lol
Quote from: Feared_1
I would say this should be the only topic with this kind of stuff. Random spam is sometimes OK, but if more people come by and see that this is what we do, they will do it to. It just opens doors that lead to more doors. I also don't want to make Sonic and RD regret that they re-added this.
Every forum needs a place to let loose. I'm on a forum where everything has to be 100% on topic or it's deleted and it's a spam nightmare over there. But yah, this stuff probably shouldn't go anywhere but here.
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_Ev9hU0OJ8pA/Rr6y_i62zLI/AAAAAAAAAXk/uAqJrvz3T8w/s400/procrastination-motivational-poster.jpg)
(http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/04/lolcat.jpg)
Quote from: CivBase on September 08, 2008, 12:38:09 PM
(http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/04/lolcat.jpg)
I'm sorry but by observing said box one has already established the cat as inside in our reality and it is now a fact. No more quantum box.
Its only a quantum box if no one does, nor has ever, known what is in it.
So it may or may not be a quantum box if it had remained closed?
Schrodinger's Cat, much?
VSMIT.
NoScript is a plugin for Firefox that fixes sites like that, that would pop up tons of crap or do otherwise annoying javascript related stuff. It is considered one of the "must-have" extensions and is always in one of the top 3 places (along with adblock and such as well).
And yes, as you know, space is relative, the particles may know what state they are in inside the box due to being viewed by something in the local space, but if something in another local space (outside the box, assuming the box had no transferrence of information between inside and outside) then when one views the other it would cause the reality to collapse into a single function, because each reality, both inside and outside the box, may know its state, there are an infinite number of states and an infinite number of realities, and the realities would not mesh until there was some transference of information, in DB terms, it would be a many-to-many relation which becomes a random (yes, real random) 1-to-10 relation when information transfers.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Quote from: VSMIT on September 08, 2008, 03:58:09 PM
So it may or may not be a quantum box if it had remained closed?
(http://questionmark.blogsome.com/images/shroedingers_lolcat.jpg)
Its taped shut, clearly someone at some point knew what was in it.
and it was delivered by UPS
:evil:
Regardless of that, the question could be "is it still living" and not "is it in the box"
Quote from: Nielk1 on September 08, 2008, 03:01:03 PM
I'm sorry but by observing said box one has already established the cat as inside in our reality and it is now a fact. No more quantum box.
Its only a quantum box if no one does, nor has ever, known what is in it.
N1, shut up with your science and learn to take a joke unseriously.
Quote from: CmptrWz on September 08, 2008, 10:37:17 PM
Regardless of that, the question could be "is it still living" and not "is it in the box"
lol
Sorry to go back in time a bit, but this box thing gets on my nerves. You're all being so technical, asking "is it REALLY in the box"? For most people, and by that I mean all people, natural instinct to find out if something is in a box would be to take the box in your hand. If it is heavy, there is something in it. If you are not sure, SHAKE THE DAMN BOX!
Moving on...
I can't find the picture of it, but when I was on vacation one time I saw a sign on a restaurant that was SUPPOSE to say "Waffles Steak And More!". Coincidentally, the W and S was burned out on the waffle part of the sign, so it read "Affle Steak And More!" (could otherwise be read as "Awful Steak And More) :P .
Any kind of observation of the box would put something in it. Now, since every box we see was made by another human, its all pre-established.
There is no such thing as fact (that's a fact). Everything is technicaly theory.
So why did this get moved?... whoever did it moved a lot of the "funny stuffs'" stuffs with it lol.
They split the thread because new we're talking about quantum boxes.
I prefer the Schrodinger's Cat theory, anyway.
VSMIT.
But a cat in a box would establish its own existence inside said box. Or rather the inside of the box itself, since I am unsure if the cat would be in a quantum state until observed by something else. If that cat is in a quantum state, then that would mean that if someone was never observed they would not exist. Scawy.
if I remember the Shrodinger,s cat thing correctly, The cat WAS in the box, and so was a vial of poison, which would be released by a quantum particle trigger when its state became fixed one way but not the other.
The conundrum is how to find out if the cat is alive or dead and thus the state of the quantum particle, without opening the box and deciding the matter...
