 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and
> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
> (though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a
> long time).
> Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant
> for translation and rotation.
> That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and
> light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not
> science. ;)
AFAIK you have to assume c to be constant to all (inertial) observers
in order to deduce the Lorentz transformations, not the other way around.
(The deduction isn't actually all that complicated.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2011 11:24 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> like reversable instructions (the idea being that its less costly to
>> "undo" some things, in terms of heat and power use, than to completely
>> replicate an entire set of processes, when only one step in the whole
>> process differs),
>
> FWIW, that's not at all what reversible computing is about. Reversible
> computing is a necessary prelude to quantum computing.
>
Actually, no, its not, really. The article I read on the subject was
*purely* as a means to reduce the amount of switching needed, to reduce
power usage and heat. It was an "alternate" design to existing ones,
which would allow more speed, but at less cost. What, if anything, it
had to do with quantum computing, from that article, would be rather
unclear, since it quite literally never mentioned it at all.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2011 23:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and
>> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
>> (though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a
>> long time).
>> Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant
>> for translation and rotation.
>> That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and
>> light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not
>> science. ;)
>
> AFAIK you have to assume c to be constant to all (inertial) observers
> in order to deduce the Lorentz transformations, not the other way around.
> (The deduction isn't actually all that complicated.)
There are more ways to get the same result. You give the traditional
method. The one I described here works the other way around. You assume
a 4 dimensional universe and the rest follows from that. E.g. Maxwell's
equations and a constant light speed are a property of that space, as
strange as it sounds.
Note that it is all maths until the moment that you postulate (or
observe) that our universe actually has 3 space and 1 time dimension.
When my teacher did exactly this on the blackboard it was almost a
divine revelation for me. For days I was like 'wow' and Genesis 1:3 has
never had the same feeling again. I know people use Maxwell's equations
and add 'and there was light'; you can get t-shirts with that text. In
reality it is even much deeper, you only need space and time. Genesis
1:3 is a direct consequence of Genesis 1:1, it is totally superfluous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/01/2011 3:19 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> It's hard to imagine how life could form without water.
>
I'm familiar with the view that water is important and perhaps essential
for life to develop and survive. It may well be correct or at least the
most likely environment for life by far.
But it is interesting to think about what truly different environments
might mean to life.
Rather than define liquid water as the essential requirement for life, I
think the criteria might be more like:
a) A medium that provides both persistence and variability with enough
complexity to support non-trivial patterns of organisation
b) An energy gradient that is neither too small nor too great for
whatever the medium is - at least in some local regime for some period
of time
c) Time
Given those factors it is possible to imagine life in all sorts of
situations where liquid water is not an important factor.
There isn't anything in the meta-mechanism of evolution that requires H2O.
Then there could be forms of life that started in a water rich
environment but evolved beyond that requirement.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
> OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than 4
> space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem
> compatible with reality.
Except you just included "c" as a constant in that formula, which was the
point. If "c" varies depending on how fast you're going, that whole formula
falls apart.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically
> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no evidence
> this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that *no* one,
> neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this argument as an "in"
> for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what is going on.
I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It was an "alternate" design to existing ones,
> which would allow more speed, but at less cost.
Errr, no, not really. The thing about reversible computing is that it takes
just as much energy to run in the forward direction if you want to progress
at the same speed. If you get half way through a calculation and stop
applying a power gradient, you're equally likely to go either direction. You
can use arbitrarily little energy, but you'll go arbitrarily slowly forward.
> What, if anything, it
> had to do with quantum computing, from that article, would be rather
> unclear, since it quite literally never mentioned it at all.
Quantum computing is the only *actual* reversible machines out there, afaik.
(Well, reversible in the sense of actually saving power to do so.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
> "either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
> the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
> not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
> is called a false dichotomy.
No. I'm asking if God didn't create the universe and humans personally, why
humans would have any moral obligation to God. Why is it the case that we
*should* obey God, rather than just God imposing his will on us like the
ruler of an invading army would?
> Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
> mean that the gist of the story is not true.
I'm asking what parts you think is the essential "gist" that would lead to a
real actual Son Of God being sacrificed being necessary for the eternal
salvation of your soul.
You can't just say "it's not true, but you should believe the results of it
as if it was true." If it's an allegory for something that *actually*
happened and indeed *is* actually happening, you ought to be able to say
what it is that is *actually* happening that leads to the same conclusions
as the allegory. You can't say "it's just a metaphor for something else that
I can't describe, but you should come to the same conclusions anyway."
> Just because something is
> expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
> false.
I'm just asking what could possibly be the actuality that would lead to the
same conclusions.
> Another mistake you are doing is straw man argumentation: You are taking
> the (well, *a*) literal interpretation of the scripture and then mocking it,
> arguing that since it makes no sense, nothing of it can be true (not even
> the idea that is being expressed in allegorical form).
I'm not mocking anything. I'm sincerely asking for an interpretation of the
scripture that's consistent with the Big Bang and evolution wherein the
execution of a Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago has an effect on my eternal soul.
> Note that I'm not saying anything about the story is true. I'm just
> saying that your argumentation is fallacious.
It's not an argument. It's a question. You say "it's really an allegory,
it's not true, but the conclusions are the same." I'm asking what the truth
is that would lead to that allegory and the same conclusions.
I.e., you say "just because it's allegorical doesn't mean it isn't
describing a real event." Fine. What's the "real event" that Genesis is
describing? Then, given that real event, where does Jesus dying for your
sins come into it? I'm happy to listen to your description with an open
mind. But it's a cop-out for you to follow "it's just allegorical but
describing a real event" with "and by the way, you have to invent a
satisfactory real event for yourself."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-1-2011 3:37, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
>
>> OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than
>> 4 space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem
>> compatible with reality.
>
> Except you just included "c" as a constant in that formula, which was
> the point. If "c" varies depending on how fast you're going, that whole
> formula falls apart.
?? I defined a metric on my space, that is all. OK, I added a 'c' to
keep consistent with ordinary people*. No self respecting theoretical
physicist would do that. (But then they sometimes don't know what their
formulas mean in real life as they lost track what the power of 'c' is
in their formulas; 'c' is in their system a constant of 1). That the c
turns out to have a meaning in real life is a surprise.
In fact it doesn't, remember we were just doing maths. All we know is
that there are coupled vector and scalar fields, with solutions that
propagate out with a speed 'c'. If we identify those with the E and B
field what propagates out is light, but then we are in the physical world.
A more consistent implementation of your proposal would be to define a
distance as (px)^2+(qy)^2+(rz)^2-(ct)^2 where p,q,r, and c depend on
position in space and/or velocity (and/or on higher orders derivatives).
I am sure there are some mathematicians studying those too. Perhaps some
of those can even be forced to be Galileo or Lorentz invariant too.
*) Note that I forgot to square it, the dimensions don't add up.
Probably my teacher first did it without this constant or with another
constant to remind us later that it had a dimension of (m/s)^2
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2011 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically
>> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no
>> evidence this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that
>> *no* one, neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this
>> argument as an "in" for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what
>> is going on.
>
> I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.
>
?? I am saying, if the universe isn't logically consistent than science
would have to be wrong on a huge scale, but the morons that use that as
an excuse to claim anything else is better wouldn't have a leg to stand
on either. You would need to.. have an inconsistent universe, which
never the less, managed to be consistent on the large scale only. Like..
statistically stable, but completely unstable on the basic level.
Mind, this wouldn't preclude it being consistent, it would only mean
that events where not predictable on the smallest scale, but that the
law of averages/big numbers both made it consistent once you had enough
events to look at.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
