Area of a line.

You mean harware, surely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The content of your OP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I posted this for the very reason of critism. Feel free to continue. This is only a brainstorming session aimed to produce creative thinking within the confines of logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you only knew how brilliant your comment actually was...I am wishing you did.

 

At the moment I have nothing to say in contrary to your analysis, if in the future I notice anything in contrary I will let you know.

 

Yes but if a singularity is a dimensionless point, then where is it located if there is no space to plot it's location?

 

Molecules interact and change thier composition by giving up or taking in electrons.

 

How can you participate, then? Anencephaly should preclude you from the "discussion", as well as 'the confines of logic', which you roundly ignore in favor of more trolling.

 

If your comment was logically consistent then I would not have been able to start the topic in the first place.
Hence you are roundly ignoring confines of logic in favor of trolling and insults.

 

I

It is true that the interactions of matter in the form of molecules are largely explicable in terms of what the electrons do. That is chemistry - my discipline at university. But in the universe as a whole, the realm of molecules is rather a small and specialised one. In most matter in the universe, temperatures are not amenable to the existence of molecules, apparently.

 

Google the Ehrenfest paradox. Rulers (or a tape measure) at the edges of rotating masses contract. The circumference therefore increases as the rate of rotation does, relative to a stationary observer, or even one that is rotating with respect to a stationary wheel.

 

This universe itself is the point you seek.

 

Yes I did, because it deserved no better.

A need for consistency in reasoning doesn't abruptly stop when an idea leaves a mathematician's mind.

Bindings to reality are as impossible to ignore as the axioms on which mathematics is based, if you really wish to do science by means of reasoning. None of what I have said is in conflict with the idealized constructs of mathematics. Reality is simply a different domain of learning where mathematics is not always a good approximation. In reality there are no absolutes.

 

OOoo! I love it when we get down to Karl Popper, who was indeed a genius. His only trouble was, he was attempting to demarcate science vs. pseudoscience, and he claims falsification is the difference. It isn't. Falsification works easier than finding truth simply because of scope issues, and this is by no means an argument that is confined to science vs. pseudoscience. It basically works for anything a finite mind may consider. Falsification is simply easier to do than to find the whole truth out about anything. Whether that thing is science or not is completely beside the point.

ANY science can be falsified, and I'm including any scientific theory which most consider to be the real deal. Ever play a game with a 4 year old: Why? Because….(whatever explanation), followed by Why? Because….(this usually continues about four or five rounds). Ultimately, the adult breaks down and admits: "Because I say it is so, that's why.", which ends the game. Pick any science you think you know something about. Popper picked Darwins's TOE. Pick one part of that science you feel competent about answering the questions that might be posed by a 4 year old in your scientific specialty. You will fail, and it won't take very long. In pseudoscience, the only difference is, you will simply fail faster. Real science is nothing more than glorified trial and error. This is probably what emboldened Popper to pop off about the philosophy of science in the first place. It is the nature of science that answers to questions merely begets more questions. Falsify that.

The real demarcation between science and pseudoscience is that science can be scaffolded to do new science and continues much further in that process before breaking down than does pseudoscience. Science uses tools (induction) like no other field of learning. Hume and Popper didn't have a clue about what they were talking about. How could science possibly be done without instruments, scaffolding, or induction? Badly, that's how.

Popper's other mistake was tackling a demarcation of science vs. pseudoscience BEFORE he tackled philosophy vs. pseudo philosophy. The only tool philosophy has to work with is language build of symbols that are the tools of a finite mind to relate experiences which are not. As such, philosophy fails before it can even get started, because it cannot agree on what its symbols actually mean. What else would you expect of an area of learning with no formal methodology like science?

 

Dude, why?

 

I'm pretty drunk right now, but I believe you just signed your own death warrant. Do you want to feel like I'm an inferior person because I think mathematics. It plays a big role? Did you even think before you made that post? Really!

:EDIT:


Drunk and listening to a friend who wont shut up!

 

I did not mean to imply such a thing, BWS. There are lots of everyday static things on which one may use idealized math with no trade off in terms of consistency. This is a HUGE roll.

Only if you are trying do physics would any of this make any real difference.

 

Because philosophy is not science. It's much older, and much more prone to problems within the discipline itself which are nearly impossible to sort out. Why should anyone be paying attention to Popper, or falsification, or anything he said or wrote?

Cosmological theories, mainstream or otherwise are, by and large, not falsifiable by any practical means. Fear not. They are still science. Unless you pay too much attention to Popper, in which case science doesn't actually have anything going for it that pseudoscience doesn't also have.

To which you again respond: "Why?"

And finally…. "Because my mind is just to small to fit in any more layers of causality."

That was fun. Thanks, Dr. Toad!

 

space is a superposition of the singular dimension of time with all of the directions from which energy may propagate, including points along a straight line which appears to us to define where energy is propagating. In other words, energy may (appear to) propagate, and energy may rotate. This is what the space we seem to perceive is. There is only time and energy, and the quantum fields of which energy, bound or unbound is an excitation.

But this gets dangerously close to the forum's third rail, which is the direct question: "What is time?" at which point, I predict this thread and everything in it will obediently and unceremoniously self-destruct.

 

Danshawen... OK. I wasn't aware this was philosophy, but I'm often mistaken.

Pseudoscience, maybe? I don't think I'm qualified to post here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!