the internet

Post questions or suggestions here.

the internet

Postby adummy » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:57 am

if we are in a parellal universe..is the internet in the 4th demension..hard to put this..if we were able somehow to keep our computer open somehow to absorb information..or ask a question with our computer open, some way is this possible ? i ask this because facebook generated words for me, when i was going to sign up under a different account..it gave me..chreld quoted..and adiofis..2 differnt times..i decided to google the words and came up with nothing..then i bing them and came up with 3 sites for 1 and 2 for the other..when i think its ..adiofis i tried to translate it, my computer was loaded with 29 hidden objects 3 times..and this is from internet archives..my computer stopped working all 3 times..and i found this very strange..anyway what do you think ?
adummy
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:27 am

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:13 am

There's no such thing as parallel universes and your spelling sucks.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:19 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:There's no such thing as parallel universes and your spelling sucks.


But Dan...how do you know that for a fact ?
Why do you limit your mind to thinking inside the box ?
Isn't it herd mentality to only consider what you've been told to believe ?
It's not that imagining is a silly childish behavior..but that by opening your mind to the possibility that
you don't/can't know everything based on the current empirically proven scientific data known...there is more that
we don't know than do know.......don't ya think ?
http://www.physorg.com/news174921612.html
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:17 pm

There's only one universe by definition. Parallel dimensions might be a better term for what is intended. There is no evidence for such therefore no reason to open my mind to it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 pm

But why close your mind ?
Isn't it better to open your mind ?

How can you learn/know truth without an open mind ?

Physics/Science/Astromomy is still looking for answers, we will never find answers by putting limits on possibilites.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:40 pm

Here's an example of how a theoretical astrophysisist would be open to the possibilites of other deminsions....I can't imagine a scientist with a closed mind when it comes to things unknown...

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20832

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKJ6-WJoW1U


Show me a scientist that refutes the possibilities of parallel universes/multi universes/other dimensions.

The bottom line is that you can't prove it or disprove it.
But keeping an open mind makes it possible to explore and learn.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:44 pm

Kunga wrote:But why close your mind ?
Isn't it better to open your mind ?

How can you learn/know truth without an open mind ?

Physics/Science/Astromomy is still looking for answers, we will never find answers by putting limits on possibilites.


There's nothing for me to open my mind to - that's the point. When some actual evidence appears I'll have cause to open my mind. And science does not provide us with "truth".
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:51 pm

Kunga wrote:Here's an example of how a theoretical astrophysisist would be open to the possibilites of other deminsions....I can't imagine a scientist with a closed mind when it comes to things unknown...

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20832


Wow. If this isn't a person on drugs, I don't know what is:

Question: How does the possible existence of other dimensions affect our study of the universe?

Katie Freese: I was mentioning this one possibility that we are living on a three dimensional surface, but that there are other dimensions out there. In string theory you would need ten dimensions and it’s possible… There is a number of different possibilities. One is that at every point in this room there is a tiny curled up dimension that we don’t know about because nothing that we… that we can’t go in there. It is too tiny and nothing we know about can fit in there either, maybe gravity can communicate through these additional curled up dimensions. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that one of the other dimensions or more of them could be large and cutoff at the other end by another brain similar to ours, so people wonder well what is the affect of the matter, is there some kind of dark matter on that other brain and that is actually what we’re seeing when we look at galaxies or is there when the accelerator at CERN, the LHC, when they’re taking data are they going to see missing energy that leaks out into the extra dimensions? This again would require the extra dimensions to be somewhat larger in order for that to happen, but it is certainly possible.

Another project that I worked on, this one was a lot of fun. If we’re living on a three dimensional surface like that and it is possible for some gravitational signal or I don’t know what kind of signal, something to leave our brain, go into the extra dimensions and then come back in the distant future and if the shapes are right, so imagine our brain is curved and the extra dimension… So I guess I’ll try to illustrate, so our brain is like this and in the extra dimensions you can cut it off by… You can do a shortcut path by cutting across then you could communicate information in a way that looks like it is faster than the speed of light, so that would be fun.

Question: How does one visualize these extra dimensions?

Katie Freese: It is a spacial… I am thinking in terms of spacial extra dimensions, so not time. Well there are some models where you have additional time dimensions, but what I’m talking about now you still have this single time dimension, but the… So we have here you know the… You move to the right. You move up. You move… The three dimensions that we’re used and probably you could just keep going on infinitely in any of those directions whereas the other dimensions I’m talking about like I said if they’re small then… So where I’m sitting right now I could move in the X direction. I could move forward. I could move in the Y direction. I could move to the right. I could move in the Z direction. I could move up, but I cannot move in this other direction because I’m too big, so these other directions are… They’re like curled up little circles and they’re just really tiny. That is one possibility.


