Energy/Math Discussion

[David]

^^Please when are you going to tell us something we don't already know.

Again how do you measure the mass of an electron?

 

[PGTips]

^^Please when are you going to tell us something we don't already know.

My point was you said :

that stating you can not know the information contained in the particles before you smash them with another particle is ridiculous.

Which implies you think there is a way to get information from particles without seeing their interactions.

And no, I don't think I'll answer your question David, because often you don't bother answering mine, like the fact you've deleted your journal, ignoring any points against you several of us made. Fairs fair and all that I'm sure Google will provide anyone wondering more than enough information, and I'm sure any answer I did provide you'd find some way to be dissatisfied with.

 

[David]

^^ There it is again, that attitude.

Oh, I read those posts you made in my journal, then I laughed at them. I've heard all of those statements before, do you really think you are telling me something I haven't heard already? They will all be answered in due time. I have until Dec 31 right?

It's my time, let me spend in the way I feel is best.



Yes, we can get information of those particles without smashing them. Yes, smashing them is the way we currently do it, only because we haven't tried it any other ways that I know of yet.

I don't answer your questions, because you've never answered the very first question I asked you. How is Pi accurate if it is not rational? You can't answer it, other than refering to other irrationals to explain it.

Why would I deal with someone that preaches of being such great caliber, but can not accept that he has no answer for that first, and very most simple question.

I stopped dealing with everyone in that thread. I no longer find it to be within my realm of caring, or even worth my time. I've had more fruitful discussions with Hyperion, and he's just like me, a drop-out.

I fail to see where your lines of thought will take me. If I wanted to hear them I would sit in a damn lecture hall, or read them out of a book.

Again, I fail to see how your opinions will help me in any way, so I do not respond. I would have thought you'd figure this one out on your own by now.

 

[PGTips]

How is Pi accurate if it is not rational?

If you ask such a question, then you do not understand mathematics as much as you would like to think. If you define a number by an equation you define it perfectly, exactly, with no error, no loss of accuracy. It is a theoretical construct within a closed system which allows for perfect precision. "Pi" is as accurate as "2" which is as accurate as "1/3" which is as accurate as "i".

Reality is not as perfect as mathematics, and there is no such thing as a perfect circle or a straight line in reality, but then "Pi" is defined within the realms of mathematics, so that is not important.

As I know you've read me post before (though misquoted me), reality does not define mathematics, or vice versa, and "Pi" in mathematics is a perfectly defined entity.

 

[Blowmonkey]

^^ There it is again, that attitude.

You kinda have that effect on people.. Acting like a smartass, but being wrong all the time.

 

[David]

^^LMAO! right. Who are you now?

If you ask such a question, then you do not understand mathematics as much as you would like to think. If you define a number by an equation you define it perfectly, exactly, with no error, no loss of accuracy. It is a theoretical construct within a closed system which allows for perfect precision. "Pi" is as accurate as "2" which is as accurate as "1/3" which is as accurate as "i".

It's used in a closed system, but as always used in the open as a modifier within construction to determine the net weight, and curvature of domes, and such formulations. It's not defined if it's not a known exact value. It's an aproximation, which is what I have stated all along here, and in that other thread. Did I make a glaring typo that made it difficult for you to read it?

Reality is not as perfect as mathematics, and there is no such thing as a perfect circle or a straight line in reality, but then "Pi" is defined within the realms of mathematics, so that is not important.

You said reality is not as perfect as mathematics, but even a perfect system should be able to accurately explain reality then. Where your excuse for this? I thought math was perfect, yet primes are not within a pattern of understanding. Anomallies.

As I know you've read me post before (though misquoted me), reality does not define mathematics, or vice versa, and "Pi" in mathematics is a perfectly defined entity.

Defined as I posted earlier is not a word you should use, considering you apparently don't even know the "defin"tion of the word. It's not an expression, it's a known value. An equation is not a known value. It's an interpetation of unknown values, to give then meaning, and systematic use.

I know semantics is hard for some, but this is ridiculous, the very point you are arguing is incorrect.