The obvious solution is to wait until tea time and see if the box meows...
Schrodinger's Cat was a theory that stated that if a cat was inside a closed container, with a radioactive particle and a vial of poison that would open at the decaying of said radioactive particle (which would decay at a random time), we would not be able to tell if the cat was alive or dead, and therefore, was in a quantum state of being both alive and dead at the same time.
VSMIT.
Man, that (not you, the theory) is really dumb and is akin to the, "If a tree falls in a forest..." hornswoggle.
That's like saying everybody driving is "in a quantum state" because you don't know if they are involved in an accident or that you don't know if they are turning left or not.
It's just another sell word that some physicists made up to sell some books, get some grants and fellowships, and which translates to "unknown".
As for the LHC, "You're meddling with things you cannot possibly comprehend!"
As stated, the state in the box is known, as is the state out of the box, but the two states do not know each other because they are in different and distinct reference frames, which has interesting consequences depending on which of the two main quantum theories you wish to go with. The first is that it is in a super-position of all states, they are all occurring and no occurring simultaneously in space and time, and it will not collapse to a single value between one or the other until information is transferred. Using the multi-worlds version, they are all occurring at the same space and time, but in different dimensions splitting off an infinite number of times every temporal instance, and the universes remain distinct until information is transferred between them, which then essentially 'locks' them together.
And RD, it has been well proven that these quantum super-positions exist. One of the simplest experiments is the Double Slit Experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTOM8vffB4) (this video is not the most accurate explanation, but it has lots of pretty graphics and visuals people like, and is accurate enough).
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Hornswoggle! :-P
I love how they talk like they're magicians doing a card trick for an audience and automatically jump to the conclusion that by "observing" that they actually affected the outcome. What vanity.
Matter and energy have been proven to be the same, but just in different states of equilibrium. Particles/energy are constantly being transferred between objects/matter and changing from one form to the other.
Subatomic "particles" do exist and do behave in interesting ways, but for them to ascribe magical properties to them is pure poppycock. What is more likely the case is that it is at this level that energy and matter are changed/maintained/passed on so that chaos does not reign.
They are not magical, and it makes more 'sense' it you look at the current ToE theories, like String Theory. The current state of String Theory (more properly called M-Theory) states that there are 11-dimensions. There are vibrating 'strings' of energy and they move and flow inside these 11 dimensions, the way they react to the different dimensions give them different timings and energy states, hence they make up all the most basic subparticles, like fermions, bosons, etc... There are many different kinds, but for them to exist for any length of time they need to meet an equilibrium, all the base subparticles are those vibrating strands at equilibrium within their dimensional state.
There are also two kinds of 'strings', close loop versions and open-ended versions. Strings can also be different sizes depending on how much energy is stored in them. For example, if enough energy is stored in a string it can get bigger, big enough to be larger then an entire atom, or big enough to be a universe. Strings that have got that large are called membranes (just abbreviated "brane" for short), and our universe is one of these branes. According to the theory, there was a massive transfer of energy (probably our brane colliding with an even bigger one in the 11-dimensional space) that caused the big bang, and is also the reason why our universe is growing (and not slowing down, it is actually speeding up), the energy is still propagating around from the impact; quite literally, the amount of physical space and time within what you right now know of as 1 inch will double in length in another few billion years as our universes spacetime is stretched (I do not remember the exact timings, might be more then just a few billion).
Now those lose strings, the open-ended ones attach to a brane (or any sufficiently sizable string) and do not let go without a tremendous release of energy (the kind like a brane rupturing kind of energy, our existence would disappear in such a state). These open-ended strings are thus stuck inside of our space-time, this makes up things like most of our particles, electromagnetism, etc... The open loop strings are not bound and are free to wander, including floating freely away from our brane, this would be the forces like gravity (which is why gravity is 'weak', it is actually the same strength as the other forces, it just floats free, but because of that it is not restricted in distance either, hence why gravity works over any distance, unlike all the other forces).
