.

You cannot prove a Negative. Gaia is unfalsifiable.

The irony of it is; There is Zero supporting evidence of a Gaia. None. Now, a person can choose to believe without any supporting evidence (That is Faith) but that is a personal choice on their part.

A lack of any evidence in itself does not disprove anything. It just makes it very unlikely. However, things get more involved.
Because of cyclic nature, it's very difficult to support the notion that Gaia exists not just because of the lack of evidence for it- But that the evidence that does exist contradicts the notions. Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry both contradict Gaia.
The evidence in favor of Quantum Mechanics etc strongly casts doubt on the existence of Gaia. The lack of any supporting evidence for Gaia lends even less credence to believe that there is a Gaia. It would require a lot of faith at that point to believe in Gaia, but it requires no faith at all to look at all the evidence and make a decision as to what is the most likely and what is the least likely.

A cult is a religion. Science is a cult; they base almost all of their theories on their laws, and those that they don't, they base on faith, another aspect of religion.

Wrong.

Science bases laws on observational evidence.
Science uses theories to model a description of reality- not to describe reality.
The properties of a known substance are Independently Verifiable.
For example: Water is wet.
If I say water is wet, you don't have to take my word for it- You can research and test for yourself and determine if it really is wet- if that property truly is a property of water.
That is not Faith.

Faith would be required if you could not falsify or independently verify my claims. If you could not demonstrate that water is wet- then I would have to have faith in you that it is wet. If I could not independently verify with testing of my own that water is wet- I would need to have faith that it is wet.
I can demonstrate that water is wet. I can test that and verify it and so can anyone else. That's Science.
Observation of evidence and deciding that the best supported theory is the most likely.
This does not mean that science proves that water is wet.
Because it's perfectly possible that outer space aliens are using mind control to trick us into believing that water is wet even though it is dry. Not very Likely... But that infinitesimal probability does exist. No one can "prove" that it does not.
That's science. There's always room for doubt. That's why it's not faith. Faith has no room for doubt.
What the scientific method demonstrates is that the most likely probability is that water is, in fact, wet. The evidence overwhelming supports that theory. It is not proven, however, nor will it ever be.
Really? Then you missed a few.
Please specify them, then.
Tatsuya had a problem with science in general, whereas you seem to have a problem with specific people and specific sources. He says science is flawed, you say these sources and people are flawed and compare them to elementary kids. Either tatsuya was justified (as you seem to think he attacked you) or you were out of line (as you obviously attacked them). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You are misrepresenting what I had said.

What I had said was that people can be in error; this does not mean that the METHOD is in error or flawed.

We all are well aware that human beings are not perfect. I said nothing unreasonable nor contradictory.

Your straw man fallacy seeks to draw attention away from the point.
Everything is just a word, that's just a silly statement, irrelevant to my point, but i loled and it makes for good comical relief.
Glad to help.
But again, you miss the point.

Tatsuya's argument stems from the fact that he believes that SCIENCE itself is flawed.
I was reminding Tatsuya that science is self correcting even though people can be flawed.

As I have repeatedly outlined, it is not faith to accept the supporting evidence as the likeliest model of reality.
Because the Scientific Method never stops testing a theory (e.g.: Theory claims that water is wet), it balances out for human frailty.
So even if a person has FAITH that water is dry, repeated testing will demonstrate that it is actually wet. That faithful person must either let go of his belief or hold to the belief and try to claim that science must be flawed.

My point is, you have to expect people to be a little upset when you come in here and basically say that their theories, their sources, and this thread in general are stupid. Not exactly a good way to get started in a forum.argumentum ad numerum
I never said anyone or anything was stupid. I encouraged gathering the knowledge required to postulate on theory before a person assumes that they "have enough knowledge" in spite of not having an education in that field.

I really do not care if you are offended or what- My point was VERY valid.

People post on the internet that the Mars Rover ran over a tiny White Martian Bunny, for Cripes sakes...

If it offends you that I suggest people use critical thinking- the problem does not lie with me.
Boasting about your own superior knowledge has a similar effect.
At no time did I boast about having any superior knowledge, nor did I allude to it.
If you are reading between the lines and putting words in my mouth- I suggest you check yourself first.
That fallacy is a Red herring. If I truly made boastful remarks about my own intelligence- Quote me and Post them Clearly for all to see.

Your fallacy Is my response to your posts a bit rude? Yup. Is it much different from what you did yourself? Nope. While I want to believe you were simply trying to contribute to the topic, the way you went about it was completely wrong.

It is not my responsibility if you misrepresented what I actually said; Put words into my mouth; or were offended. I was polite, to the point, blunt maybe... But I was not crude or vulgar.

No one has the right to go through life unoffended.

If I see someone comparing Dimensional Physics to what they read in a Superman Comic

You better believe I am going to call that nonsense. Because it IS nonsense. It may not be endearing for me... But a responsible individual should be more than capable of chuckling and saying, "Yeah, man.. I guess Superman comics are not exactly Scientific Journals, huh?"