I didn't misread you before, I choose to ignore the simple fact you are stating it improperly and pointed out the definition of defined, and you ignored that like everything else

 

[zybotelectron]

just a quick blip, want to write more but i'm working...

information isn't always passed on in ways that we perceive, and that we all understand. But with that, that doesn't mean the information isn't always received in one way or another. There is energy in the light of the sun we cannot see, that even if we don't pay attention to it or know about it, it will penetrate our skin and absorb into us. Nutrients, UV rays, etc, is a form of information and energy that is beyond our rational minds in order to interact with it.

Therefore isn't information a subjective thing? So it's quite possible to say that in every energetic interaction there is information being passed, whether obvious or not, there is a result. It starts out one way, enter new information, then it's different in a minute way or a big way. With that, isn't energy and information the same?

Now, information restricted to interpretation even has energy, you just don't know what it is. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this thread was in japanese, it would be more like that paper that isn't burnt yet, just waiting to release the energy.

just ideas...

and lastly, there is alot of things said about how things are from what we've learned through science. Now science is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't know all. And we are wonderfully smart, but we don't know all. There are many many things that are beyond our current comprehension and to limit those ideas to not exist since we've not discovered them yet seems slightly closed to the existance of alternate theories.

and i wasn't just talking about electromagnetic energy in the initial post, i was thinking more generally......like emotional eneryg, thoughts, and many other things.

and sorry to keep going, but one last thing..hehe...
on another post on out of body experiences i explained that there was some experiments on people who could leave their body easily while they slept, and in those experiments they set up a pressurized space with sensors and such for magnetic fields, temperature, and a bunch of other things i don't remember. Every time the subject reported he made it into the space while sleeping(in his other body) the scientists saw time and time again that the sensors fluctuated and there was a presence of energy there.......

i apologize for going in so many directions, but these are my thoughts and i stick to 'em...

 

[PGTips]

^^LMAO! right. Who are you now?

There's that attitude of yours again

I'm sure I do no favours to peoples view of me for my arguing with you, but there does seem a pattern that its always you against everyone else, I just happen to be the most vocal of "everyone else". Perhaps its my lack of patience for dillusion.

I thought math was perfect, yet primes are not within a pattern of understanding. Anomallies.

Human understanding of the construct is not perfect, hence why primes hold so much mystery. By your logic, since we don't understand black holes properly, black holes are flawed. If maths is flawed because we don't understand part of it, then physics (and hence reality) must be flawed because we don't understand part of it.

As for the rest of it, it is quite clear you have a very "physicist" view of mathematics, and question things you do not understand. Thankfully not all physicists are like that (Zorn for instance ) but quite a few are (I've had arguments with physicists who consider 1 a prime far too often).

Therefore isn't information a subjective thing?

I agree. There is quantifiable properties that you can describe a system's information with, but due to its somewhat "intangable" nature, an exact description is not really possible.

A TV tuned to static means nothing to me, to someone else it might be a highly encoded message (think "Bible Code" but horribly more complex).

 

[David]

There's that attitude of yours again

I'm sure I do no favours to peoples view of me for my arguing with you, but there does seem a pattern that its always you against everyone else, I just happen to be the most vocal of "everyone else". Perhaps its my lack of patience for dillusion.

That's rich coming from you. I was simply living up to this preconceived notion to someone I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of discussing anything with. I mean after all if I'm going to be potrayed by everyone as a seething asshole, I might as well give them what they want.

Human understanding of the construct is not perfect, hence why primes hold so much mystery. By your logic, since we don't understand black holes properly, black holes are flawed. If maths is flawed because we don't understand part of it, then physics (and hence reality) must be flawed because we don't understand part of it.

No you are wrong they understand Black Holes perfectly, but the math doesn't correlate with the understanding. Physics aren't based on math. Unlike the modern definitions, and the common conception, every mathematician I speak to knows that physics is nothing more than the section of philosophy that got to big for the philosophy section, just like politics.

You have show a clear disregard for the history of things, and this is one reason why I will not deal with you on anything, you lack the knowledge I require in a person to base anything on something than pure assunptions. You never "seem" to look into anything other than what you are studying in school. I find that fault in a scienctist, moreso a physicist. Mainly due to the nature, or the reasoning things are told a certain way.

