|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:00 PM |
|
|
I didn't mean to ignore you..? I agree that there are certain things that make absolute sense, and things that maybe not so much. But for a perfectly rational world, everything would have to make sense..all the time. Which just does not happen.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:01 PM |
|
|
The distance of the sun? What has the distance of the Earth to the sun to with the speed of light?
The distance of the sun is measured with simple trigonometric functions. The greeks did that over two thousand years ago. They just needed lunar and solar eclipses, after they had determined the size of the earth.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But for a perfectly rational world, everything would have to make sense..all the time. Which just does not happen.
Are kidding? What does "being rational" having to do with "making sense"?
And why wouldn't insects according to physics be able to fly, for that matter?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:05 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:06, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Again I stand corrected. Shows what a public school education can lead to. The time it takes light to reach us from the sun is approx 8 minutes. Since the speed of light is a constant, it would be feasible to calculate the distance from the sun to the earth with that knowledge, even if difficult.
Edit : If I remember correctly they would be too heavy to achieve lift?
____________
Message received.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:17 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 13:18, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
greeks
It happens in the middle east. Greeks have their knowledge from there.
Quote:
I agree that there are certain things that make absolute sense
Not the case with the insects in my post...
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again I stand corrected. Shows what a public school education can lead to. The time it takes light to reach us from the sun is approx 8 minutes. Since the speed of light is a constant, it would be feasible to calculate the distance from the sun to the earth with that knowledge, even if difficult.
Edit : If I remember correctly they would be too heavy to achieve lift?
Mytical, please. How would you know that the light to reach us from the sun takes about 8 minutes, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE DISTANCE AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT ALREADY? *Shakes head*
For the insects and their ability to fly - if the laws of physics enables us to let a Jumbo or a Galaxy fly, then what would be wrong with a moth flying?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You may ignore me, but you know that according to the physicist and it's laws there should be no flying insects, but there are.
Excuse me?
Explain.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
greeks
It happens in the middle east. Greeks have their knowledge from there.
Not that I know of. The first one to really determine the circumference of the Earth was Erathostenes in the 3rd century before Christ - at least as far as we know.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:17, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Not that I know of. The first one to really determine the circumference of the Earth was Erathostenes in the 3rd century before Christ - at least as far as we know.
Do you know about Babylon and other middle-eastern early civilizations?
Quote:
For the insects and their ability to fly - if the laws of physics enables us to let a Jumbo or a Galaxy fly, then what would be wrong with a moth flying?
No, Vokial is both right and wrong, and you are talking about something else JJ. First of all we are talking about organic (as in organisms) objects and self-powered, not by propulsion or anything but by their own force (exerted from organic stuff, like muscles).
The reason he is right is that indeed, insects any bigger than their approximately size would be unable to fly. They would be too heavy compared to their force that they can lift themselves. Mass increases with volume, an approximation for force is just a squared, not cubed, formula, or so I heard.
This is another reason why insects can be very very agile relative to their size, compared to an Elephant. It's all because of organism-design limitations (by "organism design" I mean everything that makes up all organisms, like skeletons, muscles, whatever).
I don't think a Galaxy or a plane or a helicopter is made of that. 
EDIT: I'm not sure that Black Holes would be that weird. I mean sure, time may stop for you, I have NO IDEA how that might look like, but in my opinion (and articles I linked), time is just a measure of change. For that reason, it would be like freezing yourself, AND your brain, so you would notice "an instant". From outside i don't think it's that problematic, they'll see you simply fall in the Black Hole.
"spacetime" is a wrong concept because time doesn't exist as a special dimension, it's either a spatial dimension, or just an abstract concept we use to measure the differences we perceive in space.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not that I know of. The first one to really determine the circumference of the Earth was Erathostenes in the 3rd century before Christ - at least as far as we know.
Do you know about Babylon and other middle-eastern early civilizations?
I bet that know more about them than you, but Erastothenes is still the first who determined the size of the Earth. So before you ask nonsensical questions, next time you should check before ou write something.