It's perfectly ok if a person is not well educated in a topic. And it's perfectly ok if that person would like to discuss a topic that they are not educated in.
I mean heck- I dunno the first thing about floral arrangement. But then, I don't pretend that I do, either.

But it's also perfectly ok for a person to suggest that if people are going to discuss a complex topic that is well documented and very well studied- That they actually Hit The Books and try to learn and know what they are talking about rather than watch them say something that is actually an absurdity.

When it comes to very complex physics like Dimensional Physics, Cosmology, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics- You must realize that there is a Incredible amount of Complex Mathematics involved.

It is not boasting nor offensive nor even slightly unreasonable for a person that sees so much nonsense spewed out on the web to remind folks that if they really want to know about something, They may have to do some work and actually learn about it- Not just postulate and read comic books.

If you find that so offensive- that is seriously not my problem. It's yours.
ETA: Would you go to a Doctor and trust him if he never studied in a Medical School? Would you trust him to diagnose your ailments and treat them if he had not gone to school for it?
If someone talks about medicine and health- that's ok. But if if someone asks, "How can I understand [this complex issue]?"
It's far from unreasonable to say, "You will need to go to school for that."

kaosdeity

05-14-2009, 06:47 PM

What link and what bash?
Please be more specific.

This link- http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eLessonsHtml/Diodes/Diode1.html

And this bash VV

Reading about such topics on the net is a bit like being described an atom in Elementary school. In grade school, the atom is depicted as a red ball and a blue ball clumped together with a smaller green ball orbitting them.
Not...exactly...accurate... But sufficient for creating a very fundamental basic understanding.
Once you pass on to high school Chemistry class, the teacher says, "Forget those balls, it's more like THIS..."
Then you move on to College Chemistry class and they say, "Forget what you learned in high school. That's Garbage- it's more like THIS...."

--------------------------

You cannot prove a Negative. Gaia is unfalsifiable.

Glad to see you admit that after this:

I understand that this is first and foremost a gaming forum... But let's keep fantasy separate from reality here...
I love Final Fantasy- but there's simply no such thing as Gaia...

---------------------------------------------

Wrong.

Science bases laws on observational evidence.
Science uses theories to model a description of reality- not to describe reality.
Faith would be required if you could not falsify or independently verify my claims.

Wrong.

Faith is required if I HAVE NOT falsified or verified your claims. In which case, I would have faith that you are correct. Unless every single scientist has proven every single theory or law themselves, they are simply acting on faith.

There are many scientists that have never been to the moon, yet they study the research of others that have because they have faith in the data they bring back. Otherwise they would have to go themselves. And if many scientists hold this same faith, it is a religion.
------------------------------------------------------------

That's science. There's always room for doubt. That's why it's not faith. Faith has no room for doubt.

Faith has plenty of room for doubt. There are many religious scientists, even though the big bang theory contradicts what is stated in Genesis. They doubt one or the other. It would be a mistake to accuse them of having no faith.
------------------------------------------------------

Please specify them, then.

I did in that last post; they're right there quoted by you.
-----------------------------------------------------------

You are misrepresenting what I had said.

What I had said was that people can be in error; this does not mean that the METHOD is in error or flawed.

We all are well aware that human beings are not perfect. I said nothing unreasonable nor contradictory.

Your straw man fallacy seeks to draw attention away from the point.

A method developed by imperfect beings will in itself be imperfect. To think otherwise, you would have to FAITH that it will never be imperfect.
----------------------------------------------
Glad to help.
But again, you miss the point.

Tatsuya's argument stems from the fact that he believes that SCIENCE itself is flawed.
I was reminding Tatsuya that science is self correcting even though people can be flawed.

To say that science is not flawed is to say that it is perfect. If it is self correcting, that means that mistakes are made. If it were not flawed there would be no need for the corrections. Therefore, science may be attempting to progress towards perfection, but it is impossible to achieve.

------------------------------------------------------------------

argumentum ad numerum
I never said anyone or anything was stupid. I encouraged gathering the knowledge required to postulate on theory before a person assumes that they "have enough knowledge" in spite of not having an education in that field.

I really do not care if you are offended or what- My point was VERY valid.

People post on the internet that the Mars Rover ran over a tiny White Martian Bunny, for Cripes sakes...

If it offends you that I suggest people use critical thinking- the problem does not lie with me.

You did not outright state that they were stupid, after all, stupid is just a word. XD And nobody here claimed to know more than anyone except for you.

You aren't encouraging critical thinking telling someone to hit the books or go to college. You didn't even tell them what they should read. You simply told them that they have no hope of understanding without going to college. There are many people who have done great things based on personal education. If you want to encourage critical thinking, post some theories or thoughts. I assume you have some, as the only people who do not are those with too much faith in what others have said or written.