But yea, they do not have 'magical properties', those properties are well described by a number of mathematical formulas. And it is not just those that follow those wave functions. Even macro size matter (like a person) can be transformed into a pure wave function if you put them into a pure vacuum (no heat, nothing, not even the depths of space get that cold, hence why that cat-box cannot actually exist in nature), then the only thing keeping the wave function collapsed would be the particles of the body interacting with each other, but after a time (possible a very short time) the particles would drift away one-by-one, causing them to go out as a wave and staying that way due to no other interaction, and the person would eventually 'cease-to-exist'. There are a few plausible ways of causing it to at a macro scale, but we do not have the technology, it is however pretty easy to do it at the nano-scale.
If someone cause a particle to enter a quantum super-position state, then you cause something to interact with it, like sending a photon into the wave field, it will cause a quantum decoherence where the wave will become a particle for that one instance of time, then re-'radiate' from that point again, this point can be measured (do note, we can either get the particle information, and see where it is, or we can get the wave information, and see its heading, but we cannot know both at once), and this point fits the mathematical formulas for where it will be created (it is a percentage chance in 3d-space, repeated enough times and it matches the formulas for all possible locations). According to string theory it all makes sense in the 11-dimensional space, just the human brain cannot wrap its mind around it. It is stated that probably only 2 or 3 people on this planet actually understands quantum physics.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Ah, I was remembering a simple cat in quantum box thing.
Have these membranes and strings been observed or are they all in someone's head?
", this point can be measured" But, having observed it/measured it, does that not (according to the theory) alter it and therefore make the findings unreliable?
It has been established and hence should always be the way it is before and after our measurements.
QuoteIt is stated that probably only 2 or 3 people on this planet actually understands quantum physics.
Thus the probability of it being correct is rather small. :-D
Quotewe would not be able to tell if the cat was alive or dead, and therefore, was in a quantum state of being both alive and dead at the same time.
Which could be proven by leaving the cat in the box for a couple of weeks, until it smells really bad and meows at the same time, thus proving that the Undead do actually exist...
QuoteHave these membranes and strings been observed or are they all in someone's head?
It's all theory, and will probably stay that way. The essential unsolvable problem is that all particles/waves/dimensions/strings/branes etc etc must exist within nothing, nothing is infinite has no value and cannot be measured, No theoretical calculations can be used to explain its absent property's which unfortunately have a very profound effect on everything.
It is currently theory, but so far it is the only one that has been able to accurately describe anything that happens (even some of the weirdest things, energy coming from something that should not, is still described properly by this). It is also not that they exist with nothing, it is just that they exist everywhere. All the dimensions fold in on themselves, so there is a distinct size, even though they are infinite. There has been an experiment thought up that can disprove string theory, it is a way certain energy reactions occur, but to test it they need to build a satellite, launch it, and if it cannot accelerate using this engine, string theory is most definitely wrong, if it does accelerate, then it might be right.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Ever wonder how positively charged protons can all stick together without flying apart?
There is no matter.
It seems quantum reflection doesn't occur with subatomic particles or something.
(Quantum reflection is what prevents matter from passing though each other, more specifically though the atom's electron cloud which exists in a quantum state).
They stick together because the strong nuclear force is a lot more strong then electromagnetism, it just operates over vastly shorter distances (it will not event extend out of the atom). You get things 'close enough', and they still stick, no matter how much force it pulling them apart. :P
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
That's kinda what I believe, too. Those protons aren't really matter, but just another form/state of energy that behave in a way we call 'matter'.
Everyone is sitting on a chair made of and held together by pure energy.
Remember, they are just a wave function, a form of energy. In string theory it is pure energy, just vibrating through the multiple dimensions in a certain way.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
I think dimensions is inaccurate. I think it is more like different states of energy. For instance, in one state, you have the SA 'particles' that behave a certain way, and in another state, you have electrons which behave a certain way, and in another, collections of energy particles that behave like protons, and, in another, you have some that behave strangely, like BBB, etc.
Quote from: bigbadbogie on September 11, 2008, 06:52:51 AM
Everyone is sitting on a chair made of and held together by pure energy.
ATM I'm standing.
Quote from: Red Devil on September 11, 2008, 04:52:18 PM
you have some that behave strangely, like BBB, etc.
Yes, I am a strange particle.