For the "problem" of insects not being able to fly if it was for the laws of Aerodynamics - that's a myth. You may check this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee
The gist of it, though, is that while people did know physics ad aerodynamics quite well, that didn't know squat about insects and how their wings are moved and so on. So the reasons for this supposed paradoxon is the fact that some people made a couple of (wrong) assumptions about insects that could be clarified only in 1996, when some experiments were made.
About Black Holes I'm going to spread the blanket of silence over your revelations about time and possible personal experiences of being in a Black Hole.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I bet that know more about them than you, but Erastothenes is still the first who determined the size of the Earth. So before you ask nonsensical questions, next time you should check before ou write something.
Size of the Earth? I thought we were talking about astronomy and distance to the Sun.
Quote:
For the "problem" of insects not being able to fly if it was for the laws of Aerodynamics - that's a myth. You may check this here:
I do not see how that has ANY relevance to what I just said about it.
Quote:
About Black Holes I'm going to spread the blanket of silence over your revelations about time and possible personal experiences of being in a Black Hole.
I like your ignorance sometimes. The difference is that you only read what you expect from my posts. I did say that I have no idea how it would "feel" like, it would probably be an instant, since a freezed brain can't think (freezed NOT in temperature, but in ALL change!! this is the relativity physics) so it won't "experience" anything. So the experience thing you just said is moot and at best your wrong interpretation.
As for time, I already said I linked it before, but here for reference:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
yes amazing, I do research 
also of note is that assuming a time dimension exists means that time changes. So time, which is a measure of change, changes. Therefore change changes. You can imagine why I do not acknowledge such mystical dimension?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
@Rarensu
Quote:
Law 2: entropy increases.
Plants decrease entropy. They bind free energy into chemical bonds and arrange molecules into nice neat patterns. And when they do this, they don't eject entropy into their environment to balance the enthalpy.
Rarensu, at the risk of being accused of attacking you again, I have to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. No, seriously. I'm not trying to be rude. It's just pretty obvious that you have no formal education in thermodynamics. For instance, I wonder if you understand that entropically unfavorable chemical reactions can occur (and do, all the time) with enough added input of energy. Such as that coming from, for example, the omnipresent high energy photon source known as...the sun.
I could, obviously, sit here and try to make you understand why what you wrote is completely wrong, but I get the distinct impression that you wouldn't really be interested. But if that changes, let me know.
Quote:
Also, Quantum Entanglement.
Yeah, right.
@Mytical
Quote:
Rational is good, I will be the first to admit. Heck, I'd prefer if the entire world made logical sense. It doesn't, unfortunately, though some try their best to convince themselves it does. Random events happen. Like somebody's breaks failing (or similar) for absolutely no reason. Personally I think the world is irrational, but we have to make sense of it somehow, so we put it in a little box. We call what is inside that box 'rational' and everything outside of it 'irrational'. Sometimes we get lucky and make sense of something else and put it in the box with everything else.
The emphasis is mine. I think it's important to understand that "random" does not mean "no cause", and furthermore that we use the word "random" a lot of times when it does not apply.
For instance, there has never been a time in the history of the Universe when someone's breaks failed "for no reason". There is always a reason.
@VokialBG
Quote:
You may ignore me, but you know that according to the physicist and it's laws there should be no flying insects, but there are.
Wait, let me guess. Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says so, right?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 07:21 PM |
|
|
What the hell is "entropy" anyway? Is it the 'balance' or 'order' in the Universe? What does high entropy mean, perfect balance, or total imbalance?
I know the concept, but I cannot seem to find anything that explains it precisely. I know the term from compression algorithms (where balance is desired), but I'm not sure if it applies.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 07:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I bet that know more about them than you, but Erastothenes is still the first who determined the size of the Earth. So before you ask nonsensical questions, next time you should check before ou write something.
Size of the Earth? I thought we were talking about astronomy and distance to the Sun.
PLEASE! "Astronomy" as in "look at those nifty objects in heavens" has nothing to do with determining the Distance of the EARTH to the SUN! For heaven's sake, Death, this is not even half-knowledge you are demonstrating. Do some research.
Quote:
Quote:
For the "problem" of insects not being able to fly if it was for the laws of Aerodynamics - that's a myth. You may check this here:
I do not see how that has ANY relevance to what I just said about it.
Which is supposed to say you wanted to sneak off-topic again? ON-topic is that, SUPPOSEDLY, physical laws stated that insects actually can't fly. I corrected that. If you feel that correction had nothing to do with what you say, then you were off-topic.
No, I checked again, what you write is just wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
About Black Holes I'm going to spread the blanket of silence over your revelations about time and possible personal experiences of being in a Black Hole.
I like your ignorance sometimes. The difference is that you only read what you expect from my posts. I did say that I have no idea how it would "feel" like...
Please. You might just as well say that you have no idea how it feels lke to be within the sun. That's just nonsense.
Quote:
As for time, I already said I linked it before, but here for reference:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
yes amazing, I do research
You call that a reference and research?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 07:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PLEASE! "Astronomy" as in "look at those nifty objects in space" has nothing to do with determining the Distance of the EARTH to the SUN! For heaven's sake, Death, this is not even half-knowledge you are demonstrating. Do some research.
Ever heard of triangulation?
Quote:
Which is supposed to say you wanted to sneak off-topic again? ON-topic is that, SUPPOSEDLY, physical laws stated that insects actually can't fly. I corrected that. If you feel that correction had nothing to do with what you say, then you were off-topic.
No, I checked again, what you write is just wrong.
No, BIGGER insects than their size would be unable to fly. Do I seriously have to quote myself and emphasis on that? I just explained why Vokial may have had a confusion, because what he said is true but only when applied to BIGGER insects.
I suppose FOR YOU, it's just a COINCIDENCE that they are ALL SMALL right?
Quote:
Please. You might just as well say that you have no idea how it feels lke to be within the sun. That's just nonsense.
That would be nonsense because I speak the truth?
In all honesty, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry 
Quote:
You call that a reference and research?
Time doesn't exist in QM. QM is just the building blocks of the Universe. Therefore, time cannot "exist" because if it existed it must be made of something other than the building blocks which don't have it. Which is ridiculous.
It would be like saying that everything digital is made of bits. Which would be true. Saying that "advanced digital things" are made of SOMETHING ELSE that bits don't include is as ridiculous as the above.
If you have building blocks made of X,Y,Z, and they build the macro world, then you cannot have any other element that is not included in the building blocks themselves. Just simple reasoning.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
PLEASE! "Astronomy" as in "look at those nifty objects in space" has nothing to do with determining the Distance of the EARTH to the SUN! For heaven's sake, Death, this is not even half-knowledge you are demonstrating. Do some research.
Ever heard of triangulation?
PLEASE!!!
Quote:
Which is supposed to say you wanted to sneak off-topic again? ON-topic is that, SUPPOSEDLY, physical laws stated that insects actually can't fly. I corrected that. If you feel that correction had nothing to do with what you say, then you were off-topic.
No, I checked again, what you write is just wrong.
No, BIGGER insects than their size would be unable to fly. Do I seriously have to quote myself and emphasis on that? I just explained why Vokial may have had a confusion, because what he said is true but only when applied to BIGGER insects.
I suppose FOR YOU, it's just a COINCIDENCE that they are ALL SMALL right?
As I said, off-topic. Vokial wrote what he wrote. It's irrelevant why you thought he might have erred. He wrote what he wrote for a specific reason and I explained why they had the idea that insects couldn't fly and did so only bcause they didn't knew about aerodynamics.
Quote:
Please. You might just as well say that you have no idea how it feels lke to be within the sun. That's just nonsense.
That would be nonsense because I speak the truth?
In all honesty, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry
If you don't see the problem with what you are writing I can't help you.
Quote:
Quote:
You call that a reference and research?
Time doesn't exist in QM. QM is just the building blocks of the Universe. Therefore, time cannot "exist" because if it existed it must be made of something other than the building blocks which don't have it. Which is ridiculous.
It would be like saying that everything digital is made of bits. Which would be true. Saying that "advanced digital things" are made of SOMETHING ELSE that bits don't include is as ridiculous as the above.
If you have building blocks made of X,Y,Z, and they build the macro world, then you cannot have any other element that is not included in the building blocks themselves. Just simple reasoning.
You don't want to discuss either quantum mechanics or the physics of time, Planck-time, the question whether time may be quantized or not and so on here and now in this thread since I don't see its relevance for the thread.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:32, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
PLEASE!!!
Obviously you know what I meant, cause I was sure you knew about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy
In the course of the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that all Western efforts in the exact sciences are descendants in direct line from the work of the Late Babylonian astronomers.
seals the deal. Really let's move on.
Quote:
As I said, off-topic. Vokial wrote what he wrote. It's irrelevant why you thought he might have erred. He wrote what he wrote for a specific reason and I explained why they had the idea that insects couldn't fly and did so only bcause they didn't knew about aerodynamics.
Good, I understood what you meant, and ironically I did not call you off topic. I'm not so sure why you did, because that's what I've been doing too: I assumed Vokial, like other people I've seen, might have been confused because of what I explained, and I said it was a possibility for this confusion. You said that he doesn't know about aerodynamics -- also your assumption. Whichever is right, who cares? Both are in the same category. I really do not see why you had to point out to me.
Your assumption: he doesn't know about aerodynamics (really does it have anything to do with it?)
My assumption: he got his info messed up by the fact that only bigger insects would not be able to exist, even less fly (their structure would collapse under their weight).
For instance, we all know how fast insects can move their wings... Scale them up, let's say humans (of course this is a simplification, but let us just take it easy since it's off topic).. see how fast, even if you had wings, you can move them. Not really difficult to imagine why such a scaled insect would be unable to fly right?
Galaxies, choppers, planes... these have nothing to do with the fact that "it is possible" because it is impossible if you use the 'materials' and 'structures' (and 'fuel') that living beings have.
Is it possible to build a skyscraper with wood? Why not, I mean it works at smaller levels right? Nope. Mass increases with volume, which is cubic, not squared. Such a skyscraper would eventually collapse.
Virtually ANYTHING can fly with enough force, just basic physics. It doesn't even need AIR, if it has inside-reaction propulsion (like rockets, rather than jets). But where does that force come from?
Surely not from a living being!
Quote:
If you don't see the problem with what you are writing I can't help you.
I said my viewpoint why black holes aren't so weird, at least with our current theories. I said that, despite that I say that I know *some* things about why they aren't weird, I did made a disclaimer that I don't know how one would "experience" when past the event horizon. My understanding is that time (actually, the CHANGE in its processes, including brain and so on) would freeze for the respective object/entity/person. Then I said that, if this freezes, so does your brain, so probably you are going to witness it as "an instant". Then, I explained that for an outside observe it wouldn't be anything special at all, he would just see the object/entity/person going in and being swallowed.
Frankly I do not see what is the "problem" with what I'm saying. Is it because I'm honest that I do not claim to know 100% how a black hole works? Is it because that I don't have ALL the answers that I am speaking nonsense with everything?
Hey, at least I'm honest about it and do admit that I don't have them all. Whether that makes me look as "a problem" in your eyes... really I don't care.
Quote:
You don't want to discuss either quantum mechanics or the physics of time, Planck-time, the question whether time may be quantized or not and so on here and now in this thread since I don't see its relevance for the thread.
Alright, fair point.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:25, 22 Jun 2009.
|
@Death
Quote:
What the hell is "entropy" anyway? Is it the 'balance' or 'order' in the Universe? What does high entropy mean, perfect balance, or total imbalance?
Ok, I'll be brief. No, really. I promise.
First, entropy is only really useful as a relative quantity. But it is a real, measurable quantity of energy.