I am not offended, if I were there would be no doubt in your mind. Others may be. You do not have actual contact over the internet, all you have is assumption. Claiming others are flawed with little to no supporting evidence as bluntly as you did makes them assume you are trying to be rude. This does not offend me, but if anyone takes offense they would be perfectly justified.

--------------------------------------
At no time did I boast about having any superior knowledge, nor did I allude to it.
If you are reading between the lines and putting words in my mouth- I suggest you check yourself first.
That fallacy is a Red herring. If I truly made boastful remarks about my own intelligence- Quote me and Post them Clearly for all to see.

I did, but what the hell, I can do it again ;) VVVV

I can assure you-- I know much more on the subject than you do. As demonstrated by my having to point out numerous glaring misconceptions on your part.

btw, with the logic of the above state I could claim I know more than you because I pointed out that you stated that you did not boast superior knowledge, when you obviously did. I wouldn't do that though.

-------------------------------------------------------
It is not my responsibility if you misrepresented what I actually said; Put words into my mouth; or were offended. I was polite, to the point, blunt maybe... But I was not crude or vulgar.

Neither was tatsuya, that was the point I was trying to make. Hence my statement "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You said he was the only one flaming. Either you were both flaming or neither one of you was. I'll let you decide which. I said my statement was rude but comparable to your own to avoid offending you. Glad to see you weren't. Being blunt in itself is rude.

---------------------------------------------------------

But it's also perfectly ok for a person to suggest that if people are going to discuss a complex topic that is well documented and very well studied- That they actually Hit The Books and try to learn and know what they are talking about rather than watch them say something that is actually an absurdity.

The discussion was meant for critical thinking and education. If you know something you should have corrected them rather than state they are incorrect with no information supporting the topic.

If at some point you have a question about how to run an iso, I am not going to state that whatever you have been trying or where you heard about it is incorrect without stating why. And comparing your education or lake thereof to an elementary or high school student will not be a way of correcting you. Even if you are a high school or elementary student, the statement doesn't help you out in any way, so I would omit it.

Instead, I would explain what the flaw is, give some information on the matter, or post a link to what you need to know. I would not tell you to hit the books.
---------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to very complex physics like Dimensional Physics, Cosmology, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics- You must realize that there is a Incredible amount of Complex Mathematics involved.
You would have been better of stating this in the first place and giving some insight rather than simply saying that their sources are flawed and their only cahnce of understanding is going to college.
----------------------------------------------------------
It is not boasting nor offensive nor even slightly unreasonable for a person that sees so much nonsense spewed out on the web to remind folks that if they really want to know about something, They may have to do some work and actually learn about it- Not just postulate and read comic books.

You seem to have taken the comic book thing way too serious.
------------------------------------------------------

kaosdeity

05-14-2009, 06:48 PM

If you find that so offensive- that is seriously not my problem. It's yours.
ETA: Would you go to a Doctor and trust him if he never studied in a Medical School? Would you trust him to diagnose your ailments and treat them if he had not gone to school for it?

If he was good and I was dying, hell yes. It would be faith to do so, but if he is a doctor and did not go to med school, he is obviously very smart. Going to a doctor is faith in itself; you know they have cured other people, but you go there hopeful that they can cure you, regardless of the fact that many people who go to doctors have died. Yet you have to have faith that s/he could cure you, otherwise you wouldn't bother to go.
-----------------------------------------------
If someone talks about medicine and health- that's ok. But if if someone asks, "How can I understand [this complex issue]?"
It's far from unreasonable to say, "You will need to go to school for that."
You need to go to school for licensing, not understanding. You go to school, buy books you could have picked up at the library, and listen to professors that either have too much faith in other people or too much in their own theories; it's always one or the other. To a degree all this really does is box you in, forcing you to play along even if you do not accept their methods or theories for the grade you are paying 30k a year for. Thinking for yourself is the only true way to understand something. College education is crippling in this regard. Yet I am forced to attend for that certification and a degree. That's not really a criticism of you so much as it is a criticism of the expectations of society and the educational system itself.

Aravisian

05-14-2009, 10:41 PM

This link- http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eLessonsHtml/Diodes/Diode1.html

And this bash VV
The link demonstrated the nature of Independently verifiable known properties.
And what you quoted as a bash was Not a bash at all. There is no bashing in that statement/

What you quoted was where I talked about how fundamentals of learning occur. That's yet another complete misrepresentation from you.
Glad to see you admit that after this:
It was not an admission.

And as to the second part: It's perfectly reasonable for me to say that water is wet too. Yet THAT doesn't bother you.
Why doesn't that bother you?

Wrong.

Faith is required if I HAVE NOT falsified or verified your claims. In which case, I would have faith that you are correct. Unless every single scientist has proven every single theory or law themselves, they are simply acting on faith.
No. You assume a separation between 'unable' and 'able.' Besides, scientists do go about falsifying a great deal of the laws. All throughout their education.
Don't you remember all the goofy little experiments you did in grade school? Then middle school?
Again, you are misunderstanding how the scientific method works. You discount it and forget it just so that you can claim that it's "faith" to use scientific principles.