@N1 - :-P
Many quantum physics ToE say that there are quite literally more dimensions, not just different states of energy, but physical, real extra spacial dimensions.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Don't count on that.
That's just sci-fi trying to find a way to get from A to B quickly.
If you want to go vast distances instantly look at quantum entanglement to see faster than light is possible.
FTL is possible... just slingshot orbit 20 black holes until you get up to the speed :-P.
Not Sci-Fi, just Science.
And no Quantum Entanglement does not allow you to transmit anything faster then light, it just works on the basis of if two particles come from the same point, they will have opposite spins (which is normally pretty random), so when you measure one at one point, then you can instantly know what the other will be, wherever it is, it will not allow you to transmit anything.
And no, FTL is not possible in all current theories; also remember, your elapsed time is directly related to your overall speed, so as you speed up your time slows down so from your own reference frame you never exceed the speed of light. The speed of light is a constant in all possible reference frames, it is time that speeds up or slows down to keep it constant in any given reference frame.
String theory does allow for the formation of wormholes, which while still not exceeding the speed of light, bends space so that far points touch and information can be sent through. Warning though, it only allows energetic particles to travel through (light, electricity, etc...), so you will not be sending a ship through anytime soon because any mass that would enter it would be compressed and accelerate so much that it would turn to energy anyway (and you cannot turn back at that point). It is thought a wormhole could be stabilized if the spacetime around it was pulled apart, one thought of doing that would be to spin it so fast around an existing wormhole (which according to string theory happens all the time at the most basic quantum level, just they get repaired in an equally quick time) so as to pull it apart due to the sheering forces, one way would be to take the limit of an infinite amount of light and spin it in a circle inside of a strong magnetic field. The energy required for something like that would be on the order of all the energy put out by a star going super-nova over its many hundreds of years, compressed into a second, and for that energy to be sustained for as long as you wanted it open.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
They are still reacting in real time, so it has SOMETHING to do with FTL since it is doing it.
Time isn't even real, well not in the sense that it is an actual present material in the universe, it is as real as a kilometre or mile.
How can time slow down if it doesn't exist?
I reckon that any speed is possible if you have enough thrust.
Quote from: Nielk1 on September 12, 2008, 01:55:17 AM
They are still reacting in real time, so it has SOMETHING to do with FTL since it is doing it.
No, they are not reacting, it is just that once you know one, you can know what the other is without needing to read it, if you did something to one of them, it will not effect the other, there is no transference of information, anything and everything that will affect them is transferred at the time they touched, never after that. There is nothing happening FTL with this. Thus far the *ONLY* particle that is rumored to go faster then light (String theory says it should exist, but have not been able to figure out a way to measure it yet) is the tachyon. Just like normal things speed up infinitely close, but never reach the speed of light, tachyons can go infinitely slow to the speed of light, but can never decrease past its speed, it has to always remain faster.
Quote from: bigbadbogie on September 12, 2008, 02:55:20 AM
Time isn't even real, well not in the sense that it is an actual present material in the universe, it is as real as a kilometre or mile.
How can time slow down if it doesn't exist?
I reckon that any speed is possible if you have enough thrust.
So, very, wrong. Take a good physics class and learn about spacetime. Time is very much real and has a measurable span (roughly a quintillionth of a second, it was measured to its exact value about a year ago so the exact value is known, it was one of the fundamental constants, like an electron charge). Time is also what defines the speed of light, and the reason the speed of light cannot go any faster is because, think of it like this, think of all of space as a 3d-grid, with every point being a quanta small (just like a photon is a quanta of light, or that smallest unit of time is a quanta of time, a quanta is the smallest possible energy state of *anything*), when a particle travels it cannot 'jump' over a quanta length, it has to pass through every possible quanta on its path, and if it sits in every possible quanta on its path for only the smallest unit of time, then that is the speed of light, anything that goes slower then light means that it sits in a certain quanta for more then one unit of time.
