String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[Twilight Hue]

This again?
You didn't ask how many trials.
It's analogous to your calculating the probability of abiogenesis, ie, you didn't consider all the relevant factors.
You just picked some numbers, did some arithmetic, & whelped out an answer.

Yep

I'm order to determine probability requires a prerequisite and a result to even calculate probability on any givin thing.

In this particular case, neither.

 

[Zosimus]

"Electrical Engineering" is the typical name of the department, & what we all call it, including the sparkies who deal with electronics.

Oh, really?

This is an utterly irrelevant example.
(I learned current flow both ways too.)
Well, even though you find science useless, I found it quite useful in engineering (aerospace, medical, civil, industrial & automotive).

I suppose that if one studies something, but never applies it, then it doesn't matter if one doesn't know the science.
For such a person, science would indeed be useless.

Nah, it was all easy really. The hardest part was studying for the FCC license–again, something that has little to do with science.

 

[Zosimus]

I realize that, but this does not make the odds of coming up heads twice in a row anything other than ¼.

X = "2 consecutive Heads show up somewhere in the series"

Toss a coin 2 times. The probability of X is 1/4 (HH)
Toss a coin 3 times. The probability of X is 3/8 (HHH, HHT, THH)

Your answer is both wrong and absurd. The underlying probability doesn't change.

In addition, you cannot count the number of times heads show up twice in a row in a simple series!
(HHH), (HHH), (HHT), (THH)

That's four times, not three.

 

[secret2]

I realize that, but this does not make the odds of coming up heads twice in a row anything other than ¼.

Your answer is both wrong and absurd. The underlying probability doesn't change.

In addition, you cannot count the number of times heads show up twice in a row in a simple series!
(HHH), (HHH), (HHT), (THH)

That's four times, not three.

I have no idea what you are trying to calculate. The state space (the set of all possible arrangements) is
{HHH,HHT,HTH,THH,TTH,THT,HTT,TTT}
Out of 8 arrangements, 3 have consecutive heads. Jesus Christ, this is very basic stuff.

 

[Zosimus]

I have no idea what you are trying to calculate. The state space (the set of all possible arrangements) is
{HHH,HHT,HTH,THH,TTH,THT,HTT,TTT}
Out of 8 arrangements, 3 have consecutive heads. Jesus Christ, this is very basic stuff.

It's not how many arrangements have consecutive heads. It's how many times heads has shown up twice in a row.

HHH has heads twice in a row twice.

HHH the bolded heads are two heads in a row.
HHH the bolded heads are two heads in a row.

 

[viole]

Your English is just fine.
I had no idea it was a second language for you.
But some people.....they should be more careful about casting stones at others.
There's irony splattering all over the place.

It is actually the fourth

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

It is actually the fourth

Ciao

- viole

Here, "second language" means that it's not the first.
Weird, eh?
Our terminology is often counter intuitive.
I once had a tenant whose business was teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) to people who already spoke typically several others.
But good for you....I'm not fluent in any language except Revoltish (which by an odd coincidence is quite similar to English).

 

[viole]

No, I'd rather see you show me how to calculate the entropy without using it.

Irrelevant. If mathematics is necessary to do X , it does not entail that it is sufficient to do X. Which is my point. In other words: where do the correct formulas come from?

Do you have an alternative, since it is obvious that you cannot calculate the entropy/efficiency/heat generated by a bunch of processors based on the Euclid or Peano axioms using logical inferences only. You need the second law of thermodinamics, the law of Ohm, among other things first, don't you think so?

Math is a tool. It can no more be right or wrong than can a hammer.

Yet, useless when taken alone to infer how things really work.

No, I never said that. Go back and read the argument.

What argument? You say: since these changes in velocity have never observed, then it must move at a different speed.
Which is a non sequitur. Have you, or anyone else, observed different changes in the velocity of gravitational influence?

Again, source please.

Until now your rebuttals of GR have been, well... I am not holding my breath for you winning the Nobel prize.

Speculation and anyway, it doesn't answer the question of what happens to gravity waves. Additionally, it sidesteps the question of exactly how gravity propogates at the speed of light while merely being the curvature of spacetime.

It is not speculation. Gravity is not a wave, it is curvature of space time according to GR. Independently from you accepting GR or not. Gravity waves is not equal gravity. In the same way water is not equal water waves. i hope you see that. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, while gravity waves are ripples on the curvature of spacetime. You can have the first without the latter if nothing happens (like the collision of two black holes, or a big bang, for instance).

And it does not sidestep anything. You just have to open a book and see why gravity waves move at the speed of light, instead of trying to figure it out yourself. You, like me, are not Einstein,

I strongly reccomend "Gravitation" from Wheeler and others. Only then you can come back to me and discuss what you do not agree with. It is hard work, but necessary, I am afraid. Forget google, it is bad for your (intellectual) health, for the simple reason that as long as you ignore the subject, you will never be in the position to say what is crap and what is not. It would be like me trying to debate the history of medieval chinese theater.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Here, "second language" means that it's not the first.
Weird, eh?
.