As for the rest of it, it is quite clear you have a very "physicist" view of mathematics, and question things you do not understand. Thankfully not all physicists are like that (Zorn for instance ) but quite a few are (I've had arguments with physicists who consider 1 a prime far too often).

LMAO! You again are assuming things I do and do not know. You would do well to learn to chose who you tell specifics to in the area I have been. The world is not all rosey. If I was as open about what I have done already in the field, and how far I am, you would be asking for more. Then, again I would never provide it, and thusly you would deny it. This is exactly what has happened I don't ask for trust, I ask for understanding, and the simple acknowledgement of my claims. Nothing more, nothing less. I will not prove it to you, because you are not my peer.

I know nothing of Zorn, other than his posting is typically open for interpetation, and leaves much to be desired from me. I do not confront him, unless I feel he is posting just to placate, then I feel he shouldn't post at all.

BACK ON TOPIC NOW!

I agree. There is quantifiable properties that you can describe a system's information with, but due to its somewhat "intangable" nature, an exact description is not really possible.

I see what you are saying, but just because 'you' are not able to see the flow of data, and the information lying around the universe, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, this was my point from the very beginning, and it took all of this BS for people to see this, and recognize this. Now again, why should I be involved with any discourse if I will always find such opposition, even with the evidence right in front of their eyes?

 

[Blowmonkey]

^^LMAO! right. Who are you now?

I'm the guy who silently chuckles everytime I see you arguing with someone.. It's quite discomforting actually, how can you be so wrong all the time?

 

[PGTips]

No you are wrong they understand Black Holes perfectly, but the math doesn't correlate with the understanding.

Weren't you the person who proclaimed how right he was when Hawking said that he was wrong and that black holes could release information?

So that wasn't a lack of understanding in physics, it was just maths was it? They'd got the understanding right, but they'd just got the maths wrong? Saying "Information can't escape a black hole" compared to "information can escape a black hole" sounds awfully like a lack of understanding to me.

Or have they now got the understanding perfect?

I'm the guy who silently chuckles everytime I see you arguing with someone.. It's quite discomforting actually, how can you be so wrong all the time?

I don't so much chuckle at cringe that people can delude themselves so much for so long, particularly with constant contradictions (the "they understand black holes perfectly" comment just being the latest one).

I think my problem with constantly rising to the bait that is David's post is I have a think about trying to correct people who are so far off course, even when its plain they don't care. I recently had a 100 reply "argument" with someone who beleived you couldn't prove Fermats Last Theorem because you couldn't find the largest cube. His latest theory is that -0 is different from 0. Its clear he's completely lost the plot, but I keep replying Same with David. I'm sure the majority of people realise how flawed his posts are, but I just keep replying I'm a sucker for stupidity 8(

 

[David]

Blowmunkey I don't care. I don't know you, the last convo I had with you you tried ripping me a new one on fractals, or something equally distorted, and I left it, with your blaring errors in argument. I believe the thread was eventually locked.

Weren't you the person who proclaimed how right he was when Hawking said that he was wrong and that black holes could release information?

I spoke to a colleage of his on the net. Your point?

So that wasn't a lack of understanding in physics, it was just maths was it? They'd got the understanding right, but they'd just got the maths wrong? Saying "Information can't escape a black hole" compared to "information can escape a black hole" sounds awfully like a lack of understanding to me.

Hawkings claimed information was destroyed or sent elsewhere. I denied that is was so, and even went through three days of discourse with some colleage of his over this. What's your point?

Or have they now got the understanding perfect?
I don't so much chuckle at cringe that people can delude themselves so much for so long, particularly with constant contradictions (the "they understand black holes perfectly" comment just being the latest one).

It's not my fault you are not informed on other's work. That is what your schooling is for, please quit blaming me for things that are not my fault.

I think my problem with constantly rising to the bait that is David's post is I have a think about trying to correct people who are so far off course, even when its plain they don't care. I recently had a 100 reply "argument" with someone who beleived you couldn't prove Fermats Last Theorem because you couldn't find the largest cube. His latest theory is that -0 is different from 0. Its clear he's completely lost the plot, but I keep replying Same with David. I'm sure the majority of people realise how flawed his posts are, but I just keep replying I'm a sucker for stupidity 8(

You yourself said set your limits on your knowledge, so how how can judge what is right, and wrong if you are only partially aware of other's work, or their knowledge?

