Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bane Necran
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:16:00 -
[451] - Quote
Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it? |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:18:00 -
[452] - Quote
Alright, I have one, though I suspect this to be more of a mathematics thing. But hopefully you can answer or perhaps someone else.. Why is the imaginary number system in relation to i = square root of -1 versus i = - , I've been trying to wrap my head around this, I understand the system as it is. But a philosophical and real life application seems to be out of my understanding. Isn't a negative number in itself imaginary, and simply a owe'd / wanted existing number of something. Like 5 - 8 doesn't work unless you add (-) to the equation which we can simply say is multiplied by a -1, meaning the answer -3 is actually (-1)(3) as it gives an ethereal answer to something that simply doesn't exist.
To delve further the negative sign itself is a symbol of imagination as there isn't -6 cars irl, it's simply a lack of or a want of 6 cars. To go further. To solve say square root -25 we change it to square root 25 x (-1) and get to 5 x square root -1 which we define as 5i, but couldn't it be that square root -1 is the same as square root 1 x -1 and continue on perpetually? To which case the only thing that makes it true is a single -1 or perhaps an opposite 1 x -1, as 1 x 1 = 1, -1 x -1 = 1, and 1 x -1 = -1, why isn't there say 1 x -1 = 1? or like x^2 = -25 (5^2i) it would be such that it's simply the same as -(5^2) thus the i is unneeded as the negative itself is imaginary?
I guess I'm trying to figure out the fault in my logic and would like a better explanation of this system as it as itself seems to be a different take of an already existing system in which it's purpose has no real application versus a negative as a representation of an imaginary number? Sorry if this is completely on a different title
But in regards to something like divide by 0, which isn't it simply the interaction of a (I forget the term) whole(?) number with 'nothing'? if you add nothing all you have is the same thing that you started with or minus nothing same thing. However when we multiply by nothing the whole number no longer exists, why? and why is it out of bounds to say division by nothing is nothing, generally multiplication and division are inverse to one another correct? If multiplication is # by sets of this # and division is # into segments of this #. What is the true need and limitation of dividing by 0
I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence.
-á |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 04:07:00 -
[453] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence. I cannot give you a good answer. Complex numbers exist to describe two-dimensional problems and you should not try to understand them in a one- and n-dimensional context.
Assume for a minute you had a one problem like a > b. You can transform this problem with a strictly monotonic function and everything is still in order. If a > b is true so would a^2 > b^2 and as long as a and b are positive. If you use an alternating function like the sine or cosine function instead then it would transform your problem into an alternating problem where at one point a > b and at another a < b. It is likely not what you would want, but create a new problem when things begin to alternate.
Complex numbers can be used to describe alternating problems. While a real number multiplied with 1 stays the same will a complex number begin to rotate when multiplied with i. So instead of having to describe a problem with sine and cosine functions can one reduce the math into a simpler notation. Adding two complex numbers together then is the same as adding two 2-dimensonal vectors together. Multiplying two complex numbers with one another is the same as adding the angles and multiplying the lengths of two 2-dimensional vectors.
Philosophically are complex numbers not more than a tool. There is not more beauty in math with complex numbers than there already is in math with real numbers. Complex numbers are merely being the prettier ones and if all the real numbers were ponies then complex numbers would be like trick ponies that can wiggle their tail like a propeller, but you would not go ZOMG, trick ponies!! on them, especially after you have seen other ponies before. |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 14:11:00 -
[454] - Quote
Fair enough, thanks, it'll probably expand further down the line as I take more advanced classes and then hopefully I'll gain a better understanding of it.
Thanks again. if anyone else has more light to shed I would love more explanations.