Darn. i have got a lot to learn

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Darn. i have got a lot to learn

So do I.....

 

[Ouroboros]

I'd say it differently.....
Math is a tool used to measure & build models (aka theories) of the natural world.

Or math could be seen as the paint, brush, and canvas a painter use to reproduce the landscape.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is actually the fourth

Ciao

- viole

I wanted to chime in that your English is great. English is my second language as well, and I've studied two others also. I'm not fluent in the other two, but I can understand some, because natural languages are really difficult for me to master. Computer languages are much easier.

 

[Zosimus]

Irrelevant. If mathematics is necessary to do X , it does not entail that it is sufficient to do X. Which is my point. In other words: where do the correct formulas come from?

Do you have an alternative, since it is obvious that you cannot calculate the entropy/efficiency/heat generated by a bunch of processors based on the Euclid or Peano axioms using logical inferences only. You need the second law of thermodinamics, the law of Ohm, among other things first, don't you think so?

Once again, you have misrepresented my argument because you know that you're losing. You asked whether philosophy was enough to calculate the entropy generated by a bunch of processors. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Both math and science are subsets of philosophy. So now you're trying to deny that Ohm's law is math? Scramble backwards as fast as you can–it won't save you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...verse-was-created.188418/page-16#post-4813840

What argument? You say: since these changes in velocity have never observed, then it must move at a different speed.
Which is a non sequitur. Have you, or anyone else, observed different changes in the velocity of gravitational influence?

Once again, you misrepresent my argument and misquote me to boot. I said Since these changes in velocity have never been observed, gravity must propogate at a different speed.
So it's not about changes in the velocity of gravitational influence. It's about what would happen if gravity propogated at the speed of light.
Look, I understand that English isn't your native tongue. If you can't understand the argument, just say so.

Gravity is not a wave, it is curvature of space time according to GR.

Speculation. Just because a theory says x doesn't mean that x is true.

Independently from you accepting GR or not. Gravity waves is not equal gravity. In the same way water is not equal water waves.

You are comparing things that are not comparable. Gravity waves supposedly cause ripples in spacetime – not ripples in gravity waves. In addition, water can be seen and measured. Spacetime cannot be seen or measured. That's because it doesn't exist. Space is just empty, and time is an illusion.

And it does not sidestep anything. You just have to open a book and see why gravity waves move at the speed of light, instead of trying to figure it out yourself. You, like me, are not Einstein,

Gravity waves do not propogate at the speed of light for the simple reason that gravity does not propogate at the speed of light. If gravity propogated at the speed of light, we would need to include the distance an object is from the gravitational source and the movement of both relative to the orbit in order to determine the correct orbit.

In short, general relativity is wrong. Black holes do not exist. It's mathematically impossible for them to form. Quantum mechanics wins. Quantum information is never lost. Sorry Einstein.

 

[Zosimus]

I wanted to chime in that your English is great. English is my second language as well, and I've studied two others also. I'm not fluent in the other two, but I can understand some, because natural languages are really difficult for me to master. Computer languages are much easier.

Since English isn't your first language, you are in no position to judge whether someone's English is great. You remind me of Basic 1 students who insist that their teacher knows English very well. They're Basic 1. How could they possibly judge whether the teacher speaks English well or poorly?

 

[Ouroboros]

Since English isn't your first language, you are in no position to judge whether someone's English is great. You remind me of Basic 1 students who insist that their teacher knows English very well. They're Basic 1. How could they possibly judge whether the teacher speaks English well or poorly?

I don't master it, but it's not the same as being completely ignorant of it. I have A+ from level II Honors English from college, so I'm not an idiot when it comes to English, but I'm not Hemingway either. If you don't understand that difference, then it's not just your language skills lacking, but your logic as well.

Secondly, when, where, and how did I criticize your English? I've had you on ignore for weeks, so I haven't even responded to any of your posts. Perhaps you're mistaken me for someone else, or maybe you're just a whiny troll?

 

[viole]

Once again, you have misrepresented my argument because you know that you're losing. You asked whether philosophy was enough to calculate the entropy generated by a bunch of processors. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Both math and science are subsets of philosophy. So now you're trying to deny that Ohm's law is math? Scramble backwards as fast as you can–it won't save you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...verse-was-created.188418/page-16#post-4813840

Well, yes, lol. If philosophy is everything, then it is tautological that philosophy explains everything.

Incidentally. If science is founded on a logical fallacy and science is a part of philosophy, then philosophy is based on a logical fallacy, too. Agree?

Once again, you misrepresent my argument and misquote me to boot. I said Since these changes in velocity have never been observed, gravity must propogate at a different speed.
So it's not about changes in the velocity of gravitational influence. It's about what would happen if gravity propogated at the speed of light.
Look, I understand that English isn't your native tongue. If you can't understand the argument, just say so.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if gravity propagated at the speed of light. Any change in the intertial characteristics of a body will propagate at the speed of light. Is that really so complicated?