Assumptions...

 

[PGTips]

I spoke to a colleage of his on the net.

You said you sent him emails and he never replied. I've had discussions with collegues of his face to face about this stuff, does that make my point any more valid? No. If your explaination of your thoughts was as good in your emails as it is here, I imagine the 3 days of correspondence was them saying "Stop spamming our inbox"

What's your point?

That you claim our understanding of black holes is perfect, its the maths which is wrong, yet its quite clear our understanding is (or at least certainly was) far from perfect.

Of course, I doubt you'll see the flaw in your own argument.

 

[Blowmonkey]

Blowmunkey I don't care. I don't know you, the last convo I had with you you tried ripping me a new one on fractals, or something equally distorted, and I left it, with your blaring errors in argument. I believe the thread was eventually locked.

Your memory is the black hole here.

har har

 

[compact]

every mathematician I speak to knows that physics is nothing more than the section of philosophy that got to big for the philosophy section

If this is true, you're hanging around with some very, very bad mathematicians.

 

[David]

^^ Making assumptions, you guys in the UK have a bad habit of that.

You said you sent him emails and he never replied. I've had discussions with collegues of his face to face about this stuff, does that make my point any more valid? No. If your explaination of your thoughts was as good in your emails as it is here, I imagine the 3 days of correspondence was them saying "Stop spamming our inbox"

That would great, if I didn't still have the IRC logs, where the conversation took place.

I sent emails well after the fact. I'm sure they wouldn't acknowledge a no name telling them I told you so.....

That you claim our understanding of black holes is perfect, its the maths which is wrong, yet its quite clear our understanding is (or at least certainly was) far from perfect.

A massive cluster of particle with an extreme gravitational pull, and emits radiation at a lower rate than it absorbs new materia.

Of course, I doubt you'll see the flaw in your own argument.

Well you didn't point it out yet either, so....

I think I'll start pointing out yours though.


BACK ON TOPIC THOUGH:

I'm still waiting for someone to prove how information isn't energy.8)

Like usual you guys disgard the discussion, and start with the flamebaiting. I remember that shit from grade school, and high-school still. I thought people in college would be over that shit.

 

[PGTips]

^^ Making assumptions, you guys in the UK have a bad habit of that.

I was under the impression Compact was american?

A massive cluster of particle with an extreme gravitational pull, and emits radiation at a lower rate than it absorbs new materia.

That is like saying I understand the sun perfectly because it is bright.

Incidentally, you are incorrect. The output of radiation is a function of mass, where a less massive black hole outputs more radiation. A "micro-singularity" would output more radiation that it absorbs from around itself, and evaporate.

It would seem your understanding less than perfect too....

This is exactly what has happened I don't ask for trust, I ask for understanding, and the simple acknowledgement of my claims. Nothing more, nothing less. I will not prove it to you

I acknowledge the fact you are making claims, but I do not give you anything else without proof. You yourself said you expect noone to believe you without proof, so what do you expect me to say? Yes, I think your ideas (the vaguest of vague hints you've given of them) are superior to the last 100 years of physics in every way, and I will no longer attend any of my lectures because I now see them all as pointless when faced with your awesome insight, or instead that I won't (or anyone else who gives a damn about science and peer review) give your ideas any thought at all till we see proof and elaboration?

Since you expect us to accept your ideas without proof, by your own definition, you are a fool.

 

[David]

^^ I never denied being a fool. Your posting is getting erratic, are you ok there?

I don't tend to make negative assumptions, his semantical use was American for the most part. Hence the assumption there.

 

[PGTips]

Your posting is getting erratic, are you ok there?

I am quite alright. A quick bit of editting to make a certain part of my last but one post to move into my last post was required, nothing too bad. Just because you have had problems with making erratic posts due to excessive alcohol consumption doesn't mean we all do

^^ I never denied being a fool.

Glad we've got that sorted.

 

[David]

^^ I'll declare it valid as long as you admit to being a pompous dick-wad with a series of emotional, and personal complexs that reduce your own thought to babbling inconstancies, and disregard for semantics.

Let's not forget the intellect of a rat.