Incoherent gibberish.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:11 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:But why close your mind ?
Isn't it better to open your mind ?

How can you learn/know truth without an open mind ?

Physics/Science/Astromomy is still looking for answers, we will never find answers by putting limits on possibilites.


There's nothing for me to open my mind to - that's the point. When some actual evidence appears I'll have cause to open my mind. And science does not provide us with "truth".



But if your mind is closed, when actual evidence appears.... you won't know if it's true or not unless your mind is open to either possibilities.
Whereas if you keep an open mind, when evidence appears you will automatically be receptive to it.
In other words.....how do you know if the evidence is true or not ?
Faith ?
You are not a scientist, you would have to have faith that what they say is true.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:24 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:Here's an example of how a theoretical astrophysisist would be open to the possibilites of other deminsions....I can't imagine a scientist with a closed mind when it comes to things unknown...

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20832


Wow. If this isn't a person on drugs, I don't know what is:

Question: How does the possible existence of other dimensions affect our study of the universe?

Katie Freese: I was mentioning this one possibility that we are living on a three dimensional surface, but that there are other dimensions out there. In string theory you would need ten dimensions and it’s possible… There is a number of different possibilities. One is that at every point in this room there is a tiny curled up dimension that we don’t know about because nothing that we… that we can’t go in there. It is too tiny and nothing we know about can fit in there either, maybe gravity can communicate through these additional curled up dimensions. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that one of the other dimensions or more of them could be large and cutoff at the other end by another brain similar to ours, so people wonder well what is the affect of the matter, is there some kind of dark matter on that other brain and that is actually what we’re seeing when we look at galaxies or is there when the accelerator at CERN, the LHC, when they’re taking data are they going to see missing energy that leaks out into the extra dimensions? This again would require the extra dimensions to be somewhat larger in order for that to happen, but it is certainly possible.

Another project that I worked on, this one was a lot of fun. If we’re living on a three dimensional surface like that and it is possible for some gravitational signal or I don’t know what kind of signal, something to leave our brain, go into the extra dimensions and then come back in the distant future and if the shapes are right, so imagine our brain is curved and the extra dimension… So I guess I’ll try to illustrate, so our brain is like this and in the extra dimensions you can cut it off by… You can do a shortcut path by cutting across then you could communicate information in a way that looks like it is faster than the speed of light, so that would be fun.

Question: How does one visualize these extra dimensions?

Katie Freese: It is a spacial… I am thinking in terms of spacial extra dimensions, so not time. Well there are some models where you have additional time dimensions, but what I’m talking about now you still have this single time dimension, but the… So we have here you know the… You move to the right. You move up. You move… The three dimensions that we’re used and probably you could just keep going on infinitely in any of those directions whereas the other dimensions I’m talking about like I said if they’re small then… So where I’m sitting right now I could move in the X direction. I could move forward. I could move in the Y direction. I could move to the right. I could move in the Z direction. I could move up, but I cannot move in this other direction because I’m too big, so these other directions are… They’re like curled up little circles and they’re just really tiny. That is one possibility.


Incoherent gibberish.



The point is Dan....If an Astro-Physisist is open to the possibilites of these things ...it's not unreasonable to question the possibilities.
Finite thinking can't lead to infinitiy.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:25 pm

My mind is open to actual evidence. I know the difference between actual empirical evidence (science) and theoretical postulations. The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorising to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years. Much of modern QM, Astrophysics and Cosmology is totally theoretical. You realise, for example, that there's no way to actually prove something like String Theory, right?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:02 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:My mind is open to actual evidence. I know the difference between actual empirical evidence (science) and theoretical postulations. The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorising to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years. Much of modern QM, Astrophysics and Cosmology is totally theoretical. You realise, for example, that there's no way to actually prove something like String Theory, right?



Yes...but even actual "evidence" can change ....especially in relation to what we think we know about the universe.

I'm sure they're working on proving String Theory too.
But being we are not the experts in these fields....we are at their mercy as far as what they say as being true.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:37 pm

To some extent we are at their mercy, but not in relation to discerning the difference between actual empirical evidence and purely theoretical or math-based models.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Shepard » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:44 pm

The internet is not in a parallel universe because all of the information that makes up the internet can be pinpointed with our universe's coordinate system.
Last edited by Shepard on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shepard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:42 pm

Re: the internet

Postby Kunga » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:09 am

Dan Rowden wrote:To some extent we are at their mercy, but not in relation to discerning the difference between actual empirical evidence and purely theoretical or math-based models.


If we can discern this differnce then we would have to know everything prior to the empirical evidence.
Otherwise we can only have faith that this empirical "evidence" is truthful.

Things (such as the sun being outside ) are obvious...without needing empirical evidence or theorys proving it)
If something can be proven empirically....it can be disproven empirically.

To live in a world of dualites....there will always be dualistic ways of discerning.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: the internet

Postby Cory Duchesne » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:23 am

In a very general sense, applied to very small things and large, there are parallel processes, but only because we make these distinctions. We make these distinctions for both convenience of organization, to aid in rationality, and perhaps because it can be aesthetically pleasing. I've got nothing against conceiving things in parallel with each other, as long as you've got some good reasons for it.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: the internet

Postby cousinbasil » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:05 am

Dan wrote:The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorising to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years. Much of modern QM, Astrophysics and Cosmology is totally theoretical.
Cosmology yes. QM, not so much. In fact the QM nature of the very small is a real physical limit to how small and fast traditional computers can be made. The last 50 years the development of the information age and computing would not have been possible without the essentials of QM having been largely worked out just prior to it, and the fact that QM has never been known to fail will show the way to the new era of computing in which bits get replaced by qubits.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: the internet

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:22 pm

cousinbasil wrote:
Dan wrote:The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorising to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years. Much of modern QM, Astrophysics and Cosmology is totally theoretical.
Cosmology yes. QM, not so much. In fact the QM nature of the very small is a real physical limit to how small and fast traditional computers can be made. The last 50 years the development of the information age and computing would not have been possible without the essentials of QM having been largely worked out just prior to it, and the fact that QM has never been known to fail will show the way to the new era of computing in which bits get replaced by qubits.


+1
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: the internet

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:58 am

Dan wrote:The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorising to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years.


cousinbasil wrote:The last 50 years the development of the information age and computing would not have been possible without the essentials of QM having been largely worked out just prior to it


Brokenhead & co, always good for a bit of pretense and comprehension disorder. Dan isn't commenting at all on the many QM advances done way over fifty years go. Just go back and read slowly this time.

Quantum computing still has a long, long way to go. Perhaps it will become at some point useful in the realm of encryption and calculating more of QM math. It's of course hard to predict :)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: the internet

Postby cousinbasil » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:50 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan wrote:The latter have their place, of course, because it takes theorizing to move forward, but the fact is physics has been mired in the purely theoretical for more than 50 years.


cousinbasil wrote:The last 50 years the development of the information age and computing would not have been possible without the essentials of QM having been largely worked out just prior to it


Brokenhead & co, always good for a bit of pretense and comprehension disorder. Dan isn't commenting at all on the many QM advances done way over fifty years go. Just go back and read slowly this time.

Quantum computing still has a long, long way to go. Perhaps it will become at some point useful in the realm of encryption and calculating more of QM math. It's of course hard to predict :)

Ah, true to your nature, when you point out what you see as a fault in the reasoning of someone else, you are at that very moment exhibiting just that weakness. Here, you speak of a lack of comprehension. Immediately, then, I can see one more time that you yourself lack reading comprehension.

Dan said that physics has been mired in the theoretical for the past 50 years. My point was that the theoretical phase of QM largely ended about 50 years ago. Since then, it has found many practical applications. This is not limited to QM considerations of chip design, but extends to the operation of USB thumb drives, lasers, electron microscopes, quantum chemistry, etc., all practical developments within the last 50 years. This is all based on having been "mired" in the theoretical prior to the last 50 years.

When I mentioned computing, I was speaking explicitly of standard computing. My allusion to quantum computing was pointing out that QM does have a theoretical side still, but it is not a question of being mired as Dan put it. Rather, it is paving the way for something down the line. If it as you say that QM computing is still far off, it is so because there is not enough theoretical advancement presently, as it takes theory sifting into the practical for applications to emerge.

You are naive if you think quantum computing will be limited in scope.

Don't be so quick to criticize your intellectual superiors, Diebert - it's unseemly. If I am pretentious because I keep on top of scientific advances, perhaps you yourself might try showing a bit more "pretense."

And do try reading a bit more ...slowly. (Like that would help.)
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: the internet

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:30 am

cousinbasil wrote:... chip design, but extends to the operation of USB thumb drives, lasers, electron microscopes, quantum chemistry, etc., all practical developments within the last 50 years. This is all based on having been "mired" in the theoretical prior to the last 50 years.


Still not getting it, Brokenhead. Some USB thumb drive design is not on the blackboard of any psychics professor. Which part of fundamental physics research being done the last 50 years has developed into some ground breaking engineering then? Lets talks about that! I'm sure you can come up with something major.

You are naive if you think quantum computing will be limited in scope.


I might have been too quick to judge here. There has made a little breakthrough recently: Quest for quirky quantum particles may have struck gold. It puts topological quantum computing back on the map! As a side note, I was introduced to Leo two years ago through contacts at work and he's a fascinating open minded fellow when the formalities of science are suspended for a while. I hope he gets his break through.

As for any supposed intellectual superiority, that doesn't really count while at the same time having to be medicated to keep it together. Superiority only starts when being together yet unbound, unrestrained, when strong enough to be truthful in all one says and does. You're welcome to try.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: the internet

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 am

dilbert wrote:Still not getting it, Brokenhead. Some USB thumb drive design is not on the blackboard of any psychics professor. Which part of fundamental physics research being done the last 50 years has developed into some ground breaking engineering then? Lets talks about that! I'm sure you can come up with something major.

I can see that you are still not getting it. Since I don't think you've seen many blackboards of physics professors, let me explain something to you. If a professor can motivate a student by illustrating how the theory is applied, he tends to do that. I am aware that the the teaching philosophies out there are as varied as the teachers, but you can bet your ass that thumb drives and any other application that clarifies a QM development makes it into problem sets and onto blackboards. Do not be too quick to favor the intellectual effort expended by physicists over that by physical engineers. The proliferation of applications of QM in the last half-century is mind-boggling. That is my whole point.

dilbert - I was initially responding to Dan's lumping theoretical physics of both major stripes - the Big and the Small - together. The point, again, is that QM has found fantastic applications in the last 50 years, while cosmology has not.
It puts topological quantum computing back on the map!
Aren't you answering your own question here?
As for any supposed intellectual superiority, that doesn't really count while at the same time having to be medicated to keep it together.

I thought it was clear I wasn't being 100% serious. But here again a vague slanderous swipe. If I say, why dilbert, to which medications are you referring? You will reply, but I wasn't talking about you! So let's dispense with that usual dodge, and let me ask: if you are implying I am on medication, pray tell, what might that medication be? And if not, why make such a remark about "having to be medicated"?
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: the internet

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:55 am

cousinbasil wrote: The point, again, is that QM has found fantastic applications in the last 50 years, while cosmology has not.

That was not the point initially at all: it was about how much of modern QM research was being totally theoretical and not about the applications of any earlier QM breakthroughs. You forgot. Oh well.

if you are implying I am on medication, pray tell, what might that medication be?

How would I know? I only see the results.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: the internet

Postby cousinbasil » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:22 am

cousinbasil: The point, again, is that QM has found fantastic applications in the last 50 years, while cosmology has not.
Diebert:That was not the point initially at all: it was about how much of modern QM research was being totally theoretical and not about the applications of any earlier QM breakthroughs. You forgot. Oh well.
Yes, Einstein, it was the initial point - Dan was lumping theoretical physics all together. Or do you maintain that cosmology has has led to as many technological breakthroughs as QM? There is much - very much - application of quantum mechanics to basic, every day scientific endeavors. QM is by its very nature theoretical - but if the theory is to be applied, it must first be developed and well-understood. Even the predictions and spectacular successes of organic chemistry would not be possible without the overarching and underpinning theoretical framework of QM.

cousinbasil: f you are implying I am on medication, pray tell, what might that medication be?
Diebert: How would I know?
Why don't you speculate on the basis of nothing? You know, like you do all the time at GF. I will point out that you made the vague womanish innuendo. You are such a perfect little cunt, aren't you, Dweebert?
I only see the results.
The results of what? Or have you forgotten?
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: the internet

Postby DonaldJ » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:00 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:There's only one universe by definition. Parallel dimensions might be a better term for what is intended. There is no evidence for such therefore no reason to open my mind to it.



Because you haven't explored the mind deep enough to experience any universe but a little of this one, "from a flea's posture on a ball of stationary floating space-dust, seems you feel you possess the authority to decree that "all you do not know does not exist until you know it".. If it works for you, then run on it.. but doesn't it make you feel like "you are stuck in the mud"..?

If the spirit's brain is the mind.. what does the spirit see when it gazes upon the many other exciting universes..?

Is the great delusion, that there isn't anymore than what you know..?
Or is it all that you do not know that which others do..?

The thing is.. who are you, and what have you done that deserves any evidence..?
Define yourself, and your rights to god and life, and your need and rights to be spoonfed evidence...


The evidence simply flows in to those who are ready for more that Life has to offer those who have searched behind and beyond what is. with their minds switched on... What's your reasoning for not having found the evidence on your own, yet..?
Last edited by DonaldJ on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DonaldJ
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:18 am

Next

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron