Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 8 of 14
Citizen:
Know anything about Higgs Boson? If ID is real then this so called gluing force was designed to bind matter and energy. Does this hypothesised particle exist in a vacuum in your opinion? If ID is not real then what made it. I maintain that you can't have anything without first not having it. Again I refer to zero. In short where did all of the matter and energy in the universe emerge from?
Atomkey
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It doesn’t. The question is not whether adaptation occurs. That’s an observable, so we know it occurs. The question is whether or not these adaptations have resulted in different life-forms, or simply better adaptations of the same life-form. It is perfectly reasonable and supported by evidence to theorize that life-forms change to adapt to their environment in order to survive. But this adaptation leading to the present diversity of life forms is an assumption. We have never actually witnessed a primate, for instance, turning into a human, or to my knowledge, any other such combination.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hmmm... I don't think I've ever heard this argument put forward. There's tons of evidence. I'm a little confused by what you meant though. How does adapting to their environment differ from transforming due to environmental pressures?
This thread has advanced quite far and with my current efforts at work absorbing all my time I probably won't be able to keep up with this debate, so I’m not going to try.
Just a quite note to Citizen: Schrödinger’s Cat is not about randomness, it is about probability. The aspect of randomness in this G.E. is defined by the question, not a part of the answer. That’s important. QM is not a theory of randomness it is a theory of probability. One cannot assert that the universe is random by putting form such interpretations as Schrödinger’s Cat, only that the universe cannot be completely known by the observer.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
c is a constant as the absolute speed restriction of the universe due to mass/energy coefficents...
Its not really about the speed of light, as I understand it. More about the point when the mass/energy coefficent becomes infinate...
By give up the absolute nature of space and time I believe it means the difference between Newtonian physics and General/Special Relativity.
The universe runs like clock work in newtonian physics, it does not in einstiens.
I believe its accepted that photons have mass (and at the speed of light their subjective mass is nearly infinte) It is, however there rest mass that is zero, and this is perfectly possible...
To answer your question:
the closer that a ships velocity comes to c, the closer tau comes to zero.
If an outsider were to measure the mass of the ship the result would be the ships rest mass divided by tau. this means the faster the ship travels, the more massive she is...
This extra mass is from e=mc².
Further more lengths shrink; the observer would see the ship shortened in the direction of of movement by the factor tau.
EDIT: tau is a number given by the equation:
SqRt( 1 - (v/c)² ) (where v is the velocity and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, both in metres per second).
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I was under the impression that the true meaning of random WAS that an observer could never know what was going to happen next?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Atomkey, I am a Class 3 Conspiracy Theorist, therefore I believe our space missions and moon landings to be real ( a Class 2 would believe them to be a hoax, a Class 1 would believe them to be a hoax perpetrated by the aliens who live among us without our knowledge).
Originally posted by Atomkey:
I take it you believe the Apollo missions were faked? I've seen some stuff on that both ways.
I looked at the SSC site and I admit this is the first I've heard of it. I know what path to persue now, if I should ever succumb.
That's Class 3 Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The first one was faked, the following ones weren't, the aliens are in my cupboard, in a box cause I wont let them out...
what does that make me...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Modified Class 1 CT.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, that means I'm unique, which is definatly a good thing...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may be, but just because we don’t or can’t know fully the velocity and position of a particle doesn’t mean that it is random. Only that we don’t have complete knowledge, and that is the story behind Quantum Mechanics. In the Schrödinger’s Cat GE the randomness is define by the question. We assume that the cat will die on a 50% chance, thereby making it random. Randomness is not necessarily a natural phenomena; it is enforced. The issue here is that the Cat is in a superposition of two probabilities, which are collapsed upon examination to yield a result that may be random purely because that is how the experiment was set up in the first place. Quantum Mechanics tells us that at a certain level we can no longer have full knowledge of the universe. Unless we measure a particle’s position we can’t precisely know it, but when we do measure it, its position will not necessarily be random. If anything QM suggests that the universe is not random, because when we measure a particle’s position in an experiment in which it can pass through two openings on a 50% chance, it will always appear exactly where we measured it, even though classically that particle has a 50% chance of being somewhere else. This is a case in which, classically and intuitively, we should see a pattern very much like flipping a coin, but in reality and according to QM we see instead no randomness whatsoever. So the absence of full knowledge does not necessarily imply randomness.
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn, I was under the impression that the true meaning of random WAS that an observer could never know what was going to happen next?
The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.
Wow! That's totally it. You've solved one of the biggest open questions of the theory - where did they fake those films? Many thought it was in the desert, but it just didn't add up. What better place to do it than the moon?!!
The truth is out there!
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME