47 Results
[QUOTE=Kade;22400916]Urgh, there are soo many mistakes and fallacies in what you just said that I can't even be bothered to correct you anymore.[/QUOTE] Entertain me.
BmB General Discussion Reply
We have yet to establish that quantum theory violates any basic truths about the world other than your dubious word for it. After all, as I said, observations are observations, and there clearly exists some (rather comprehensive I gather) correlation between the model and the ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
And the past really doesn't exist. Only as the idea that the present is a consequence of the past. Again, if Quantum Theory goes against a basic truth of the world Quantum Theory is retarded. Sorry for throwing that word around but it really is the only term I can think of ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
No really, even reading things I do have a grasp of the articles are so structureless and painfully neutral and needlessly wordy I don't get much out of it. It's just not well written most of the time. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] We need to remember even the future is a men...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Wikipedia is useless. It's so verbose it's practically incomprehensible. Again, I didn't say anything of the sort. It's a simple philosophical concept. And I'm assuming here that any split is along some dimensional axis where there is equivalence between particles, and conv...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Kade you need to start saying things that actually means something or any discussion will be pointless. I am not a physicist and I have no idea wtf you are on about anymore. But to try and answer your question, no I am not saying that. How would you even get that idea? ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
The question is simple; does the world exist? Answer: I observe it, to observe it I must exist, therefore something exists. Same for many worlds; is many worlds true? Answer: I observe reality as singular, parallel universes don't make sense. Or put another way, how can you c...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Perception of reality doesn't make sense in a world that's put together in such a manner. Asking whether Many Worlds is true is like asking if the world exists. The answer is simple.
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=billeh!;22390605]Well Novikov also states that time travel backwards is entirely impossible. Either that, or Novikov could go hand-in-hand with MW.[/QUOTE] Eh? No? As far as I understand Novikov is the solution to the grandfather paradox, or any paradox, which assume...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Again, I fail to see the need for any of that when you have Novikov.
BmB General Discussion Reply
[img]http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/IDT78421.jpg[/img] [sp]It had to happen. You knew it.[/sp]
BmB General Discussion Reply
Novikov says no.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Yeah that's kind of stupid. What do you call mass as the constant, innate property divorced from any variable forces that act on it then?
BmB General Discussion Reply
I'm getting at when I say mass that's what I mean, That's what I take it to mean, I really don't know what else to call it. So when someone else tries to correct me with another definition the argument breaks down.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Well that's a failure of terminology then because in my dictionary how massive an object is is the total... well, mass that it has. The density and element weights combined. This isn't measured in any absolute sense by the total force of impact. That is a kinetic scalar of the...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Then design the experiment around the expectation that the path will be changed, purism is good but it will get you nowhere at times. The mere fact that our measuring equipment is inadequate certainly isn't nonmechanical. In that sense.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Again I'd like to distinguish between mass as the scalar of the force gravity acts on it and mass as the total force of impact here.
BmB General Discussion Reply
A world that cannot be understood is a world in which science is meaningless. If one has to accept quantum mechanics as nonmechanical (not as in Newtonian and such, but as in abides by an absolute set of rules) then one must also concede that it is impossible to understand and...
BmB General Discussion Reply
It needs to be relatable to the world you experience otherwise any understanding you achieve will be merely superficial. None of those concepts mean anything concrete to me.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Just to keep it on track, this is conversion of energy into mass at relativistic speeds we're talking about.
BmB General Discussion Reply
I understand that, which is why I accept that it can happen at all. But I still need to understand how it happens.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Clearly there is a lack of equivalence. If mass is defined as the scalar for how much an object will be affected by gravity, i.e. weight. Then how come if kinetic energy is directly interchangeable that say, throwing it really fast doesn't make it heavier? Or that it doesn't s...
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=billeh!;22370004]You're arguing syntax. I know you know what I mean.[/QUOTE] I really don't, first you try to be pedantically overcorrect and then you start cocking up your terms and then you expect me to understand a word of what you're saying? You have yet to explain...