It's not faith for me to think that it's highly likely that rocks are hard and highly unlikely that rocks are soft like pillows. I don't need to go bang a rock against my head to confirm that. I am already well aware of the supporting evidence.

For what is unfalsifiable- I can NOT - Ever-- confirm or deny it. That's faith and ONLY faith can support what's unfalsifiable.

There are many scientists that have never been to the moon, yet they study the research of others that have because they have faith in the data they bring back. Otherwise they would have to go themselves. And if many scientists hold this same faith, it is a religion.
Again, it is not a matter of faith. They can study the Moon rocks brought back to Earth. Study telemetry and study the overwhelming evidence that supports the conclusion that we went to the Moon.
It is not PROVEN that we went to the Moon. But given the evidence, it's the strongest likeliest possibility.

If I say water is wet, I am accepting that the evidence that strongly supports the theory that water is wet makes the conclusion that water is wet as the LIKELIEST model that describes reality. It is not proven.

In Faith- water would be called wet even if experimentation showed it wasn't. If there was no evidence that water was wet, one would need faith to believe that it was.

Faith has plenty of room for doubt. There are many religious scientists, even though the big bang theory contradicts what is stated in Genesis. They doubt one or the other. It would be a mistake to accuse them of having no faith.
What you just said makes no sense at all.
One is falsifiable and one is not.

A method developed by imperfect beings will in itself be imperfect. To think otherwise, you would have to FAITH that it will never be imperfect.
It's perfectly possible the method is not "Perfect" but the supposed flaws that you and Tatsuya are trying to claim exist still have yet to be effectively demonstrated

To say that science is not flawed is to say that it is perfect.
Good point.
I failed to express what I had meant to say.
In the example that I gave, I mentioned a man that has faith that water is dry and he was upset by science claiming that it is wet. So he claims science must be flawed.

You did not outright state that they were stupid, after all, stupid is just a word.
I did not say anyone was stupid . I did not allude to it. I did not hint it.

Stop the red herrings and putting words into my mouth.
XD And nobody here claimed to know more than anyone except for you.
Quote where I boasted such clearly or drop this red herring.

You aren't encouraging critical thinking telling someone to hit the books or go to college. You didn't even tell them what they should read. You simply told them that they have no hope of understanding without going to college.
Quote me exactly, don't twist my words.
But on this one, you're close.
And I already explained exactly why in a post to Darth Gazak.
It's getting pretty old having to repeat myself so much...

There are many people who have done great things based on personal education.
Name a few.
And before you say Einstein, you might want to brush up on the actual history before claiming popular opinion.
If you want to encourage critical thinking, post some theories or thoughts.
I did. Then I got sucked back into this debate. Not that I mind it. But don't act like I didn't do the other, either...

I am not offended, if I were there would be no doubt in your mind. Others may be. You do not have actual contact over the internet, all you have is assumption. Claiming others are flawed with little to no supporting evidence as bluntly as you did makes them assume you are trying to be rude. This does not offend me, but if anyone takes offense they would be perfectly justified.
If someone claims that water is dry and they have never encountered water... And I come across them, I AM going to tell them that they do not understand the nature of water very well.
If that offends them- then tough.
[Claiming that he firectly quoted me as having said what he claims I said]I did, but what the hell, I can do it again ;) VVVV[/quotes]
No. You did not create any direct quotes showing where I said any of what you claim that I said.
[QUOTE=kaosdeity;168454]btw, with the logic of the above state I could claim I know more than you because I pointed out that you stated that you did not boast superior knowledge, when you obviously did. I wouldn't do that though.
What you think is obvious makes no difference to me.
Twice, you have failed to support your claim with evidence. So I do not have any reason to think that your claim has any merit.
You seem to be making the claim argumentum ad absurdum in the hopes that if you say it enough times without supporting it with evidence, it will seem believable simply because you kept claiming it over and over.

Neither was tatsuya, that was the point I was trying to make. Hence my statement "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You said he was the only one flaming. Being blunt in itself is rude.
Blunt is not rudeness- it's up to individual responsibility to handle bluntness as a Grown Adult.

I cannot be held accountable or responsible for another persons failure to do so.

Now, if I called someone names and attacked his CHARACTER- as both you (Repeatedly claiming I called others stupid and boasted of my own superior intellect- of which I have done no such thing and you continually fail to quote me and support your claim) and Tatsuya have done( Attacking scientists character as religious zealots) ; THAT would be rude.

The discussion was meant for critical thinking and education. If you know something you should have corrected them rather than state they are incorrect with no information supporting the topic.
Agreed. If I failed to do so, I will be more than happy to clarify myself.
If I failed to provide support for a correction, quote me directly where I failed to do so and I will try my best to resolve it.
Bear in mind, I may not have a good and strong enough understanding of the topic myself in order to provide clarity- and I may need to research answers a bit.

Aravisian

05-14-2009, 10:42 PM

And comparing your education or lake thereof to an elementary or high school student will not be a way of correcting you. Even if you are a high school or elementary student, the statement doesn't help you out in any way, so I would omit it.
Look

Be reasonable...

THIS thread is not about how to Tie your SHOES, dude.
It's about Highly Complex Mathematics.

And frankly, I do not care if it offends your or not when I say, You need to know some freakin' math if you're going to really start understanding the theories involved.

Instead, I would explain what the flaw is, give some information on the matter, or post a link to what you need to know. I would not tell you to hit the books.
I think you and Tatsuya both misunderstood my intent in that original post, then. And that responsibility falls on me and is my own fault.
My intent was to show that if a person wants to really understand the theories in depth- they are going to need to get the education.
That's NOT unreasonable by any means.

I will consider addressing things differently in the future if I remain a poster here.

You would have been better of stating this in the first place and giving some insight rather than simply saying that their sources are flawed and their only chance of understanding is going to college.
You seem to have taken the comic book thing way too serious.

I may have taken it too seriously and I apologize if I have. But you seem to discount how many people DO seem to think that Movies, comic books and Sci Fi Channel are reliable sources of information.
They simply aren't.
They are shooting to appeal to the crowd, not reality.
If he was good and I was dying, hell yes. It would be faith to do so, but if he is a doctor and did not go to med school, he is obviously very smart.
Obviously he's a fraud.
Since a person simply cannot be a doctor without going to med school.
You need to go to school for licensing, not understanding.

No, you need to go to school to get an education. To be taught from ground level on up- to build a solid foundation upon which to learn and to learn how to apply, practice and learn more knowledge.
Licensing is just a method available to attest that you have been educated.
Licensing requires testing to demonstrate whether you received that education and understanding.

NOTE:
These posts are wayyyy too long.

Let's help eachother out and if we are to debate this particular issue- Address singular points at a time in the future.

tatsuya1221

05-15-2009, 06:18 AM

I'm tired of bothering with this squabble with you (since you've already proven me right in so many ways), but i have no choice but to address this:

Obviously he's a fraud.
Since a person simply cannot be a doctor without going to med school.
.

This is so wrong in every sense of the word that i actually started laughing when i read it, you might want to read your history books.

Besides the fact that medicine is practiced even today by people who haven't gone to medical school, (actually it's quite common in some countries), i only need to point out Nostradamus, forgetting all the prediction stuff, in his time he is accredited with saving many lives from the black plague, and it is well known he was kicked out of medical school, this man failed his education to be a doctor, yet today is still accredited as one of the greatest physicians of his era.

And of course their is even now times when medical science has to look at folk medicine as a possible treatment for people.

Aravisian

05-15-2009, 09:25 AM

I'm tired of bothering with this squabble with you (since you've already proven me right in so many ways),
I have hardly "proven" you right in any way at all. Name an instance where I have "proven" you as correct in your personal fear and dislike for science?

For one thing, As I have already said, proofs only exist in mathematics.
Name anything at all in this world that is PROVEN to be true 100?%

This is so wrong in every sense of the word that i actually started laughing when i read it, you might want to read your history books.

Besides the fact that medicine is practiced even today by people who haven't gone to medical school, (actually it's quite common in some countries), i only need to point out Nostradamus, forgetting all the prediction stuff, in his time he is accredited with saving many lives from the black plague, and it is well known he was kicked out of medical school, this man failed his education to be a doctor, yet today is still accredited as one of the greatest physicians of his era.

And of course their is even now times when medical science has to look at folk medicine as a possible treatment for people.

You have been watching too much Fox News.

Honeopathy is a way of swindling people out of money- nothing more.
Since you like talking about "proof" so much, why not cite sources and demonstrate accuracy in ANY of your claims?

Show me evidence.

Why should I take your word on blind faith?

Show me medical journals that support homeopathy, folk medicine, witch doctors, evangelist faith healing or otherwise.

Here in the United States, one MUST attend Medical school and get their Doctorate.
Are there other ways?- Yes- but they are rare and they ALL require an EDUCATION.

If you have any evidence whatsoever of doctors running around that never went to school, I would like to see it.

And witch doctors practicing faith healing in other countries hardly qualifies as Solid Medicine.
Sure, they put on a good show but the evidence demonstrates their success rate is absolutely dismal.

ETA: Nostradamus...
"Michel de Nostredame was probably the most renowned Plague Doctor – he is widely known as Nostradamus. He recommended his patients to drink only boiled water, to sleep in clean beds and to leave infected towns as soon as it was possible. "

Your point has Validity. Nostrodamus reccomended scientific principle to his patients, rather than faith healing. How ironic that your best example is one supportive of science...

Incidentally, Nostrodamus was not the doctor. He was the assistant to the doctor-- Louis Serre.

tatsuya1221

05-15-2009, 09:48 AM

I have hardly "proven" you right in any way at all. Name an instance where I have "proven" you as correct in your personal fear and dislike for science?