-á |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:08:00 -
[455] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:I see, so it's just a function that gives us the answers to multiple dimensions on multiple coordinates on a plane that would otherwise be untrue in regards to the real number system, but said system cant acocunt for it even though it is 'there' am I reading that right? Thanks again. if anyone else has more light to shed I would love more explanations. Yes. It was placed there intentionally to work like a doorstop for the human brain. Mostly it is engineers and physicists who use them. Their brains would have come undone otherwise if they had to use only trigonometric functions and were not allowed to imagine things. And I cannot blame them. Complex numbers do make a few things easier. I.e. in electrical engineering, where electricity is generated by rotating electromagnetic fields and as a result does the electricity alternate. Complex numbers let you specify electrical currents with their amplitude and their phase shift and one can continue to use the existing formulas for discrete currents and does not have to work with the trigonometric functions all the time. Work is still defined as W=V*A for example. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:39:00 -
[456] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:Alright, I have one, though I suspect this to be more of a mathematics thing. But hopefully you can answer or perhaps someone else.. Why is the imaginary number system in relation to i = square root of -1 versus i = - , I've been trying to wrap my head around this, I understand the system as it is. But a philosophical and real life application seems to be out of my understanding. Isn't a negative number in itself imaginary, and simply a owe'd / wanted existing number of something. Like 5 - 8 doesn't work unless you add (-) to the equation which we can simply say is multiplied by a -1, meaning the answer -3 is actually (-1)(3) as it gives an ethereal answer to something that simply doesn't exist. To delve further the negative sign itself is a symbol of imagination as there isn't -6 cars irl, it's simply a lack of or a want of 6 cars. To go further. To solve say square root -25 we change it to square root 25 x (-1) and get to 5 x square root -1 which we define as 5i, but couldn't it be that square root -1 is the same as square root 1 x -1 and continue on perpetually? To which case the only thing that makes it true is a single -1 or perhaps an opposite 1 x -1, as 1 x 1 = 1, -1 x -1 = 1, and 1 x -1 = -1, why isn't there say 1 x -1 = 1? or like x^2 = -25 (5^2i) it would be such that it's simply the same as -(5^2) thus the i is unneeded as the negative itself is imaginary? Wouldn't it be basically mean that whenever a number interacts with a negative number it always become a negative, and whenever an negative interacts with a negative it turns into an opposite. Thus the equation x^2 = -25 is wrong x^2 = 25 and x can be either - or + and the equation -25 = x^2 is written -25 = -(x^2) with aboslutely no need for (i) as the negative is imaginary. It's like saying 5 = 8 because 5(i) = 8 I can make up something up too I guess I'm trying to figure out the fault in my logic and would like a better explanation of this system as it as itself seems to be a different take of an already existing system in which it's purpose has no real application versus a negative as a representation of an imaginary number? Sorry if this is completely on a different title But in regards to something like divide by 0, which isn't it simply the interaction of a (I forget the term) whole(?) number with 'nothing'? if you add nothing all you have is the same thing that you started with or minus nothing same thing. However when we multiply by nothing the whole number no longer exists, why? and why is it out of bounds to say division by nothing is nothing, generally multiplication and division are inverse to one another correct? If multiplication is # by sets of this # and division is # into segments of this #. What is the true need and limitation of dividing by 0 I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence.
right, so there are a couple of things here, but the major point i want to make here is that mathematics is simply an extension of logic. The Conclusion Follows The Premise. and while this aspect of mathematics is absolutely fundamental to our universe, the nomenclature is not. we have DEFINED imaginary numbers to be a specific thing. they are no more or less imaginary than the characters "3" or "i". what they represent is what's important, not what they are called. in fact they are usually referred to by those who work with them as Complex numbers, and there is a whole field devoted to studying their properties called Complex Analysis.
the numbers that we are most familiar with are Natural Numbers. these are only the positive integers. we have 6 apples, or 1 troll, or 20 rifters etc... Complex numbers are entirely separate from these. they do not manifest directly in nature in the same way as -6 cars are no where to be found, but just as we may use -6 cars to say "you owe me 6 cars" we can use complex numbers to make mathematical statements that might otherwise be impossible with only naturals.
Complex numbers are commonly used in the description of oscillations, as anyone who as done AC circuit analysis can attest.
you are absolutely welcome to make up whatever you choose! the important thing is that you follow your initial premise to its logical conclusions. dividing by zero is just not allowed in "usual" algebra because it lets you do crazy things like proving 1=2 and such. you could, if you wanted to, create a mathematical system where division by zero is well defined, but this wont be algebra as most of us know it. there are many types of algebra with many definitions that people "just made up" in order to help them describe specific mathematical situations. for example, one of these most famous "other" algebras is Grassman or Exterior algebra, which basically defines multiplication as being anti commutative, that a*b = -b*a. while this is not immediately useful in, say, making change, it is exceptionally useful in the description of the Cross Product and Outer Product on arbitrary vector spaces, or calculating commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
it all depends on what you want to do with the math i suppose. i'm really REALLY bad at abstract mathematics so i hope this response helped at least a little...
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:43:00 -
[457] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :( |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:46:00 -
[458] - Quote
Mister LEM0NS wrote:I believe I heard this one from the science channel. The belief is that faster than light travel is possible and our assumptions are that it would literally be easier to move space itself rather than the vehicle.
So how would untold ammounts of ships (all fitted for 'warp' travel) effect the universe if theyre all sporadicly tugging everything in all directions at basicly the same time? Sounds like kids fighting over a blanket, only you know, there isnt a winner...
i comment on possible FTL travel methods in post #260 on page 13 =D recent calculations on the methods which involve the distortion of space-time ahead of and behind the ship DO indicate that the effects could be locally devastating! |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
162
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 04:12:00 -
[459] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well! there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water. hope this helps!