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=billeh!;22369747]There is no conversion because kinetic energy is the same energy that mass is, just in a different form (attached to matter). Kinetic energy --> energy. Mass --> energy. Energy = energy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=billeh!;22369832]mass has to be converted into e...
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=BmB;22369677]Why doesn't mass spontaneously turn into motion then?[/QUOTE]
BmB General Discussion Reply
You still need to convert from kinetic to mass. Motion doesn't magically turn into electricity or radiation or magnetism or gravity. Why would it magically turn into mass? Why doesn't mass spontaneously turn into motion then?
BmB General Discussion Reply
Look, motion does not define weight, clearly these are two different things, you need to explain how one turns into the other.
BmB General Discussion Reply
You still need to explain how kinetic energy turns into this mass thing. Conversion process.
BmB General Discussion Reply
You can't have a mass and suddenly turn it into energy, you need to burn it or something. Likewise kinetic energy won't suddenly turn solid.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Read it again.
BmB General Discussion Reply
We also established that that was because of time dilation and not because of the speed of light being variable. If what you just said was true you could never approach the speed of light and there wouldn't be a limit to how fast you can go. [editline]05:05PM[/editline] The ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Only in the sense that they can be converted to each other so far as I understand. You still need a conversion process. Even between energies. Like a knife and a fork, they may be made from the same stuff but they are not the same thing. I figure that anyways.
BmB General Discussion Reply
Do you understand it or are you just rolling off buzzwords? Because it sounds like buzzwords to me. [i]"The more energy you put into an object, the more mass the object has."[/i] This is an absolute non sequiteur. There needs to be a medium for converting it, I understand tha...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Well if there is an absolute 0 speed it must be measurable. Has anyone found out how fast we are going?
BmB General Discussion Reply
I think I get it now. The more time slows down, the more mass will "exist" for that duration of time, thus you will increase in mass at the expense of the energy needed to further accelerate a mass that exists in a timespace that increasingly approaches 0. [editline]04:50PM...
BmB General Discussion Reply
So there is an absolute 0 speed then.
BmB General Discussion Reply
But we also established you can never approach the speed of light because it will always be at the speed of light regardless of how fast you are going compared to the rest of the universe. In fact if anything the problems will be with the rest of the universe from your perspec...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Well you can't really say it goes faster for anyone as I demonstrated in my thought experiment. Time goes slower to accommodate that the speed of light apparently increases. Since there's no absolute 0 point of motion, we can actually conclude two things: You can easily exc...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Ah, no. Time the measuring system was made by man, to measure time the physical entity/property/whatever. It's something real. [editline]03:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=billeh!;22367752]Actually causality violations are impossible with this device because it simply transports...
BmB General Discussion Reply
Ah, I get it now. You have to use a timed signal to understand it. Imagine a transmitter travelling away from another at the speed of light. It sends out a signal which is composed of two beams of light sent at an interval. The transmitter at the other end responds with exactl...
BmB General Discussion Reply
That video is completely inconsistent. It basically says at the end that light has an absolute speed anyway. And it resorts to magic by god how many times. Sorry, but useless. :/
BmB General Discussion Reply
So you get light back before it even arrives? ???
BmB General Discussion Reply
Wait, let me visualize this. If you travel away at the speed of light, light from the origin will reach you at the speed of light meaning it's going twice as fast as it should be from their perspective from your perspective, so you get the same amount of photons at twice the s...
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=Kade;22343019]Just wiki time-dilation man. Its to do with the speed of light always being constant (always the same) no matter how fast you are traveling. This is because speed is a relative thing - there is no fundamental 'at rest' in the universe, you can only be 'at ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
I'm not a physicist by any means, but I'm not sure how time dilation is supposed to work at all. If you go at the speed of light, light won't catch up to you so time appears to stop? But this is just an optical illusion? How does that affect the flow of time at all?
BmB General Discussion Reply
[QUOTE=Rach Runner;22315568]I personally don't believe anything is set in stone. (thus not believing in "fixed" events) And I'm talking about people changing the timeline for their own selfish gain. I could see it happening.[/QUOTE] I say things are only set in stone after ...
BmB General Discussion Reply
People have done science on that dgg. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle[/url]
BmB General Discussion Reply