For one thing, As I have already said, proofs only exist in mathematics.
Name anything at all in this world that is PROVEN to be true 100?%
You have proven your elitism, that's what you have proven to me, but as i said, i've won my part of the argument, i'm just clarifying this:

You have been watching too much Fox News.
Stop throwing out insults, i don't watch fox news.

Honeopathy is a way of swindling people out of money- nothing more.
Since you like talking about "proof" so much, why not cite sources and demonstrate accuracy in ANY of your claims?
Who said anything about honeopathy?
Show me evidence.

Why should I take your word on blind faith?

Show me medical journals that support homeopathy, folk medicine, witch doctors, evangelist faith healing or otherwise.
That's very egotistical, and tbh because of the fox news statement, i have absolutely no desire to speak to you now.
Here in the United States, one MUST attend Medical school and get their Doctorate.
Are there other ways?- Yes- but they are rare and they ALL require an EDUCATION.

If you have any evidence whatsoever of doctors running around that never went to school, I would like to see it.
You do know the term doctor means someone who treats people's injuries right?
You don't need a degree on the wall for that, and no offence, but i didn't know i needed a piece of paper on my wall to treat an injury until the paramedics arrived.
And witch doctors practicing faith healing in other countries hardly qualifies as Solid Medicine.
Sure, they put on a good show but the evidence demonstrates their success rate is absolutely dismal.

I didn't refer to which doctors, i referred to doctors passing down knowledge, their is a major difference.

ETA: Nostradamus...
"Michel de Nostredame was probably the most renowned Plague Doctor – he is widely known as Nostradamus. He recommended his patients to drink only boiled water, to sleep in clean beds and to leave infected towns as soon as it was possible. "

Your point has Validity. Nostrodamus reccomended scientific principle to his patients, rather than faith healing. How ironic that your best example is one supportive of science...

Incidentally, Nostrodamus was not the doctor. He was the assistant to the doctor-- Louis Serre.
Science has it's place, i never said that.

Also, your only partly right about louis serre, he did at one time work as his assistant, but that does not make him always his assistant, he did practice medicine after leaving his charge.

GameGeeks

05-15-2009, 09:51 AM

Av, how do you think the practice of medicine came about. It was and still is trial and error. That hasn't change in the thousands of years that medicen has been around. There was no med schoo a thousand years ago yet we still had doctors. Sure some of those doctors may have taken pupils but for the most part that wasn't always the case.

Aravisian

05-15-2009, 10:46 AM

You have proven your elitism, that's what you have proven to me, but as i said, i've won my part of the argument, i'm just clarifying this:
I have proven nothing.
I have demonstrated a frame of mind that you seem to hold a personal bias against.
In essence, you are judging a stranger off of insufficient information. I see nothing that is won nor gained from that.
Stop throwing out insults, i don't watch fox news.
I'm sorry, did I insult FOX?
Who said anything about honeopathy?
Folk medicine falls under the category of "Alternative" medicine. For which there is no evidence that unscientific theories about healing has any actual results. Lucky chance can account for the rare successes in folk medicine, even when the folk "doctor" has no real understanding why a certain treatment worked.

Isn't it much better if those in the medicinal field understand why treatments work?

That's very egotistical, and tbh because of the fox news statement, i have absolutely no desire to speak to you now.
I asked you for evidence to support your claims.
This is now the forth cop out you have offered rather than give supporting evidence for your claims.

Your desire to speak to me really is not relevant. If you are going to support an idea- Support it. Your personal taste for the individual you are debating with is irrelevant.

You do know the term doctor means someone who treats people's injuries right?
You don't need a degree on the wall for that, and no offence, but i didn't know i needed a piece of paper on my wall to treat an injury until the paramedics arrived.
Wrong.
In modern times, a doctor is one who holds a doctorate degree.
And you may not need a degree to Render Assistance at an accident, But I wouldn't trust you to know Medicine, to diagnose ailments or perform surgery- Unless you're an Educated and certified doctor, I have no evidence that you can be trusted to work as a doctor.
I didn't refer to which doctors, i referred to doctors passing down knowledge, their is a major difference.
Doctors pass down knowledge to Med school students and to other doctors.

You have yet to support your claim that there are doctors running around in the U.S. that never went to school.
Science has it's place, i never said that.
What you did is suddenly attacked the scientific principle and insulted and attacked scientists straight out of left field. You have yet to STOP commenting on how lowly you think of scientists.

Sure- it has it's place- when it develops the medicine you might need or the computer you use... Or all the other amazing technology we have that you benefit from.

Also, your only partly right about louis serre, he did at one time work as his assistant, but that does not make him always his assistant, he did practice medicine after leaving his charge.
Then that makes me correct- Nostradamus completed an educatrion for His Time- working as an apprentice.

Oops.

