Alfa String

[Gary Rubin]

QUOTE (crelf @ May 23 2008, 01:41 PM)

Are you sure you're a physicist? If you were, then the secret infinity signal would have come up on your monitor

Damn, mine must be broken; it just keeps showing Planck's constant.

[eaolson]

QUOTE (crelf @ May 23 2008, 12:38 PM)

...and that's why almost all Einsteinian and Newtonian conclusions are theories, not laws. They haven't been prooved, so they remain theories. I actually think that we agree, just on different levels

You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Newton's laws of motion? The law vs. theory distinction is one basically of historical usage. Prior to about 1900, things got called "laws", now they're "theories". Almost everything referred to as a "law" is a relationship that can be easily expressed as a simple mathematical equation, but they're almost always approximations. Ohm's Law, Henry's Law, Raoult's Law, Coulomb's Law, Dalton's Law: none of these things are rigorously true, but the mathematical representation is extremely useful so they get called a "law."

Maybe we are just arguing semantics, but I see the "evolution is a theory, not a law," argument so often that it bugs me.

[JDave]

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 12:02 AM)

I don't think it's really a fair comparison. [government and church]

You're right. I was only thinking how they are both abused to exercise control over people, and they both have potential for good and bad. After that the comparison breaks down rather rapidly and it is comparing apples to oranges. Certainly the checks and balances and feedback from the people that some governments have are pretty nonexistent in a church. I was saying you could ask similar questions about each, but not that you could compare the answers.

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 12:02 AM)

The difference with Science is that it's not "True". It's accepted theory. . . .There is no "Faith" or "Belief" in science. Opinion yes, but not more. If the same would apply to theological discussions, I believe I'd be pretty much out of arguments.

I was thinking about this after posting my last response. It's really the source of the truth that is the difference. Science and religion both seek to explain life and the universe, to explain the truth. Science accepts that our current understanding of this truth is limited, and will change over time as people search out a better understanding of how things really are. Every discovery and proof is subject to later modification or total dismissal.

Religion states that some truth was given, not discovered. It is TRUE. It can't be modified or dismissed, it just is.

[begin rant]

And how does one know that it is true? Because it is in that book. But how do you know what is in that book is true? Because it is in that book. How can you validate those 'truths' in your book? Because God gave us that book.

Given that many churches and the people therein would basically use this argument is a very serious cause for concern. No wonder things like Pastafarians were developed. "How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true?" "Because I said so". Good enough, and just as convincing.

Another thing that bothers me is when one asks "What about this particular part of your book? It is really confusing, contradictory, and doesn't seem feasible." Often the answer is -- "O the wondrous mysteries of God. We mortals cannot comprehend this. It is beyond our ability to understand or even imagine." The question then begs itself -- "Why do believe it is true, then?" Because it is in that book.

I mean, forget your argument about trying to symplify things so our brains can understand them. If the topic gets too difficult to explain, then maybe our brains can't comprehend it. Faith is the only answer.

[end rant]

Sorry about the rant. I did it so you didn't have to. I do believe there is truth given to us, but I am just as frustrated with the tactics used by many to express this idea.

Churches do often play the 'Truth' trump card, which is rife for abuse.

[crelf]

QUOTE (eaolson @ May 23 2008, 01:52 PM)

Maybe we are just arguing semantics, but I see the "evolution is a theory, not a law," argument so often that it bugs me.

I'd agree with that sentiment.

[shoneill]

QUOTE (crelf @ May 23 2008, 09:35 PM)

I'd agree with that sentiment.

Oh, me too!

Or just accusing the others of being anti-religion just because you disagree with them on some detail of their faith.

QUOTE

If the topic gets too difficult to explain, then maybe our brains can't comprehend it. Faith is the only answer.

But why does there HAVE to be an answer to something our brains can't comprehend..... Can't we just understand the fact that we don't understand? Faith os but one of a multitude of options in this scenario.

QUOTE

It is TRUE. It can't be modified or dismissed, it just is.

In both sceintific and theological circles correct. The wasy to find the truth are quite different though.....

Shane.

