I love when I'm right RE: "Global Warming"

[Bill]

When have I disputed this? Why is it an issue?



Snipe, I am not being a smartass, I am trying to disabuse you of the notion that QM, Special Relativity, and Newtonian Mechanics are somehow "broken" and that Superstring Thery will fix or replace them. You are making some rather wild statements in relation to Physics and I can't let them slide by unchallenged.

-dale

What is QM if not an entire theory of crazy statements when compared to classical physics?

I may not enunciate what i'm a thinkin' too good, but i do know as much about the subject as any public educated Philly boy could ever be reasonably expected to know about these matters.

I have great difficulty in conveying my understanding, such as it is(some of the brane theory stuff really wracks my head), into words, but then....almost all of us have the same problem, eh?

[Bill]

You can still think DNA is wondrous, your emotional response to it is not important. The fact is that DNA can be broken down into extremely simple parts. At the molecular level, its complexity becomes simple. DNA does allow for an impressive array of organisms. It is indeed a very miraculous and important compound. However, it can be understood through modern science. We do not need to bring religion or intelligent design into it.

So can a battleship be broken down into extremely simple components(ultimately down to the atoms, nay, the particles of atoms), but only a dumbass would claim it was simple construct.

Therefore, you must be a dumbass...

[Bulgaroctonus]

So can a battleship be broken down into extremely simple components(ultimately down to the atoms, nay, the particles of atoms), but only a dumbass would claim it was simple construct.

If a thing can be broken down into a simple matrix of atoms, is it really inane to call it a simple thing? Yes, to us it appears complex. It has towers and decks and radio towers. However, in its most fundamental aspects it is just like the rest of existence.

Scientific advances depend on our ability to simplify things. I do not think it is stupid to call a battleship a simple thing. We must keep in mind what level of complexity we are talking about.

As a mechanism of war, a battleship is complex. That is, in relation to things at the functional level, it is an advanced assembly of moving parts.

As a physical material, a battleship is simple. That is, in relation to molecules, it is a simple assembly of moving particles.

We can accomodate both views within reason if you wish.

Therefore, you must be a dumbass...

My intelligence does have unfortunate limits, but I am not stupid. We have not gotten along well. I don't know where it started, but it need not continue.

[Bill]

Sure it need, you annoy me.

I bet you're hugely popular with the earth first crowd at Starbucks though.

[Officer of Engineers]

Bulgar

You know what annoys military people. Freaking idiots like you who pretends to know crap when you crap all! The 1st step to knowlegdge is "I don't know." We have no problem with people asking us for knowledge but when you come in speaking with all authority when we recognize the crap you sitting on, you're butt deep in it.

You have done that and continually proven an idiot time after time.

[Bulgaroctonus]

Sure it need, you annoy me.

I bet you're hugely popular with the earth first crowd at Starbucks though.

I will only offer my honest opinions on the forum. Right now, you do not annoy me, nor do I feel angry. I do not respect your actions, but that is all.

I will try to debate fairly and with candor.

If we cannot come to a resolution about our personality conflicts, let us leave that aside and focus on the argument. I have been attemting to do that.

May our conversations be enlightening.

[Bulgaroctonus]

Bulgar

You know what annoys military people. Freaking idiots like you who pretends to know crap when you crap all! The 1st step to knowlegdge is "I don't know." We have no problem with people asking us for knowledge but when you come in speaking with all authority when we recognize the crap you sitting on, you're butt deep in it.

You have done that and continually proven an idiot time after time.

Officer,

In our discussion on the Chinese thread, I did ask you for information, and I did revise my opinions repeatedly. I will always admit an error when I detect one. I'm disappointed that you all think I am an idiot. I can either attribute that to a certain irrational hatred on your part or a failure on my behalf.

If I am overstepping my intellectual boundaries, I will stop. However, I think I did demonstrate a good degree of flexibility and honesty in our last discussion. You objected to my interpretation of Roman history, which I clarified very well. I'll check the thread, but I don't think you responded to that last question.

I may be an idiot. However, you are rude and lack civility. Is that the mark of the military?

[Officer of Engineers]

I may be an idiot. However, you are rude and lack civility. Is that the mark of the military?

You don't know the military.

[dalem]

"Prove them wrong? Easily done.

Snipe Claim 1: Evolution denotes an intelligent design wrt DNA.

Dale Proof of Snipe's Wrongness 1: No it doesn't."

All you've done there is misquote me. Congratulations.

I've quoted you directly.

"Snipe Claim 2: Intelligence(or sentience) does not naturally occur, it is extremely rare in nature.

Dale Proof of Snipe's Wrongness 2: You cannot claim that sentience is not "natural" and expect that claim to have any scientific weight. It is an untestable claim with no evidence to support it."

I meant to say that outside human kind it is unnatural, because it is.

But even if true, so what? What does that mean in terms of evolutionary theory?