Av, how do you think the practice of medicine came about. It was and still is trial and error. That hasn't change in the thousands of years that medicen has been around. There was no med schoo a thousand years ago yet we still had doctors. Sure some of those doctors may have taken pupils but for the most part that wasn't always the case.

Much of science is testing and observation and that includses trial and error. Test; check results; observe; test some more.

But the rest of what you say is not quite accurate. The scientific method has changed little, but enforcement of it and the freedom of scientists to use it has changed greatly.
Additionally, in the olden days, Medical School and University was only available to the rich and those of noble blood. And only the rich could afford those that learned at such educational levels.

That left the vast majority of the population relying on Mysticism, superstition and trial and error folk medicine.
But there is a large quantifiable difference between understanding why treatments work, and having no idea why it works but knowing that it does work and using that to treat people with.

There is a large difference between scientific testing and documentation of results, having the knowledge and the foundation to build upon.

It's exponential- the more you know, the more you can learn.

When it comes to the stuff that cannot be tested, measured or falsified, that there is no evidence to support any kind of conclusion; it becomes an act of futility to entertain the notion.

This is why it's important for either a professional in the field or someone who would like to simply understand an issue to educate themselves as much as possible on the subject. It may take hard work- but being ignorant about something is never conclusive nor helpful (There is much I am ignorant about, I do what I can to alleviate that...).

In this thread, discussing Warp Drive and FTL capability, there is much that is yet unknown. Even to those who study it for a living, have degrees in very advanced mathematics and have devoted 20 years or better to the subject.
It must take a great deal of arrogance to discount complete strangers lifes work like that.
Granted, any person can believe in things or have faith in things, but when it just isn't falsifiable, remember that Dragons, Gnomes and Fairies are also non falsifiable.

GameGeeks

05-15-2009, 11:07 AM

Aravisian

05-15-2009, 11:50 AM

First, don't double post.

Yes society puts restrictions on things like medicen. But what about areas like much of Africa. I will admit that there is always some learning. Life is all about learning. You never stop learning. Your nobel idea while true in theory doesn't hold up if you think about it. There where always a few doctors that may have learned from books and worked to help those in poverty. Learning doesn't have to come from a school. You could just as easily learn from a book. Only advantage of a school is that there's someone to answer your questions where as with a book that's missing. In cases like much of Africa that's replaced with oral learning but like you said no understanding of why it work. Or not much understanding anyway. There was a time when medicen and mysticism, ect where one and the same. So that argument is kinda thrown out the window.
Please define double posting...
If I am in a debate, how can I effectively support my case if I cannot respond to everyone?

Yes, I agree- there is such a thing as learning and being self taught.
In simple and low complexity subjects, much can be figured out by the person in question.
In medium complexity issues, they must hit the books. Talk to more learned people.
In high complexity issues, they must get instruction. The reason for this is because the complexity will allow for greater error in studies.

Imagine that you are a physicist studying at the University.
You will not only be able to ask questions, you will have interference. Guidance.
They will interject when they see that you went toddling off in the wrong direction- which is quite easy to do in high complexity issues.

So, imagine a self taught student that is not properly instructed by those well versed in the errors a student can make. They will miss out on serious and important fundamental basics that, when combined with complex mathematics, will cause them to fail in their theories.
Since this thread is about Warp Drive and FTL, I will give an example using Planetary Mechanics.

Imagine that you are a Self Taught Physicist.

You just left the Martian Space docks with the New Enterpsise NCC-1701-G.

You have read TONS of books on motion in space, yet, since no one instructed you, you failed to realize that you needed to know about La Grangian points (I know, I know, this is a horrible and unrealistic example; But it's the easiest one I came up with on short notice.).
Failing to account for La Grangian points, manage to complete throw the ship off course.

tatsuya1221

05-15-2009, 11:52 AM

I'm sorry, did I insult FOX?
Do not flame again, this is a warning, of course i can see what you'll say about me saying that.
Sure- it has it's place- when it develops the medicine you might need or the computer you use... Or all the other amazing technology we have that you benefit from.
Well for one the computer was 2000 or so years ago by Archimedes, who was more of an inventor than a scientist, unless you want to label inventors as scientists (by general theory they aren't btw, as chemists aren't scientists either in general terms), as for medicine, that's both true and false, many remedies we have now come from folk medicine and remedies.

Then that makes me correct- Nostradamus completed an educatrion for His Time- working as an apprentice.

Oops.

Not quite, as i said, his assistant doesn't make him have a doctorite, he was still thrown out of his medical school, anyway you have sunk to flaming, and i'm threw discussiing this with you.
I am a mod, and i do not and will not get in a flame war with you.

Aravisian

05-15-2009, 12:07 PM

Do not flame again, this is a warning, of course i can see what you'll say about me saying that.
Not so.
The last forum I visited, I had difficulties with Moderators abusing their power at times.
I'm impressed at your perseverance and I apologize for projecting their behavior onto you at the beginning.

