![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||||
Ocean Warrior
![]() Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,207
Downloads: 59
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Only time for a few points:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Relative strength: Gravitation = 1 Strong Nuclear Force = 10^38 Electromagnatism = 10^36 Weak Nuclear = 10^25 There's a reason the a tiny magnet can pick of a paperclip that has the entire mass of the earth pulling back. In fact, the relative weakness of gravity is one of the most intriguing questions of physics today, and it was partly responsible for the origination of SuperGravity and Super Symmetry. Furthermore, gravity is not "omnipresent" (general relativity proves this). By the way, my ideas regarding the counter-intuitive nature of nature are not my own but are generally accepted within the scientific community. Quote:
Ultimately, however the discussion IS philisophical. My position is that we do not yet know if we are capable of abolutely knowing anything. Yours is that we DO know that we CANNOT know everything. Frankly, I find my position more in line with the position you're taking as mine is absolutely void of absolutes, and yours gives an absolute in stating there is none. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||||||||
Soaring
|
![]() Quote:
That is the methodology of science, you cannot escape it. An observation or inspiration leads to a hypothesis leads to checking that hypothesis by seeing if that hypothesis can make correct predictions, and then either is confirmed if the predictions are correct: then the hypothesis is becoming a theory; or it is not confirmed, then the hypothesis must be changed or abandoned. That is how science works. You can do differently, but then most likely it is not science what you are doing. Sticking with this methodology leads me to say that our science only can examine what has happening, and how, since the beginning that we assume to exist. Maybe we will find information that way that suggests that the beginning has been different as we assume it today, or that – like I have pointed out myself occasionally in the past – maybe no beginning has been. But before that becomes acceptable scientific theory, it must undergo the procedure of scientific methodology as outlined above. Sorry that are the rules, that is what makes science actually “science”. Or do you mean that links between several events or several phenomenon not necessarily always are causal by nature? Most likely you then point at quantum physics. And you would be right, such non-causal links, like claimed by the theory of synchronicity, seem to exist. Same would be true for chaotic system unfolding an implicit order. But you see, even these theories have been the result of scientific research and causal conclusions. They are the finding of asking: “Why?”. Finally, you maybe refer to simply assuming something, or that something not only is that something, but is like this or that description, and thus explaining why it is so is not needed. That would be speculation not even of the standard of a yet-to-prove hypothesis, because it is not based on any observation in nature, any causal inspiration. Most of religion is of this type. Quote:
Quote:
![]() Einstein’s theory of relativity does not say that everything is relative, that is nonsense, although it is popular to quote him like that. What it says is that all movement is relative. But it also says two basic things: the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, and the speed of light is not relative, but absolute. Newton’s laws of movement for example have not become wrong since Einstein, they still work wonderful and correct, and we use them all day long in everyday life What has been replaced by Einstein is Newton’s understanding of gravity, and Newton’s validity in the range of extreme speeds and extreme masses (extremely small or extremely big) – here is where it fails and where Einstein’s relativity sets off. What has been done with Newton is to reduce the range in the spectrum of existence inside which we can uphold it’s validity. We have not deleted Newton’s validity all together. Quote:
![]() Quote:
However, I was after something else anyway. Without gravitation, there would have been no speed, no movement, no gas clouds accumulating to matter, no suns, no planets, not even atoms (always assuming the Big Bang theory has a point and it all started with a big bang). In fact, gravitation both in Einstein’s and Newton’s models are one of the most profound and most basic forces there are. That in most parts of space the measurable effect of it is very low, is no contradiction to that. But still you better do not come too close to a white dwarf, a black hole or a supernova. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() The positivist (Hawking) believes that nothing can be proven with any sort of absolute. While I understand that approach, I find it to be an unreasonable absolute itself. I believe that any system can be defined absolutely if all data about that system can be known. [/quote] A fall nto an eternal spiral. If chaos theory is right, than chaos is just an order of a hierarchic degree so complex that we cannot perceive it as order, nevertheless although any order unfolding in future going of development and evolution of the universe already has been led out in the inner core of nature and it’s phenomenons, it nevertheless remains to be unforeseeable and uncalculatable. Chaos guarantees unpredictability. And such a universe you want to collect all data about that it holds inside, while it is ever unfolding? I think that is a philosophical utopia, or the blue flower of science. The hunt for the final and ultimate world formula (which Hawkins some years ago declared to be no longer believed in by him). Quote:
Quote:
In a way, all scientific attempt to be objective, can only reduce the level of subjectiveness, but can never reach total objectivity at all. Damn, 20:45 over here, and I am hungry. I simply forgot to eat. ![]() ![]() Off and into the kitchen.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||||
Ocean Warrior
![]() Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,207
Downloads: 59
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
See, I differ with the general idea that you can absolutely determine for certain what our absolute limitations are. I tend to disagree that we can know for sure ANYTHING, including being certain that my last statement is correct. It's an argument based upon circular logic.
I'm not arguing or debating the scientific process (I'm not certain why that's even being discussed). MY point is merely that we cannot for all time state an absolute, including the scientific process. Much like Newton's laws, they work for now. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gravity is extraordinarily weak compared to the other fundamental forces. You bring up black holes. Black holes begin as massively dense objects collapse (generally due to the exhaustion of the fuel creating the atomic processes of the object). The mass of the fuel burnt off is no where near the mass of the black hole but yet the atomic processes (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force) are strong enough to prevent the collapse of said objects prior to the exhaustion of the fuel. My entire point was scientific (quantum and cosmological) in nature, not philosophical. Quote:
The bottom line, however is I think we're discussing two different things. You seem to believe that everything requires a causal relationship. I don't. If everything required causality than there would be no way for a causal existance to occur (think about this for a moment). If existance (related to the universe or even the Multiverse) is infinite than nothing caused it (hence, no "why"). Or, if something caused it to be infinite than that thing which caused it much, by extension, be infinite ergo not being caused (again, no "why"). Either way, at some point there is no point to "why" and there's only the what. Einstein errantly conjured the cosmological constant. He was wrong relating to our universe but he might have been on to something. Either way points to a limit to understanding - not that we are limited from understanding everything, but rather there is an everything which can be understood. But I do suppose that would make you right in the sense that we cannot know the "why" - perhaps because there isn't one. And that's my entire point. Ultimately, though, a very thought-provoking discussion this has been. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|