Second, consider an example of some nondescript gaseous molecules in a sealed two chamber vessel with a valve between the two chambers. The valve is in the open position. At equilibrium, the state that would be encountered most often is that half the molecules are in one chamber and half the molecules are in the other chamber. It is key to understand that this does not mean you will never observe a few more molecules on one side or the other. It means that statistically the the most common observation is that the molecules will be evenly distributed; this is the average result as well.
We could force the situation so that on average, more molecules are observed to be on one chamber than the other. In the extreme case, we could force all of the molecules to be observed, on average, in one chamber and none in the other. You could do this by, maybe, using a fancy vacuum to suck all the molecules into one chamber, leaving the other one empty, and then using the valve to make that state "permanent". We would say that such a state has less entropy than the initial state (with both chambers having equal numbers of molecules), and the entropy change is related to the energy required to change from one the state to the other. We have to put energy into the system in order to bring it to a lower state of entropy. Note that no energy has been used in this case to change the physical nature of the system (breaking bonds, etc.), only its average distribution. Also note that if it were not for the valve, our low entropy state would gradually evolve to the original, higher entropy state: molecules would diffuse. In this way we say that processes involving a net increase in entropy are spontaneous (note: not forbidden!), and processes involving a net decrease in entropy require some energetic input into the system.
Anyway, that’s a simple example. Thermodynamics is really about statistics, and entropy is much more complicated than simple “disorder”. That’s a macroscopic interpretation that results from the microscopic, statistical formulation of thermodynamics. It’s useful in order to rationalize certain phenomena in a qualitative sense (why some reactions happen more easily than others, for example), but isn’t very technical and can lead to a lot of misunderstandings if you don’t know where it comes from – as in the case of Rarensu’s plant example.
Hope that helps. If you want a more elaborate description, I can provide one. I have some archived material I can whip out in a pinch.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
PLEASE!!!
Obviously you know what I meant, cause I was sure you knew about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy
In the course of the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that all Western efforts in the exact sciences are descendants in direct line from the work of the Late Babylonian astronomers.
seals the deal. Really let's move on.
No, Death, it doesn't. This is just silly. Will you kindly point out a reference to me that they knew any DISTANCES to panets or teh sun OR SIZES of planets or suns! They DID NOT. Astronomy has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING AT ALL!
You are just babbling, Death.
Quote:
bla-bla about what Vokial said and insect flight and why he might this
If ou read Vokial's post again. He said, according to the physicist there shouldn't be flying insects. I explained that this conception is a myth - you can read about it: people made wrong assumptions about insect flight and came to the conclusion that according to aerodynamics insects shouldn't be able to fly. As I said this was an error based on wrong assumptions about insects, not Physics, and it has been clarified.
Period and no reason to speculate about whatnot.
Quote:
If you don't see the problem with what you are writing I can't help you.
I said my viewpoint why black holes aren't so weird, at least with our current theories. I said that, despite that I say that I know *some* things about why they aren't weird, I did made a disclaimer that I don't know how one would "experience" when past the event horizon.
You don't see a problem with that last sentence?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2009 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:19, 22 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Astronomy has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING AT ALL!
You are just babbling, Death.
Are you kidding me?
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/solpar/
(read the site's name please)
How do ASTRONOMERS measure the distance to stars?
what the hell do you suggest "measures the distance to celestial bodies" if not astronomy? Biology?
Quote:
If ou read Vokial's post again. He said, according to the physicist there shouldn't be flying insects. I explained that this conception is a myth - you can read about it: people made wrong assumptions about insect flight and came to the conclusion that according to aerodynamics insects shouldn't be able to fly. As I said this was an error based on wrong assumptions about insects, not Physics, and it has been clarified.
Period and no reason to speculate about whatnot.
I've seen people using a messed up wrong argument about insects being unable to fly because THEY SAW IT in a documentary, which guess what, it was about BIGGER insects (the documentary). An assumption. I made that assumption, he COULD HAVE BEEN one of those people. Why are you so stubborn to understand this?
Quote:
You don't see a problem with that last sentence?
Is there any problem in saying "I have no idea how one would experience if his brain would freeze its mechanism"?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
