multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Gist is like the spring wind, blowing hard but no place to go.


oh well, on to better things. I am now developing a new theory based on the IP here that I am attempting to integrate into my multidimensional metaphysics theory. Its about how we meld into the matrix and how the different parts of our consciousness interact with the worlds there. And its based on the 7 worlds theory but it needs some help I guess. Here is what I propose. and let me know what you think! or ask questions or give suggestions!

Malicious wrote: You know you remind me of a ( friend ) I had . Such arguments we would get into . But in reality if you don't get what I'm saying then ya don't get it .

Well, I did specify exactly what I didn't get and why. But fair enough, if this was more about just throwing stuff out there rather than having anyone understand it as I thought it might be after you prefaced it with "speaking scientifically", that's fine, too. I don't have to understand it.

Who knows maybe I will be the one to right the book on time travel and dedicate it to all those who mocked me ... And do ya have proof of ya teaching at a college ? Let me guess you were just a sub for the real professor ( or just a teacher's pet ) that got to teach a stupidly fundimental physics lesson .

Can't recall anyone here ever mocking you. But if there are many out there who do, I'm all with you. You show them.
Any reason you felt you needed to mock me, though?
If you ask me in private, I might scan my employment contracts from last semester and this one. Though I wouldn't count on it. That sort of private information is worth more to me than anyone's believing me on this issue. I think I can make it evident enough that I could teach lecture supplementary classes in theoretical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics (at least, they are the only two I tried so far) without having to compromize my privacy quite so much. Whether you come to believe that I actually taught either of them is of little consequence, overall, though.

Personally I would like some proof about these so called research journals that are being " published " and would like to criticize them .

Well, I for one am not responsible for publishing the journals themselves. If you like to criticize scientific journals, by all means, be my guest. You can start with Nature Communications - the peer reviewed journal the first paper with my name on it appeared in. Though it makes little difference to me in practice, nonetheless I'm looking foward to read what you have to say about the journal.

Common put all your hard work out here let's all look at it .

There is such a thing as online privacy, but if you ask nicely, maybe I'll send you a link to that NatComms paper I mentioned above in private.

Until you put your research on here ( please make another forum post ) then don't criticize others .

Yea, no, that's not how it works. I don't have to earn any rights to criticize what people put out in public for others to discuss. If you post it, I get to comment on it. You are free to disregard my comments, but you are not free to have me not make any until I prove my worth to you.

I am very interested in the " research " you are doing , maybe I might have a lot to say on the subject . A little peer review never hurt anyone .

As I say, I'm not comfortable putting my real name and work place in quite so public a space, especially seeing how many adversaries I appear to be making for myself lately by daring to expect some baseline intellectual rigor in a thread about physics. If you want to know the subject, though, it's (active) granular matter. So think statistical physics/thermodynamics, but way out of equilibrium and with macroscopic particles.

If you are actually well scientifically knowledgeable , then I don't want to fully and precisely tell you exactly how to build a time machine or how it works . I don't like my ideas being stolen .

Don't worry, I'm not an engineer. But I could build an electromagnet without your assistance all the same, and given a current source I could have it generate a magnetic field, too. I don't think I'd have quite the resources at my avail to build something that generates an actual magnetic singularity, i.e. a field of actually infinite strength at any point, but then again, I'm rather confident that this is not a restriction on my resources as much as it is on electromagnetism itself, so I'm not worried about you doing it any time soon either.

Trust me on this if I had the money I would make the time machine then me and you would take it out for a spin but sadly I don't until then this conversation is done . As Obi-Wan once done to some Stormtroopers ( mind trick hand gesture ) move along .

Alright, I shall trust you on this. Thanks for calling me weak-minded on your way out of an otherwise pleasant albeit unproductive conversation, too. I guess we'll talk again when ever you have built your time machine. I'd love to help if only I understood what you were talking about, but it seems you wouldn't want that. Fair enough. Good luck, at any rate.

Gisteron wrote: Well, then, bring it on. State your case.

Well, for a start, consider the extent of George Berkeley and David Hume's skepticism, and what it implied.
They accurately point out that we have no true or direct way of knowing the material world.
We directly experience our senses, but the material world is only ever experienced indirectly.
All we really know about the outside world is what our senses tell us, and the ideas we form from this sense data.
That calls into question all scientific knowledge, all objective data, and the reliability of our senses.
So, considering that all we really know about the world comes from our senses and our interpretation of them, how can we obtain true objective, material knowledge? Is it possible?