PS My idea of a "Law" in science is anything which would produce scorn if I spoke out against it among a group of my peers. It doesn't neccessarily make it correct, but accepted. Like not using local variables in LV...... :ninja:

[jpdrolet]

Physical laws have a more restricted and empirical scope. The Law of Falling Bodies states that objects fall with a constant (local) acceleration but fails to explain why this acceleration is different at sea level and mountain tops, equator and poles. Kepler's law states that an object in orbit scans equal areas in equal time. Only the Newton's Theory of Gravitation offers a framework that can explain different falling accelerations and planets' orbits. The theory encompasses the specific laws.

[JDave]

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 26 2008, 06:21 AM)

But why does there HAVE to be an answer to something our brains can't comprehend..... Can't we just understand the fact that we don't understand? Faith is but one of a multitude of options in this scenario.

I think you misunderstood me a little. I think most religions accept that there are things we do not know, and things we don't or can't comprehend, which are 'mysteries'.

I was referring to when religion does explain something, or there are scriptures that state something, and it is convoluted or contradictory. To state that we can't comprehend it seems to be an easy way to explain away seeming contradictions or confusing language. Perhaps we can't understand the concept completely, but to immediately retreat to a position of "We CAN'T understand it" seems hasty and overly simplistic.

P.S. Science is one of those areas where you are discouraged from breaking the law, but if you actually succeed in doing it you may end up with a Nobel Prize.

[alfa]

I’m reading (I read too) couple books about Padre Pio.

During the last century, in my view, he was the man with the highest level (in evolution).

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (JDave @ May 27 2008, 12:43 PM)

I think you misunderstood me a little. I think most religions accept that there are things we do not know, and things we don't or can't comprehend, which are 'mysteries'.

I was referring to when religion does explain something, or there are scriptures that state something, and it is convoluted or contradictory. To state that we can't comprehend it seems to be an easy way to explain away seeming contradictions or confusing language. Perhaps we can't understand the concept completely, but to immediately retreat to a position of "We CAN'T understand it" seems hasty and overly simplistic.

P.S. Science is one of those areas where you are discouraged from breaking the law, but if you actually succeed in doing it you may end up with a Nobel Prize.

I believe it was Goedel (sp?) that showed that a system could not be proved from within itself. Being an element within the system "universe" we should not be suprised to find that we can not prove this system.

I think it was in a book "Five Scientist and Their Gods" that I read that one of them thought the universe was a giant quantum computer that was executing God's program.

Just my 2 cents,

Ben

[alfa]

In my view the biggest sin is perturbation of the wave function(|ψ> = c1 |Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7> ) of a high level person; they are ‘vibrating’ at the highest level and this kind of waves are very rare ’in the city’ for example.

The perturbation is coming from low level people, the huge majority.

High level people are so important for a country but low level people from governments don’t understand it.

[TobyD]

QUOTE (alfa @ May 30 2008, 08:06 AM)

The perturbation is coming from low level people, the huge majority.

How can I know what level I am at?

I hope this is not one of those "If you have to ask..." questions

[shoneill]

QUOTE (JDave @ May 27 2008, 06:43 PM)

I think you misunderstood me a little.

Reading your post, I think this is a fair comment. True enough, you were referring to contradictory statements. I drifted off into general faith. Sorry for that.

Shane.

PS Does Alfa's wavefunction explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_wave' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">this?

[alfa]

shoneill,

that looks like a soliton.

[JDave]

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 30 2008, 01:34 PM)

Reading your post, I think this is a fair comment. True enough, you were referring to contradictory statements. I drifted off into general faith. Sorry for that.

Shane.

PS Does Alfa's wavefunction explain this?

Not a problem. As for your PS, it seems that the Mexican Wave would constitute a massive perturbation created by the low level masses attending sporting events. Thus, it would be a massive sin according to alfa.

QUOTE (alfa @ May 30 2008, 08:06 AM)

In my view the biggest sin is perturbation of the wave function(

|ψ> = c1 |Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7> )

of a high level person; they are 'vibrating' at the highest level and this kind of waves are very rare 'in the city' for example.

The perturbation is coming from low level people, the huge majority.

[alfa]

All high level people were low level people; everybody with his wave.

[FLAnatic]

QUOTE (eaolson @ May 23 2008, 10:48 AM)

I have to disagree. The only place you can ever really talk about "proof" in any sort of technical sense is mathematics and that's really applied logic, not science. Nothing in science ever reaches the point of being "proven", just supported by a great deal of evidence. Even that doesn't mean that it's invulnerable: Einstein showed Newton was wrong and someday, we're going to figure out where Einstein was wrong when we manage to explain general relativity and quantum theory.