What if I have a container strong enough to resist the force of the water attempting to expand?
Would the pressure itself keep the water from freezing (pressure does create heat) or can I achieve a container of super-cooled but not actually frozen water? |
Korah Arnelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:29:00 -
[460] - Quote
What's your take on Peter Woit's skepticism regarding M-Theory? |
|
Hans Win
DECIMA LEGIO Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 19:44:00 -
[461] - Quote
How much incandescent light bulbs 60W each, can i power-on for 60 minutes, using only the entire energy of 1 hydrogen atom ? |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:05:00 -
[462] - Quote
What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) |
loco coco
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 00:20:00 -
[463] - Quote
Not sure if you're still answering questions, but could you explain why the ion engines of today are so far from what is shown in EVE, and how they could possibly be revamped (due to the only active ones being built 40 or 50 years ago) to make them get close to the effectiveness they have in-game? |
Bane Necran
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 02:23:00 -
[464] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:[quote=Bane Necran]Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?[/quote
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :(
I think you should look into it a little more. It's generally known to explain things more simply and with less contradictions than the standard model.
The main thing is that gravity isn't everywhere in the universe, but electric fields are. And as you should know, electricity is the only thing which produces electric fields. If gravity truly was the dominant force, it would make sense it would be pervasive throughout the universe instead, wouldn't it?
Also, did they tell you the Graviton has yet to be found? Meaning how gravity actually works is still just a theory with no hard evidence. So even the standard model has not yet fully explained or proven universal gravitation. If you wanted to, you could just dream up particles we cannot find to make any theory work, and this seems to be the dangerous game modern physics is playing. We're not going to find the Higgs Boson, and that's because it also doesn't exist, but everyone is afraid of that revelation because of what it means for everything we've built on assuming existence.
And i have no idea what HR diagrams are, unless you mean H.R Giger , but i may get back to you on that. |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 03:11:00 -
[465] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away!
Ill have to bookmark this and find the question I had that noone gave me a good explanation of the last time I asked it GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:25:00 -
[466] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:[quote=Bane Necran]Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?[/quote
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :( I think you should look into it a little more. It's generally known to explain things more simply and with less contradictions than the standard model. The main thing is that gravity isn't everywhere in the universe, but electric fields are. And as you should know, electricity is the only thing which produces electric fields. If gravity truly was the dominant force, it would make sense it would be pervasive throughout the universe instead, wouldn't it? Also, did they tell you the Graviton has yet to be found? Meaning how gravity actually works is still just a theory with no hard evidence. So even the standard model has not yet fully explained or proven universal gravitation. If you wanted to, you could just dream up particles we cannot find to make any theory work, and this seems to be the dangerous game modern physics is playing. We're not going to find the Higgs Boson, and that's because it also doesn't exist, but everyone is afraid of that revelation because of what it means for everything we've built on assuming existence. And i have no idea what HR diagrams are, unless you mean H.R Giger , but i may get back to you on that.
an HR diagram is a HertzsprungGÇôRussell diagram, and it shows that there are distinct relationships between a stars age, stellar type, color, and luminosity. the electrical model of the universe doesn't account for these relationships. as before, i have made numerous statements on what it means for something to be a theory so i wont get into that again, suffice it to say that theory = evidence. yes, the graviton has yet to be discovered, but general relativity and newtonian gravitation to a supremely excellent job at predicting the nature of the universe.
but who knows. it's been a while, so maybe i'll look at your model again. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:34:00 -
[467] - Quote
loco coco wrote:Not sure if you're still answering questions, but could you explain why the ion engines of today are so far from what is shown in EVE, and how they could possibly be revamped (due to the only active ones being built 40 or 50 years ago) to make them get close to the effectiveness they have in-game?
well, there was a discussion on EVE physics earlier in the thread. it is very unrealistic in that our ships behave as if they are traveling through some viscous fluid instead of a vacuum.
ion drives work by creating very stable, controlled plasmas, and then accelerating and focusing the ions of that plasma away from the source using intense electromagnetic fields. the change in momentum of the ions must be equal to the change in momentum of the drive. however, single ions are extremely light and so the change in momentum is fairly small. because of this, ion drives are either used for precise corrections, or for very long term accelerations (ion drives can use certain solid metal alloys as a fuel, and so can last much longer in a "controlled burn" then its chemical combustive counterparts). to make ion drives more like thrusters, you would need to accelerate the ions to much higher velocities, which would either require very large diameter ring accelerators or very long linear ones.
hope this helps!
