You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 15
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
FTL movement in space is impossible. But the movement of space itself is possible
In my opinion, space without matter is meaningless. It is matter that occupies some space. Apparently, the root cause is matter after all. It is a property of matter to occupy space.
A question completely off-topic, but very curious to me. In Internet wars of 2012-2015 on "logic in fundamental physics" I have observed the usual psychological picture: people trust authoritative physicists, but do not dare even to subject their statements to any criticism. Not even a thought. Here, says a famous physicist about wormholes, so they exist. Lobachevskiy calls a curve a straight line, so it must be. About strings, about virtual current world (matrix), about ether and quantization of space I am even silent. There are those who believe that the whole world does not exist, because the whole world is in their mind, and a subject cannot prove the reality.
In general, our human world is interesting, and I am interested in opinions of people who deal with logic in any way - programmers. It is a field where there is no room for free imagination, and only logical chains work. And compilation will bring you down to earth by thumbing your nose at your mistakes.
Just a little survey of programmers on the subject of logic:
A reputable scientist picks up a piece of paper and says that the surface of the sheet is the plane of the sheet. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is the volume and that what is outside the sheet is NOTHING. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is space, which has a volume. That is, ours, the real thing. Next, he takes, bends the leaf, and says, "now the distance from one edge of the leaf to the other edge of the leaf has shrunk. It's called a wormhole." And because of it, one day, we'll be able to travel faster in space."
Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with the authoritative scientist? :)
Whatever authority in science or any other field of activity a man may have, it is necessary to understand that he is only human. Mistakes are inherent to a man.
Everybody makes mistakes. Even great physicists and great mathematicians make mistakes. When trusting anyone, one must remember that. It's a platitude, though.
There's a lot of room for imagination in programming. Logic may exist, but intuition is much more important.
However, everyone has his or her own programming. Some programmers don't have any freedom and flight of mind, while others have only this.
I suspect it is the same in physics and mathematics.
What happens to time when processes and events fade into history? Apparently, time dies and does not return. So - current time is living time, but, it is instantaneous, and future time has not yet come, we say. And we should, apparently, say - it has not yet been born.
That's right - matter in space. It is a single concept - matter cannot be imagined outside of space and space cannot be imagined without matter.
You are talking about the conventional understanding of the word 'space'. Traditionally, it is some volume of matter in which there is air, or no air, but you can move around. The space of a room, the space of space.
But this space is independent of the room and of the air. If that room is blown away by a tornado, space will still exist in that place. It will be occupied by other matter. But the room will not exist. They are interdependent entities on the material plane. They are both physical, but they are not both material.
Space cannot be unfilled, it is always and everywhere, hence it follows that space is infinite, hence matter is infinite throughout. There was no big bang, no point of origin from nothing, the universe has always existed. Simply it is impossible to imagine the infinite, because a human brain cannot think discretely, analogically. Yes and scientists cannot explain some things without attaching the universe.
No matter how authoritative a person may be in science or any other field of activity, he or she is only human. It is human nature to make mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes. Even great physicists and great mathematicians make mistakes. When trusting anyone, one must remember that. It's a platitude, though.
In programming, there's a lot of room for imagination. Logic may exist, but intuition is much more important.
However, everyone has his or her own programming. Some programmers don't have any freedom and flight of mind, while others have only this.
I suspect that the same picture is observed in physics and mathematics.
Absolutely right! The issue is precisely that most rely on the opinion of scientists, despite the fact that they are the same people. And no one wants to admit fundamental errors, it's nonsense. Although they can be seen on the surface.
An authoritative scientist picks up a sheet of paper and says that the surface of the sheet is the plane of the sheet. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is the volume and that what is outside the sheet is NOTHING. Then he tells you that the surface of the sheet is space, which has a volume. That is, ours, the real thing. Next, he takes, bends the leaf, and says, "now the distance from one edge of the leaf to the other edge of the leaf has shrunk. It's called a wormhole." And because of it, one day, we'll be able to travel faster in space."
Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with the authoritative scientist? :)
Look at the kind of people we have on this forum. They are able to argue from the position of not just some ordinary grey scientists, but authoritative scientists and even "put them in a rut" with their "irrefutable arguments".
But there is a small catch. They argue about science without knowing the subject about which they argue and take their ideas from popular articles of superficial popularizers of science, which themselves barely understand what they wrote, as well as interpreters already these popularizers.
I will not go into details of "deepest reasoning" on this thread, but I'm sure that if you attribute this level of reasoning to an ordinary gray scientist, he will just go and get drunk. And if a reputable scientist learns that "he reasoned so", he will just have a "heart attack".
Absolutely right! The issue is that most people rely on the opinion of scientists, even though they are the same people. And no one wants to admit fundamental errors, it is nonsense. Even though they can be seen on the surface.
I agree.
I believe that the closer a person is to the frontier of his knowledge or feelings, the more likely and more frequent his mistakes will be. One has to trust scientists for anything that has been tested and experimentally proven, but I don't think wormholes are among those things. There is a premise to the existing space-time theory, but no proof. So - the more vehemently one proves something in this field, the less competent one is in it.
But, this is my opinion).
What happens to time when processes and events fade into history? Apparently, time dies and does not return. So - current time is living time, but, it is instantaneous, and future time has not yet come, we say. And we should, apparently, say - it has not yet been born.
Time is a measure of perception of events. Current observable events are at the level of energies "everything is almost extinguished" and at a part of this level "life" functions, a part of which we are - it is like looking at ashes of fire with a thermovisor, it is like surrounding background and if to shuffle a stick there is a spark. An example of real physics is hardware solutions in IT industry, almost everything else is sawdust of money. You can't put the Higgs boson on your shoes, but you can be clever.
And presumably our sun is going to go boom, they say it's going to blow up the entire solar system. They say that it is not soon, but on the other hand we gave up eugenics with golden billion and decided to go to Mars and store seeds of plants not in the best strategic places. I think there is a mega bump in the road, probably the high percentage that the sun will rise in our lifetime and solutions are being worked out to get away from the Earth in time, it is clear that not everyone. So they show on television about the spiral of time with space and the technology of the Egyptians - well, to get them used to the new environment. )))
You are talking about the usual understanding of the word 'space'. Traditionally, it is some volume of matter in which there is air, or no air, but you can move around. The space of a room, the space of space.
But this space is independent of the room and of the air. If that room is blown away by a tornado, space will still exist in that place. It will be occupied by other matter. But the room will not exist. They are interdependent entities on the material plane. They are both physical, but they are not both material.
Space cannot be unfilled, it is always and everywhere, hence it follows that space is infinite, hence matter is infinite throughout. No big bang, no point of origin from nothing, the universe has always existed. Simply it is impossible to imagine the infinite, because a human brain cannot think discretely, analogically. And scientists can't explain some things without the universe being involved.
You are presenting a Newtonian approach. Modern physics is forced to move away from it. Just as it was forced in its time to move away from the concept of continuous matter. In the light of modern science your approach is a perfect example of violation of Occam's razor principle - you postulate an entity which is not necessary. You accuse physicists of violating the laws of logic, when only you yourself are violating them.