As for why the relative time of an object slows down, say you went in a ship and travelled infinitely close to the speed of light, time would 'stop' for you, the reason being is that all of the particles that make you and your ship up are already traveling one quanta length worth of space in one quanta length worth of time, they cannot go faster, hence there is no leeway to move, it is like being squished in between dimensions, your freedom of movement is restricted until you slow down, so technically time is still unchanging, but your particles are moving so fast through space that they cannot move through time, so slower things move 'faster' through time, and faster things move 'slower' through time. Do note, all of this is relative, for example, if you have two space ships back-to-back, and each accellerated at max speed for, say, 20 years, and slowed down, reversed and went back to each other at the starting point, if you could look at the other person it looks like they are moving slower through time in relation to you, even assuming you could see them with no delay over the distance, the exact same effect happens if one ship stays still and the other goes out, because still or not is all relative, everything is still and everything is moving in some reference frame. When they turn around they would see the other person speed up through time a drastic amount, and keep going faster until they reached each other again, thus their reference frames would match up again and they would be the ages they would think they should be. The part that is really weird (but is proven everyday with our satellites for example) is that if one of those space ships started flying around in a big circle around the other ship at near light speed, because it stays the same distance away the whole time from the other ship, but is moving incredibly fast, it is still experiencing a massive slowdown of time in relation to the outside reference frames, because of that when it stops, if the ship was going infinitely close to the speed of light, then everything on board, people and all, would not have aged relative to the observer in the ship. This was proven decades ago (actual tests) and it has real applications for normal life. For example, the GPS satellites have atomic accuracy, but because they are moving so fast around the planet they are moving slightly slower through time, because of that the cesium radioactive decay of the atomic clock is still perfectly accurate on board the satellite, but in relation to earth it is moving slightly slower through time, enough to get off by a few seconds every day actually, if they did not account for that using mathematics based on the spacetime formulas by Einstein and his peers, the GPS would get off by miles a day, that is bad when you want a couple inches worth of accuracy, and you cannot just add a displacement because as it moves in different ways due to the pull of the sun and moon, that value is changing, so you need the math to compensate for it ahead of time.
As for speed, no; think about it, as something goes faster it also moves slower in time, because of that the ship gains mass (also streches, quite literally, say if you had a tunnel with a train going through it, and the train barely fit in the tunnel with both ends closed off, if the train tried to go through at near the speed of light and you closed both doors to the tunnel the exact instant the front of the train reached the front door, then the back of the train would be cut off by the back door, things literally stretch when moving fast), and when something gains mass it takes more power to push, meaning as something gets infinitely close to the speed of light then its mass gets infinitely close to infinity, meaning it would take an infinite amount of thrust to be able to push it, which just cannot happen.
You really need to get your physics knowledge to at least 20th century level (and out of 16th century level) if you wish to discuss stuff like this. :P
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Sometimes I think that people are afraid to challenge physics because they have been conveniently prewritten by historical figures (Einstein). And they hesitate to challenge such a name.
It is entirely possible that they/we are looking in the wrong direction entirely and writing physics back to front.
The entire effect could be a mathematical illusion, as nobody has ever tested what actually happens when matter accelerates to the speed of light.
I'm not saying they are wrong (they could be 100% right) but it is possible.
Please tell me that I am ignorant for considering even for a moment that our messiah is wrong.
Einstein was the one that reroute it from the classical people of Newton and so forth. Even Einstein was wrong in many areas, although his spacetime was right-on, he could not believe quantum mechanics was right, as put in his popular phrase "God does not play dice", he just could not believe that things could truly be random, he thought everything had to have a perfect form. People challenge Einstein all the time, so no clue where you are coming with on that.
Regardless of things like String theory, many things have been absolutely proven, and I do differentiate when I state such things, like all I said about spacetime above has been proven.
And it is easy to test things going to the speed of light, you can use photon's, which naturally go at that speed, and there are many things we have accelerated near, heck, look in the other topic about the collider, they are bringing matter that has mass up near the speed of light all the time.
Remember science is based on proof, and when something is proven it cannot be disproven, it might be able to be seen in a different way (like how newton and einstein say gravity as a force or a field), but it is always correct. Theories on the other hand are ways of perceiving the universe, they may not be correct, but thus far they fit all experimented data, when something pops up that they cannot explain, they are discarded, thus far String Theory is the leading one (there is one other popular one, but it still has a lacking of not including gravity in the equations, which is bad of course... but it does not require extra dimensions like string theory does).
Not a clue what messiah you speak of; Christ?
But yea, you have a vast misunderstanding about physics. Physicists as a whole tend to 'get off' by disproving other physicists; there is a massive movement to try to get rid of anything wrong. Generally, if they can find a way to disprove something, they will, and if they disprove something by someone famous, they get famous in exchange.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Theory is not my stronghold.
I'll let someone who looks at the world through a magnifying glass continue this discussion...
Ignore the theory parts, you should still take a look at spacetime, it has been proven to be accurate on scales larger then an atom (and the only reason it does not work lower is because gravity becomes so overpowered by all the other forces that it cannot effect anything at that size). Spacetime is an amazing concept, I initially got a good grasp of it by a special instructor at my local university (they have a grant to bring in big-name people every once in a while to teach, that one time it happened to be a quantum mechanics physicist, I could not resist taking that class :) ). he put it together in such a perfect way so it made sense, I do not do it justice at all, not to mention if I want to use his examples as I have been, a whiteboard would be good, lots of drawings with math calculations to link it all together.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Just because the maths adds up doesn't mean it is the right calculation.
Quantum Physics, quantifiable physics, the physics of things that can be measured. I suspect that the reason it has developed 11 or more dimensions (that we cannot perceive!) is in fact a very elaborate attempt to avoid dealing with the things that cannot actually be measured. Such as "nothing" and possibly time too. We can perceive both of them so it seems obvious that they must exist in some way.
Space/time can only be quantified by measuring the "things" in it, we measure time by measuring energy fluctuations of one form or another, but these are not true measurements of time they are measurements of energy and they are unavoidably bound to our perception of them, without the perceiver they are meaningless.
Our perception of time could certainly be altered but a true quantification of it is as likely as finding out just how big "nothing" is.
Things gain mass as they approach the speed of light? I thought that was impossible. If so, where would it come from? Maybe it's harder to push that mass faster?
bbb: As stated, ignore the theory things, all I said about spacetime, measuring time, time dilation, etc.. have all been measured and proven, the theories exist to try to work the math around what has been measured.
mts: The way string theory works is that each fundamental force is represented as a dimension, hence why it has been the only one capable of unifying all of them (with surprising accuracy, it keeps predicting things that we eventually find and measure). And no, time itself has been measured, time itself is an energy state that can be measured, we did not measure the energy of things inside of it, time itself has literally been measured. It is not 'nothing'.
RD: Mass and energy are one and the same, certainly you remember one of the most famous physics equations of all time, E=MC2, it literally means that as the energy/speed of an object increases, the mass also increases (since they are the same thing), meaning that the more energy something has, the 'heavier' it is, and as such it become more difficult to 'push'. That is why those famous Newton equations they teach in your little university physics and calculus classes work fine for slow things, things in our atmosphere and such, but completely fall apart at any, what is termed, relativistic speed (*really* fast in other words) because they assume that mass is a constant, it is not.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Harrr! Hoist by his own petard, me is! :lol: *smacks forehead* Of course!
OM, stop typing. Get up, take your computer in your hands. Throw it out the window. 8-)
Become a college professor or inventor. :-D
Bah, there are people far smarter then me studying these topics, I just take what they learned and regurgitate it out. :)
As for teaching, most of my family are teachers, they are all good at it (hence why I really *hate* bad teachers), but they do all hate doing it as well, I do not want to follow that.
I prefer programming, I am programming in two solutions right now actually (while reading a few tech docs, typing on here, listening to some Nox Arcana music, and fixing one of my virtual machines), so I kind of need my computer with me. :)
Another forum I frequent is the intjforum. INTJ is one of the Myer-Briggs Type Indicators (generally abbreviated MBTI), and is the type I am. A thread on that forum yesterday (which I am reading now) is talking about how we 'correct' people. Apparently one of the overriding ways is that INTJs just straight out say "You are wrong, and this is why" followed by a detailed description why, but the general consensus seems to be that although we INTJ's prefer to be corrected in that manner as well, it seems most other types do not and generally take offense to it (for reasons we INTJs seem to not be able to figure out), and re-reading what I have been putting above, I have apparently done the same thing. Now INTJs generally will not say such things unless we are absolutely sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are right (if we do not know for certain that we are right then we either stay quiet or try to encourage a debate about it to figure it out and get more information, although if someone has a counter-point with more proof, we love to be corrected since we *hate* having wrong or incomplete information), with a huge amount of information to back up our stance, but seemingly many other types tend to stop listening after hearing the "You are wrong" part, without listening as to why. I apologize for that, I will try to give my reasons first before stating that some line of thinking is wrong.
EDIT: Fair warning, when we are not certain about a topic, then as stated, we love debate (the common way INTJs are described is that they tend to 'get off' on debate, it is the main method we love to reason through things, we will debate with ourselves for hours; INTJs have a rather unique ability to see multiple sides of something at the same time, we can play chess with ourselves without cheating either :) ), and we generally love debate so much that when we are not sure about a subject, but we are leaning one way, but so the other person is also leaning the same way, we can take up the side we do not agree with and argue it, trying to find all reasoning until we are proven wrong or right by it. I have an INTJ friend, we are near best friends (although I have only known them for about a year), and we are told by our other friends that when we get together that we are an "argument waiting to happen", but we love it, it is how we strengthen our bond, and we can argue about the most complex or the most simple of things for many hours, seemingly getting rather heated, but it can all be dropped in a split second like it never happened, taking up a project where we work together in perfect synchronicity, just the way we INTJs are.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
OM, you would make a perfect teacher, as you have a passion for knowing what has been pre-written, and without questioning it, enforce it upon us.
BBB, only if you sit there with your mouth open. He did say debate.
If there is any possible question about the validity of something, I do not trust it, and then try to find out everything about it that I can. I did that with Quantum Physics years ago, that is why I am now very certain about many parts of it (there are still a few questionable parts, which I refrained from mentioning if you noticed, but everything I stated is a modern certainty). So, yes, I question many things. Take programming, there is not a single 'method' or way of programming that I trust, they all have such horrible downsides, you just have to pick the best one for the circumstance, and yet so many pick the wrong one, like Object-Oriented programming, so many try to use that to do just about everything, when it is actually only well suited for a small amount of tasks. The Actor programming model, although extremely well suited for multi-processing, so much more so then near any other style, it is very different to program in and you have to throw out so many preconceived notions about how to do things, like storing data in an Actor program is not done in data structures like in OO (OO models data and interations, AO models... well... objects is the correct term, and communication; the person who coined the OO term was actually talking about AO in the description, just things like C++ slaughtered that notion and turned it into a data emphasis instead of a real object emphasis), but storing data in an actor program is done by passing it around in the 'nether' between actor's, the messages themselves. The Actor model is, however, horrible unsuited for anything that has to be programmed in a linear way with no multi-tasking.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
I was just commenting on how thorough he was with responses. I like the "you're wrong" thing. It might be a little insulting for the person, but if its explained well then problem solved.
I wish I was smart enough to just summon information like that :-D
I am addicted to learning. I always have to be figuring stuff out. That is another big thing about the common INTJ, they seem to be rather emotionless, but that is far from the case, it is just that their brain is always working on a hundred different things at all hours that they have no room to process emotions. It also makes them seem rather aloof, when they are generally the exact opposite, they just tend to be thinking about too many things at once to be able to adequately verbalize one specific train of thought (it is also humorous that when I talk to people how I seem to change from subject to seemingly unrelated subject and so forth, but if I asked I can give a very exact, detailed, and usually long train of thought that seemingly instantly brought me from one thought pattern to another, many people just cannot keep up, this manifests in my typings above at times as I jump from one quantum subject to another, I may have had a very detailed way of going across it, but because I cannot type 500 words a minute then my hands cannot keep up and sometimes skip various thoughts, where-as when I speak I can usually keep it up, but I also speak *very* fast when I start doing that, so most people cannot usually keep up with that either).
So, no, it is not really about summoning information, just that I regurgitate it and think about different things so often that my brain never really has a chance to dump the data. I cannot always recall everything at once, but if I go through a subject material I will generally pretty quickly reach a certain data, even if I just talked with something shortly with someone, I will still be going over that conversation for probably the next few hours, thinking of how things could have played out, other ways I could have said things, how the person may have responded to other things, which data would have been better to give rather then some others, etc... all while thinking of another hundred things. INTJs tend to be pretty incapable of emptying their mind, it just makes no sense how when we ask what someone is thinking of when they say nothing (quite literally, how can someone really be thinking of nothing?), when someone asks us that it would take a good hour to rattle off all that we were thinking of in the past minute.
Also, remember, there are two things for 'knowing' things. Intelligence, which is a measure of how quickly and accurately you can 'reason' through something. Knowledge, which is a measure of how much you 'know' about something, whether you can reason it out or not. I know so many 'bookworm' kind of people that know a great deal, but could not reason their way out of a box. I also know many people who can reason through just about anything, but do not really know of anything. INTJs generally have high orders of both (else the overriding instinct of 'learning' would be pretty useless, thus making them not a pure INTJ).
As for that insulting thing, I still do not get it. Just saying "You are wrong" to me without providing any proof, or at least a good *LOGICAL* discussion is *very* insulting. However, saying I am wrong, while providing proof is in absolutely no way insulting, it is very humbling and quite frankly, I love it. Anything I am 'proven' wrong about means that I now have some more 'proved' knowledge, which is something I want, and I cannot see why anyone else would not want it either. As you can guess, I have an incredible disdain for people you refuse to learn. :)
Of the types, each letter has a ranking, I rank very high on all of them, making me a pure INTJ, I basically have no subtype. Anyone up for me starting a thread about MBTI with a link to the best free test and how to decipher the results? The free test will not tell you your subtype, but otherwise seems to be as accurate as the pay test I took for a job.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
I knew there was something funny about you... :-)
http://typelogic.com/intj.html
I think this is me, if I remember correctly...
http://typelogic.com/intp.html
Ah, an INTP eh? The INTJ bane if you get them in close proximity from what I have read. :P
They both like to argue, but INTJs like to argue to learn, even taking up the opposite side, where-as INTPs argue to make themselves feel better, but generally try to refrain from arguing so as to not draw attention. :)
INTPs do tend to be better in 'perfection' though, they generally will not think up new ideas (like in physics), but tend to be quite good in proving or disproving something thought up by someone else. Tend to be more focused on one thing, able to work on it more efficiently then an INTJ, who may be working on a variety of things. Tend to not get the overall big picture, but can be perfectionist with details (INTJs tend to look at the big picture, only looking at details when they need it to complete the big picture, but looking no further). Etc...
Do you remember what percentage you were on each letter?
EDIT1: Apparently the friction between INTJ/INTP is mostly due to the INTJs 6th archetype, Critic:
QuoteFor an INTJ, Introverted Thinking directed at us instinctively causes us to assume it's negative criticism, and it takes practice to recognize the positive side, which is usually how it's intended. This is one of the most common causes of friction between INTJs and INTPs -- the INTP will take in an INTJs ideas and offer an Introverted Thinking analysis of them, and we immediately get defensive, because we perceive it via our critic archetype.
Just a fundamental difference in how we think things verbally.
INTJs can take just about any criticism, except the kind put out by INTPs. :P
EDIT2: Interesting when you look at all 8 archetypes lined up, INTJ and INTP are exact opposites, everything in inversed...
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Hey, quit picking on me.
BTW, you've got a few run-on sentences in your last post.
:lol:
Yep, that is indeed your style. :P
Your type also says you would make a good code monkey, why not learn and join me. :)
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
:cheesygrin:
QuoteAnd no, time itself has been measured, time itself is an energy state that can be measured, we did not measure the energy of things inside of it, time itself has literally been measured. It is not 'nothing'.
How?
Hmmm , ah yes I suppose if you think time is actually an energy state, then it would appear to output measurable values from a calculation.
I suppose it does depend on how you look at things. It does, perception is everything, we are firmly bound to our own energy states and view everything else relative to that. Without perceivers the questions could not be asked and the answers would have no meaning.