"As far as other sentient species, I would classify some of the great Ape family as sentient."

It's arguable, i'll grant you that. A couple of the great gorrilas may very well cross the threshold.

Even then, we're talking 2 or 3 out of what......1,000,000 species in the planet's history?

Oh there are a lot more than a milllion species on the rolls.

And it still gets another "so what"? Just because something is rare does not mean it requires a deity.

-dale

[dalem]

What is QM if not an entire theory of crazy statements when compared to classical physics?

I may not enunciate what i'm a thinkin' too good, but i do know as much about the subject as any public educated Philly boy could ever be reasonably expected to know about these matters.

I have great difficulty in conveying my understanding, such as it is(some of the brane theory stuff really wracks my head), into words, but then....almost all of us have the same problem, eh?

All I know from your posts is that you have claimed that the bedrock theories of our understanding of the physical universe are somehow deeply flawed, when in fact they are unforgivingly robust and successful.

-dale

[Bill]

Bulgar

You know what annoys military people. Freaking idiots like you who pretends to know crap when you crap all! The 1st step to knowlegdge is "I don't know." We have no problem with people asking us for knowledge but when you come in speaking with all authority when we recognize the crap you sitting on, you're butt deep in it.

You have done that and continually proven an idiot time after time.

It's a symptom of his age.

All 17yo's think they got it all figured out.

[Bill]

All I know from your posts is that you have claimed that the bedrock theories of our understanding of the physical universe are somehow deeply flawed, when in fact they are unforgivingly robust and successful.

-dale

I didn't say flawed, i said they do not reconcile, and they do not.

Classical physics makes predictions wrt to gravity that do not hold up to observation in the particle world.

Not my fault, just the way it is.

Regardless, we don't really know what causes gravity anyway, or why it is apparently so weak when it should be much stronger.

[dalem]

I didn't say flawed, i said they do not reconcile, and they do not.

Classical physics makes predictions wrt to gravity that do not hold up to observation in the particle world.

Really? Which ones? Gravity is such an infintesimally weak force at the QM level that it's almost always safe to ignore it.

Not my fault, just the way it is.

Regardless, we don't really know what causes gravity anyway, or why it is apparently so weak when it should be much stronger.

Gravity is a property of matter just like the other forces. It is not necessary to understand what causes it to model its mechanics.

The confusions you are hinting at mainly arise due to differences in scale. At the cosmological scale the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic forces are irrelevant and gravity is king. At the macro scale of masses and velcoities in which we live, the vagaries of QM are unnoticeable. Start accelerating to significant velocities and all of the sudden Einstein starts to take notice.

So you use different physical models when operating at appropriate scales, that's all. It makes perfect sense that there should be one overarching mechanical theory that can examine and predict the behavior of everything from a pi-Meson to a galactic cluster, and that's what the search for a GUT is really all about.

-dale

[Bill]

Do relative and particle gravity theories reconcile, yes or no?

Of course, the answer is no.

"Gravity is a property of matter just like the other forces.
"It is not necessary to understand what causes it to model its mechanics."

That's true for most things. I don't need to know how a bullet works to model it's effects, i merely need to shoot someone to observe them in action.

It would still be preferrable to understand what's at play wrt terminal ballistics though. Ironically enough, we don't fully know what's going on there either.

"Really? Which ones? Gravity is such an infintesimally weak force at the QM level that it's almost always safe to ignore it."

To answer that with specific examples will require me to pick up one of my Hawking books and hurt my head for many hours until i find the proper reference(he does note them- in both of his books). I am simply not familiar enough with the problems of reconcilliation to casually discuss the issue without a ready at hand reference material by my side.

Sorry, but i'm a dumbass. ;)

[Praxus]

Philosophically I do take it seriously. However, if I focused on the problem all the time, I'd probably just sit on a mountain and do nothing. Sometimes I just think of lighter matter.

Even in philosophy you have to assume you have free will.

I don't understand this. I wrote that the deranged tend to die out.

All arbitrary assertions are invalid. To assert that we lack free will is arbitrary. Just like it is to assert that somehow the deranged will survive (despite what the information provided by our senses and reason tell us).

I am trying to be disciplined about this. From my view, my rejection of free will is a product of reason, and not an arbitrary whim. Do you think I would arbitrarily settle on something as radical and initially depressing as this?

All knowledge is based on the assumption of free will. There is no real evidence that tells us we are deterministic creatures. Neuroscience does not imply this, neither does quantum mechanics, nor any other science. Scientific knowledge is based upon the assumption of free will (and therefore our capacity to know anything). So if there is no free will, science is invalid.

am not trying to introduce unneccessary variables. Earnestly, I seek not to deceive you or waste your time with things I don't believe in. My idea of no free will came to me as a shining example of my reason. I imagined a world of beautiful mathematical perfection, all emotions and thoughts conforming completely with physical laws.

Causality, as I explained before, does not disprove free will.