However, my noting that Fox news lacks accuracy is not flaming and it's reasonable that I point that out in my defense.
Tatsuya, you have made much stronger remarks against science and against scientists than I have against Fox News. You made them quite suddenly out of left field, using pretty derogatory remarks.
I accept my warning, but please bear that in mind.

Well for one the computer was 2000 or so years ago by Archimedes, who was more of an inventor than a scientist, unless you want to label inventors as scientists (by general theory they aren't btw, as chemists aren't scientists either in general terms), as for medicine, that's both true and false, many remedies we have now come from folk medicine and remedies.
The analog calculator used by Archimedes was just that- not a computer.
Similar to the abacus, it could handle computations but not complex functions. Using your example- we can call a slide rule a computer.
Either way, it makes little difference. You still rely on technology and use it in your daily life.
This technology is developed using the scientific method.
Both Archimedes calculator that employed physics and your modern PC which was developed through understanding electrical state, quantum mechanics and properties of substance.
Not quite, as i said, his assistant doesn't make him have a doctorite, he was still thrown out of his medical school, anyway you have sunk to flaming, and i'm threw discussiing this with you.
I am a mod, and i do not and will not get in a flame war with you.

Again, explain to me how I am flaming at all here. I must admit I am getting tired of being accused of doing something that I am not really doing.
Either way, (again) Nostradamus was not a doctor in any event. He completed his apprenticeship and he successfully used what he learned to great success in helping alleviate problems with the plague.
But he was not a doctor and has no other medical successes to speak of.
Additionally, look at todays advances in Medicine from even 2 or 3 hundred years ago. Using existing knowledge and progressing with it using the scientific method, we have a much greater understanding of chemical biology.

You seem to be trying to detract from our current advancement and to be trying to detract from the role that scientists have played in bettering our lives. Why?

ETA: Also note these red herrings have gotten us quite a bit off topic.

ETA2(To avoid double posting): As an after thought, I want to include a bit of personal information here.

I was talking to my sons teacher, mostly about his behavior in class.
A big part of that discussion was in my having to recognize that her words may carry more weight than mine.
As a parent, that's not easy. He is my son.
Yet, he's also my first child. And there is so much about child social development that I don't know and don't understand.
The real hurdle is in overcoming my opinionated mind that THINKS it knows- and listening to someone else tell me about child development. There are points she made that I am in strong disagreement with. And as his dad, I feel like my authority overrides hers.
Yet, I had to do the hard thing. Admit to myself that there is much I do not know- and part of the trouble of not knowing is that you may not know that you don't know.
And in order to learn, you must step back from the initial opinionated response and allow yourself a bit of time to observe and think about it and look into it- so that you can get more information and reach better conclusions.

After I got off the phone, I began thinking about how it relates to this discussion here.

How does a person determine when their opinion may be incorrect?
It can be very hard to do.

That's why I find it so important to take time to remind yourself that you need sufficient information.
I had a lot of difficulty with this when I was in the Ministry. It's very hard to discuss opinions, when faith is involved.
Faith- is belief with the lack of evidence.
Science- is acceptance of the evidence as supporting the most likely conclusion.
In science nothing is nor can be 100% proven.
But you can determine what's most likely and that does include the very real possibility that you are WRONG.
If enough very important information is missing, even something well supported can suddenly seem very unlikely if new observation and evidence demonstrates that what was a solid theory lacked crucial information.
Because a well thought out theory can find its way into the trash can in an instant.
A good scientist loves that. because it allows us to gain more knowledge- It allows us to correct what direction we're heading in.
A scientist can go astray- head off in the wrong direction with a thought quite easily. But fortunately, reliance on the evidence enables him to correct his position and heading.
Even if it means his pet theory gets scrapped.
Above, I referred to how employment of the scientific method has allowed us to expand our knowledge and thus our technology.
Looking at the evidence of existing technology, known properties of elements, etc- It's logical to conclude that the scientific method is very successful in helping the human race to achieve its goals and it's hopes of trying to understand things about this Universe. Our theories won't always be perfect, nor will we be.
But it's a way- a method that helps to account for our frailty and keep pushing onward. To progress forward; and the evidence we have is the results: Large strides in our technological society.
Trial and error is a big part of Science. By using a control with observation. But trial and error used with faith- acceptance without evidence- has thousands and thousands of years worth of a very dismal record. Very few success far between, when by chance a person stumbled upon something that works without understanding as to why it worked.

The stand I make here in this thread is based on my years of looking at a lot of evidence and determining what is most likely. Many of my opinions have changed, even drastically over the years, at the times when I allowed myself to examine whether or not I was wrong.
I can be wrong about things too. That's why I, personally, disagreed with Tatsuya that there is flaming. Debating allows me to examine different angles, think of things in different ways- Allows me to question myself.
The best way I have found to keep myself in check- IS to examine evidence. To use critical thinking and objective logic to examine the reality around me and try to determine what's most likely truth- Even if I can never really KNOW what is true.
I thought it might help to put this out there.