Im sorry for mocking you , it's not to say really here but a lot of other people offline ( well in the resent past ) . It's okay I will take your word on it . Hmm quantum mechanics sounds interesting . Again sorry I haven't had much sleep so I maybe a little cranky . Wow I think that's the first time I snapped at someone here . I don't need to see your previous employments I will take your word for face value . As for going into greater detail on the theoretical time travel I might be able to write up some notes on the matter and make a forum post . It might not be today because I have about 4 hours to get to sleep , then wake up and go to work . Last night I pulled a 12 hour shift . I don't think I necessarily called you weak-minded but if I implied that at any time again I apologise . Since you have done work in quantum mechanics then you will know more on this matter than I thought . And yes I would actually love your help . And the amount of power would be astronomical to preform such a feat . Possibly even an entire electro-nuclear reactor ( not a regular nuclear reactor ) .
I would like to say this again .
I am truly sorry for saying that . I haven't had any sleep yet and I was a little cranky . Forgive me if I implied you were weak minded . It is I who failed to explain it correctly . I will take your word at face value , I do not need any further details about your work . Actually it sounds pretty dang cool . Quantum mechanics is especially interesting . I will try to write some notes explaining it to the best of my ability . I think this is the first time I snapped at someone here and I feel really bad about it . You are more knowledgeable than I so it will be difficult for me to explain it in my perspective so that you can understand it .

I feel a little sad about this thread, and other similar ones that have preceded it.

The general trend seems to me to be that a perspective is presented based on a blend of subjective perception with objective evidence that is clearly explained, but expressed in generalities. That perspective becomes increasingly well-defined as the threads evolve. A counterview is offered based on a disciplined and detailed presentation of objective evidence alone; this is expressed in a level of detail that conveys familiarity with the evidence that is beyond most of us, but appears well-documented by professionals who spend much of their time in efforts directed by the scientific method. As dialog proceeds, it becomes more and more separated from a contrast of two perspectives in favor of an argument about which of the participants is least honest and most offensive.

In the end, the participants tire of the argument and leave it behind, only to begin again in a new thread after the passing of a little time. I'm inclined to think that each time, all participants and readers walk away knowing about as much as they did at the beginning.

Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?" Nobody's required to adopt someone else's point of view, nor give up the idea that it's ignorant, if that's how you feel; but the process of rejecting an idea would sure be less tiring if it didn't keep devolving into personal attacks.

I agree Omhu!

In the spirit of that I want to ask a question and specifically I want to ask Gisteron.

Gisteron, do you believe in the force?
If you do what do you believe it is?
If you dont why not and if not why are you here?

@Malicious:
Hey, man, don't beat yourself up. It's alright. Perhaps I read too much into that Star Wars reference (as old Ben Kenobi would go on to explain to Luke that it is the weak-minded - Storm Troopers among them, then - that are particularly susceptible to manipulation via the Force). Also I don't work with QM myself. I've taken an introductory class to it, and a few subjects where it is applied, and I tutored an exercise class that supplemented another lecture in the intro class, but I never had to do any actual research in that area myself. Granular matter is, as far as I know, treated completely classically so far, and rightly so, I think. Anyway, don't worry about it. Things get heated at times, but I try neither to take nor to mean things personally in the end.


@CaesarEJW:
I actually completely agree with that assessment. Indeed, at times I end up debating this with people who are enthusiastic about science but under-appreciative of its limitations. I have myself been accused, even on this forum, a few times of being a believer in "scientism" - the idea that the scientific method is the pinnacle of if not the only genuine way of knowledge acquisition. Yet this is not the case. The most I would say is that "objective knowledge" is something we have no means to acquire at all, at least not in any absolute sense of "objective". Even purely analytical ventures like logic or mathematics are ultimately contingent upon the inference rules they set for any model, and for every meta-discussion one could have about that, there exists a meta-meta-discussion to remind us that even as we ponder models of thinking we are but employing just which ever one of many kinds of pondering, and on, and on...
But if we admit to ourselves that we have no means to reach absolute knowledge of anything, we cannot turn around and say that why, yes, we do, and we dub those means philosophy. As much as science relies on our senses and thinking, so philosophy relies on our thinking, and - to shocking extents, frankly - on our intuitions, too. And if we want to be very strict and pedantic about it, all of these things are fallible in an ultimate sense, none is in this regard superior to the others.
The question then becomes, if absolute knowledge is not one we can have, what can we have? Perhaps more importantly, what need we have? I readily admit, I cannot prove, ultimately, that an external world exists. I cannot even prove, ultimately, that my own internal one does. After all, if we accept that our senses of the outside are unreliable, why would we insist in the same breath that our internal perceptions are not? By a pragmatic argument we could say that, seeing as our internal perceptions is all we have, we might as well try and go with it, in an effort to maybe get anywhere at all eventually. But by that same pragmatic thinking we can argue that - bar the occasional illusions our fellow humans may help dispel - our senses, too, are the only thing we have to rely on when attempting to function in what might be something rather quite like what we'd think of as an external world. I submit to you this argument in favour of science as a means to obtain... well, let's call it "useful understanding", rather than "(absolute) knowledge". The devices either of us are using to communicate across the world wouldn't have ever been constructed, if we didn't understand "nature" to an extent sufficient to construct them. Whether this "nature" thing is real, or external, may by all means be an interesting question, but not one we can answer any more ultimately without science than we could with it. At the end of the day, we want to make life comfortable, and a part of that is foreseeing the future, so as to make strides to maximize comfort in it. And until we have the future laid bare for us to observe, we have nothing but the past to look at as a reference. And it works. That's what makes it worthwhile. Ultimacy wouldn't.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: Can't we do better? Maybe venture forth with a "Why do you think that's true?" instead of a "You're wrong?"

Completely agreed. This is how I attempt to start out most of the time. I wish questions like "what makes you think that?" wouldn't be understood as direct disagreements so often, or even personal attacks. Sometimes they are...



@Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

CaesarEJW wrote: You can't learn anything with Physics. Philosophy is much better lol.
Metaphysics beats quantum physics any day!
Fight me, I dare you!

Also relevant to Hume:
You realize that skepticism is largely a hypothetical and not an actual viewpoint; if you do decide to be a skeptic, you're at a dead end and you have nothing else to add. Every important philosopher in the last 50 years is at some level a pragmatist. Metaphysics and physics both require the other at a certain level, so your edgy point just outed yourself.

I think the big point everyone keeps ignoring is that you have to do your observations correctly for them to mean anything. You have to consider the implications of your beliefs and find the causal mechanisms before making a stupidly broad system and expecting anyone to take you seriously. Also peer review helps.

I haven't touched modern physics in a long time, but I'm pretty sure travelling back in time isn't a thing for a handful of reasons.

Discussing why someone would believe any scientific piece of evidence is simple because you theoretically could recreate the experiment yourself (given you have the time, equipment, and know how). When you get into esoteric beliefs, it's far more convoluted. Also scientific evidence isn't supposed to be used for everything, but really each study should answer a very narrow question. The way we compile particular data into theories is a way we make sense of it all, but ultimately should be able to be coherent.

Gisteron wrote: @Fyxe:
I believe in the Force at most as a principle moreso than as any external entity one could point at. I have gone into more detail about this in the moderately recent past, though I'm having difficulty nailing down the relevant post now. If memory serves, even you yourself had asked me that before and I think I did explain it more then, too. Not sure what it has to do with the subject of this thread, though.

What it has to do with the subject is Im trying to understand why you have taken such particular issue with my particular theories on the subject of the force. You seem to want to reduce it to complete... uhh woo, didnt you call it? I can understand that some will see it that way but your particular obsession with completely destroying it seems a lot. I wonder where you get this intense hatred from and I wonder if its because you have had a very bad experience or something?

So I wanted to know what you are doing here exploring something you dont believe in or at least claim to not believe in.

So you say the force is a "principle"? I looked it up and the definition says a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. So I want to know what is this fundamental truth to you? What is it a truth of and what do you believe about it and how do you arrive at those conclusions?

It does seem a little sad when you have the same people trolling different topics just to condemn criticize make fun of Insult badd Mouth , And it keeps going on and on and on.

All in the name of we are here to be self aware and learn and grow from each other. And to become jedi.


I" feel the feeling " some of you Believe it and know it to be true deep deep deep down in the back of your mind and soul.
But you have been lied to and misled your whole life. And now you are confused tried to make sense of it all.
In the past you believed and tried to do and used the force Yourself ,and it did not work immediately for you. And you got confused and started to doubt. and doubt turn to frustration and a feeling like you weren't important or special enough.

Now later in life you are bent on making others feel the pain you felt.
This messages is not for everyone but you know who you are that this message is for.

Please remember you are special and not forgotten.
And we are all connected as one.

May you be with the force.