The problem seems to be that people with ulterior motives like to claim that well-accepted, supported ideas aren't "proven" and then their crazy idea has credence.

I just want to point out that Einstein did not prove Newton was wrong. Newtons theories work quite well for special cases(classical mechanics) I would say Einstein took it to the next level where newtons theories no longer worked, at speeds approaching the speed of light for example. His model is just a more accurate description.

Maybe I'm just being picky about the use of "wrong" :-)

[Justin Goeres]

QUOTE (alfa @ Jun 13 2008, 12:03 AM)

All high level people were low level people; everybody with his wave.

This, I agree with.

QUOTE

everybody with his wave.

[crelf]

QUOTE (FLAnatic @ Jun 13 2008, 10:42 AM)

I just want to point out that Einstein did not prove Newton was wrong. Newtons theories work quite well for special cases(classical mechanics) I would say Einstein took it to the next level where newtons theories no longer worked, at speeds approaching the speed of light for example. His model is just a more accurate description.

Maybe I'm just being picky about the use of "wrong" :-)

I don't think you are - I appreciate you saying this. Theories work best when they're repeatedly reviewed for continued relevance and refined if appropriate. Take the old model of the atom (show below). It's not physically correct, but it's good enough for a particular level physical applications.

I remember my first day of Chem 101 in my physics degree - the lecturer walked in an asked us all to draw a sodium atom. We did (the old concentric ring model), and he drew the same on the board. He said "most of you probably drew this - it's wrong, but at least it got you this far." I agree that "wrong" was probably not the right word to use - maybe "inappropriate for this physical application" would have been better.

http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_06_2008/post-181-1213369532.jpg' target="_blank">

[alfa]

A lot of low level people (80% how I calculated) were animals in theirs past life.

If you look at German players at Euro 2008 they have small heads and big body, adapted to run; a lot of gymnasts were monkeys in their past life…

Anyway if yours wife (husband) has a small cute head …don’t think you have sex with yours pet.

All the communists say they are from God; people don’t want to be low level.

All the anthems are about fighting, killing…animal instincts.

The huge problem is the religion; priests (they don’t understand much anyway) involved in this business want the money from low level people saying Christians, Muslims, Jews... are from God not from animals.

First thing you’ll read in theirs holly books (written by ignorant, dirty… people thousands years ago): people were created by God.

[Val Brown]

QUOTE (FLAnatic @ Jun 13 2008, 07:42 AM)

I just want to point out that Einstein did not prove Newton was wrong. Newtons theories work quite well for special cases(classical mechanics) I would say Einstein took it to the next level where newtons theories no longer worked, at speeds approaching the speed of light for example. His model is just a more accurate description.

Maybe I'm just being picky about the use of "wrong" :-)

It isn't even that Einstein is more accurate per se -- it's more complete. The difference is that Einstein's model reduces down to Newtonian mechanics when the "special" conditions of classical mechanics apply, for instance when not traveling near the speed of light or near a gravity well, etc.

[FLAnatic]

QUOTE (Val Brown @ Jun 14 2008, 02:32 PM)

It isn't even that Einstein is more accurate per se -- it's more complete. The difference is that Einstein's model reduces down to Newtonian mechanics when the "special" conditions of classical mechanics apply, for instance when not traveling near the speed of light or near a gravity well, etc.

Isn't it more complete AND more accurate? Like measuring distances on a sphere with a ruler and a tape measure. For very short distances relative to the circumference the ruler and tape measure will show almost identical results although the tape measure will still be more accurate due to the curvature, but for long distances around the circle the ruler will not work at all yet the tape measure will still work.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (alfa @ Jun 13 2008, 03:03 AM)

All high level people were low level people; everybody with his wave.

Maybe I have things mixed up.

So a new-born infant is not in an optimal state?

It is by interaction with our surroundings that allow some to achieve the higher state?

Ben

[crelf]

QUOTE (FLAnatic @ Jun 16 2008, 08:31 AM)

Like measuring distances on a sphere with a ruler and a tape measure.

That's a good parable.

[alfa]

Now I'm here:

http://phys.ubbcluj.ro/cepas/

[alfa]

Was a 4D conference; I'd like a 11D conference(string theory).