So, at what speed do you think gravity influence propagate?

Again, read Wheeler and others.

Speculation. Just because a theory says x doesn't mean that x is true.

True, but this is what GR says: gravity is curvature of space time. It does not say that gravity is a wave. Nobody says that. The latter is just a figment of your imagination or you just made it up, as usual.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, yes, lol. If philosophy is everything, then it is tautological that philosophy explains everything.

Incidentally. If science is founded on a logical fallacy and science is a part of philosophy, then philosophy is based on a logical fallacy, too. Agree?

Nice.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, yes, lol. If philosophy is everything, then it is tautological that philosophy explains everything.

Do you deny that science is a subset of epistemology?

Incidentally. If science is founded on a logical fallacy and science is a part of philosophy, then philosophy is based on a logical fallacy, too. Agree?

No, philosophy is not based on a logical fallacy. Some portions of philosophy incorporate logical fallacies. Science is just one of those portions.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if gravity propagated at the speed of light. Any change in the intertial characteristics of a body will propagate at the speed of light. Is that really so complicated?

No, it's not complicated. It's just not what people observe when they observe things.

So, at what speed do you think gravity influence propagate?

Infinite.

Again, read Wheeler and others.

Considering that black holes were disproved in 2015, why in the world would I read a book about gravity written in 1973?! Maybe you should update yourself.

 

[viole]

Do you deny that science is a subset of epistemology?

The scientific method is an epistemological paradigm. I don't think the results of applying the method are epistemology. In other words: things like the second principle of thermodynamics is not a subset of epistemology. That would be a category error.

No, philosophy is not based on a logical fallacy. Some portions of philosophy incorporate logical fallacies. Science is just one of those portions.

Which you have failed to show. Until now it seems you are just making up things as you go along and change the strategy when cornered (most of the time). This is what happened until now (for everyone to see), in a nutshell

v: Do you know any extra scientific endeavor to calculate the entropy of processors?
z: philosophy, since math is a subset of philosophy(excluded science at the last minute for some reason, probably because science is not extra scientific, obviously, generating thereby a grammatical error)
v: then calculate the above mentioned entropy using the mathematical axioms alone
z: (cornered, easily): oh no, I forgot, science is also a subset of philosophy (suddenly science is an extra scientific endeavor, which is also nonsense)

You make me feel like playing chess with a five years old kid

No, it's not complicated. It's just not what people observe when they observe things.

How many people do you know who observed the speed of gravitational influence (for instance after disappearance of a planet/star)? I don't really know
how I can continue to take you seriously.

First you say that GR is clearly false because a pulled rope looks straight and not curve, and now you tell me that the speed of gravitational influence must be different
because of what people observe. What people? What observations? You keep on making things up.

Infinite.

LOL. Do you also wear a funny wig like Newton?

Considering that black holes were disproved in 2015, why in the world would I read a book about gravity written in 1973?! Maybe you should update yourself.

Considering that the equations are still the same, why not? May I ask what you read to get your knowledge of GR, until now?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

The scientific method is an epistemological paradigm. I don't think the results of applying the method are epistemology. In other words: things like the second principle of thermodynamics is not a subset of epistemology. That would be a category error.

Since no one has said that the results are epistemology, I don't see what your sentence has to do with anything.

Which you have failed to show. Until now it seems you are just making up things as you go along and change the strategy when cornered (most of the time). This is what happened until now (for everyone to see), in a nutshell

v: Do you know any extra scientific endeavor to calculate the entropy of processors?
z: philosophy, since math is a subset of philosophy(excluded science at the last minute for some reason, probably because science is not extra scientific, obviously, generating thereby a grammatical error)
v: then calculate the above mentioned entropy using the mathematical axioms alone
z: (cornered, easily): oh no, I forgot, science is also a subset of philosophy (suddenly science is an extra scientific endeavor, which is also nonsense)

Pure lies. Let's review the real conversation, shall we?

V: Do you think you can calculate the amount of entropy generated by a bunch of computing processors by using philosophy?
Z: Given that ... math is a philosophy, I would have to say yes.
V: So, show me, based on pure mathematics, how to infer the entropy generated by a bunch of computing machines.
----------
Right there you moved the goalposts. I said math, a philosophy, could calculate the entropy. Then you changed it to pure math and infer rather than calculate. Then, undaunted, you continued:

V: Do you have an alternative, since it is obvious that you cannot calculate the entropy/efficiency/heat generated by a bunch of processors based on the Euclid or Peano axioms using logical inferences only. You need the second law of thermodinamics, the law of Ohm, among other things first, don't you think so?

Ohm's law is V = IR
V = IR is math.
The formula was given by Georg Ohm in Die galvanische Kette, mathematisch bearbeitet in 1827.

You make me feel like playing chess with a five years old kid

Hey, if you feel like playing chess with a five-year-old kid, don't let me stop you! Sit down and play a few games. After getting your skull crushed, you probably need a break and a chance to play against an opponent you can beat.