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:35:00 -
[468] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.)
a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:44:00 -
[469] - Quote
Hans Win wrote:How much incandescent light bulbs 60W each, can i power-on for 60 minutes, using only the entire energy of 1 hydrogen atom ?
the mass of a single hydrogen atom is approximately 1.67E-27 kg. if we were to convert it entirely to energy we would get...
E = mc^2 = 1.67E-27 * 9E16 = 15.3E-11 Joules.
so you can power zero 60W light bulbs for an hour... (a single bulb, lit for one hour, would require 216 kJ of energy, or 1.4E15 Hydrogen atoms) |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:49:00 -
[470] - Quote
Korah Arnelle wrote:What's your take on Peter Woit's skepticism regarding M-Theory?
i am not familiar with peter woit's opinions on M-theory, but from my perspective, M-Theory, Brane-Theory, and all derivatives of string theory are NOT THEORIES. they are HYPOTHESIS'. string theory is not falsifiable. there are no predictions made by string "theory" that we can currently (or possibly, ever) measure in order to prove the hypothesis not false.
in short, such mathematical constructs do nothing more than what the current standard model does, and frankly, the standard model is more simple.
that said, when / if we DO get sufficient evidence for string / M theory i will gladly withdraw this statement and turn on a dime =D |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:52:00 -
[471] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well! there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water. hope this helps! What if I have a container strong enough to resist the force of the water attempting to expand? Would the pressure itself keep the water from freezing (pressure does create heat) or can I achieve a container of super-cooled but not actually frozen water?
something like that yes, either the temperature or pressure. at that point it would depend on the dimensions of the container in order to determine the dominating effect. super cooling may in fact occur, but at some point it is simply going to freeze and be a solid under extremely high pressure. it's sort of the immovable object / unstoppable force problem. |
Whitehound
103
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:21:00 -
[472] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine I already read it. It was a great read. Any other perhaps? |
Bane Necran
303
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
http://io9.com/5901578/one-of-the-most-terrifyingly-incomprehensible-theories-in-physicsexplained
Opinions on that?
It just so happens to use magnetic waves/fields as a way to unify the different fields of physics, but i assure you that is merely a coincidence. I'm terrible at math, and tend to work more with concepts, so i'd be interested in hearing your opinion. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
72
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 14:33:00 -
[474] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine I already read it. It was a great read. Any other perhaps?
Brian Greene's Elegant Universe is pretty good but he pushes string theory a lot.
also, anything by / about Richard Feynman is pure gold
|
Whitehound
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 14:54:00 -
[475] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Brian Greene's Elegant Universe is pretty good but he pushes string theory a lot.
also, anything by / about Richard Feynman is pure gold Many thanks. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
622
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 16:50:00 -
[476] - Quote
Question:What do you think about this?
Because it is very relevant to the core foundations of all physics.
|
Agamemnon Illearth
Lone Wolf Oni
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:40:00 -
[477] - Quote
I would like to have your perspective on reality itself.
Not the big bang and the subsequent universe we see around us, but rather why.
Why is there hard matter beneath my feet? Why 'any' matter or even energy? Why not an eternal nothingness. It is a question that bothers me more than any other yet I know there will never be any answer to it. I follow with great interest what a laman can in regards to science however I feel that even if all of this universe' puzzles have been solved I would still be left wondering why there even was puzzles to solve.
I would be interested in hearing what you think. Working so close with the minutia of the universe must create more questions for you. |
OldMan Gana
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:55:00 -
[478] - Quote
Will Manchester United win the Premiership ?
" I spent most of my money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best-á |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 20:24:00 -
[479] - Quote
OldMan Gana wrote:Will Manchester United win the Premiership ?
*shakes and checks his 8-ball*
yes!
because of SCIENCE! *lightning bolts* |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:13:00 -
[480] - Quote
Agamemnon Illearth wrote:I would like to have your perspective on reality itself.
Not the big bang and the subsequent universe we see around us, but rather why.
Why is there hard matter beneath my feet? Why 'any' matter or even energy? Why not an eternal nothingness. It is a question that bothers me more than any other yet I know there will never be any answer to it. I follow with great interest what a laman can in regards to science however I feel that even if all of this universe' puzzles have been solved I would still be left wondering why there even was puzzles to solve.
I would be interested in hearing what you think. Working so close with the minutia of the universe must create more questions for you.
your question is essentially
"why are we here?"
to which i can only give one honest answer: I don't know.
again, science makes no claim to know "why" anything beyond the superficial (why do the planets orbit the sun? gravity.). again, and again, scientific theories only describe two things: what is happening and how it happens.
of course, the snarky quantum mechanical answer to why there is matter and energy, and why there isn't eternal nothingness, is because if that were so, then we wouldn't be here to observe it :3 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |