The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As opposed to a bunch of geeks that aren't quite human and aren't quite mikmen making up theories based on possibilities.
God, being the greater being, not particularly from any religion. Although one of the hindu gods is a four-armed elephant-man. Just thought i'd let you know...
God, being the greater being, not particularly from any religion. Although one of the hindu gods is a four-armed elephant-man. Just thought i'd let you know...
Page:
Doglatto wrote:
> god drinks fosters
Nah, Red Bull. C'mon, you've seen the adverts :-)
> god drinks fosters
Nah, Red Bull. C'mon, you've seen the adverts :-)
Oh, and interesting point about e=mc2 confining us to our solar system. Although electrons can be trasferred faster than the speed of light, this is something due to quantum effect... the rest of us look pretty much likely to stay at sub-lightspeed forever!
That said, schrodinger's wave curve is a function that shows the position of an object. You see, an atom, sat in the table infront of you, could be anywhere in the galaxy at any moment... but it's most likely to be on the table.
Now, this means that, if all the atoms in your body were moved to the edge of the Universe at once, you would, for an instance of time, rematerialise there. Unfortunately, this will most likely never happen in the life of the Universe:(
So we may well be confined to our Solar system! Mind you... there are wormholes! The wormhole that was created in the film 'contact' is based on 100% scientific fact (it was developed by professors at an American University), and is 100% plausable except that the existence of some "exotic material" must be proven. So, we could move lighhyears without feeling more than 2G on our bodies.
(NB. This wormhole was actualy set as an end of year exam question for the physics student at the uni. While many of them proved scientific principals about it, few actualy realised it represented a wormhole that allowed objects to pass through freely!)
Sonic
That said, schrodinger's wave curve is a function that shows the position of an object. You see, an atom, sat in the table infront of you, could be anywhere in the galaxy at any moment... but it's most likely to be on the table.
Now, this means that, if all the atoms in your body were moved to the edge of the Universe at once, you would, for an instance of time, rematerialise there. Unfortunately, this will most likely never happen in the life of the Universe:(
So we may well be confined to our Solar system! Mind you... there are wormholes! The wormhole that was created in the film 'contact' is based on 100% scientific fact (it was developed by professors at an American University), and is 100% plausable except that the existence of some "exotic material" must be proven. So, we could move lighhyears without feeling more than 2G on our bodies.
(NB. This wormhole was actualy set as an end of year exam question for the physics student at the uni. While many of them proved scientific principals about it, few actualy realised it represented a wormhole that allowed objects to pass through freely!)
Sonic
Bartender, you're wrong on the arithmetic thing...
You see, it can be 100% proven from axioms that Euclidian Geometry, for example, is completely self consitent- there will never be a contradiction in it. Likewise, since Euclidean Geometry is 100% self consitent, so too are all other forms of geometry.
This leads to interesting points like, if you were able to prove the parallel line axiom from other axioms, then all geometry would collapse.
Now, I say that geometry is consitent. This is ONLY the case if arithmetic is consistent. And it can NEVER be proved to be! It has been proven that, if you can prove that arithmetic is consistent, then it will cause contradictions within arithmetic and all maths would crumble.
So, it will never be PROVEN that arithmetic is consistent, and all forms of maths (well, almost all forms) rely on this. So, it requires faith in maths in the same way as religion requires faith in God.
Thus, we could have an arithmetic that is inconsistent, and thus all maths is wrong. And this is not as unbelievable as you think- at one time it was thought that everything in maths could be proved to be consistent (after all, maths IS proof!). So there was a MASSIVE program of study to reprove every single piece of mathematics and show consistency...
And it was done for about 90% of maths until (dum dum dum...) some mathematician proved that arithmetic cannot be shown to be self consistent!
But Mathematicians have faith that its consistent anyway... yet some scientists still critise religion because it isn't proven;)
Sonic
You see, it can be 100% proven from axioms that Euclidian Geometry, for example, is completely self consitent- there will never be a contradiction in it. Likewise, since Euclidean Geometry is 100% self consitent, so too are all other forms of geometry.
This leads to interesting points like, if you were able to prove the parallel line axiom from other axioms, then all geometry would collapse.
Now, I say that geometry is consitent. This is ONLY the case if arithmetic is consistent. And it can NEVER be proved to be! It has been proven that, if you can prove that arithmetic is consistent, then it will cause contradictions within arithmetic and all maths would crumble.
So, it will never be PROVEN that arithmetic is consistent, and all forms of maths (well, almost all forms) rely on this. So, it requires faith in maths in the same way as religion requires faith in God.
Thus, we could have an arithmetic that is inconsistent, and thus all maths is wrong. And this is not as unbelievable as you think- at one time it was thought that everything in maths could be proved to be consistent (after all, maths IS proof!). So there was a MASSIVE program of study to reprove every single piece of mathematics and show consistency...
And it was done for about 90% of maths until (dum dum dum...) some mathematician proved that arithmetic cannot be shown to be self consistent!
But Mathematicians have faith that its consistent anyway... yet some scientists still critise religion because it isn't proven;)
Sonic
No
Insane Bartender wrote:
> E-MC˛, in my opinion, is likely loaded with such errors. But I
> have never tried to create the theory from scratch myself, so I don't
> know for sure. Personally, thinking about the future of mankind, we
> really had better hope that the equation is laughably incorrect,
> otherwise we are largely doomed to exist in our own solar system, as
> is every other form of intelligent life in the galaxy. We are truly
> alone.
Maybe, but lightspeed may not be the only way to travel through space, its early days yet!
When Europeans started colonising America only 300 years ago it took a good year to sail there!
Still, if there is a way then why hasn't anyone else contacted us.
Whoops....looks like I'm going off on a tangent again....
> E-MC˛, in my opinion, is likely loaded with such errors. But I
> have never tried to create the theory from scratch myself, so I don't
> know for sure. Personally, thinking about the future of mankind, we
> really had better hope that the equation is laughably incorrect,
> otherwise we are largely doomed to exist in our own solar system, as
> is every other form of intelligent life in the galaxy. We are truly
> alone.
Maybe, but lightspeed may not be the only way to travel through space, its early days yet!
When Europeans started colonising America only 300 years ago it took a good year to sail there!
Still, if there is a way then why hasn't anyone else contacted us.
Whoops....looks like I'm going off on a tangent again....
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> The pollen could move around because a little man inside it
> decides to! It couls be like super monkey ball!
Of course, yours is by far the more plausible explanation...
> If the science is based in maths (like Superstraing- 24dimensional
> strings have been found in mathematical equations, and not actually
> seen), then, like I said, maths is not proven to be self consistent.
> One day someone may find that arithmetic contradicts itself, and all
> of maths would break down!
arithmatics is essentially a method of accouting for, and tracking variables. No amount of research will ever disprove 1+1=2. The foundations of mathematics are indisputable, based on pure unadulterated logic. Only where a mistake has been made in theory calculation can any part of mathematics be disproved.
> So, e=mc^2 could be wrong as it's maths based. However, all the
> evidence we have say that it isn't (well it is actually, because that
> version of the equation missed out some terms!).
E-MC˛, in my opinion, is likely loaded with such errors. But I have never tried to create the theory from scratch myself, so I don't know for sure. Personally, thinking about the future of mankind, we really had better hope that the equation is laughably incorrect, otherwise we are largely doomed to exist in our own solar system, as is every other form of intelligent life in the galaxy. We are truly alone.
> The pollen could move around because a little man inside it
> decides to! It couls be like super monkey ball!
Of course, yours is by far the more plausible explanation...
> If the science is based in maths (like Superstraing- 24dimensional
> strings have been found in mathematical equations, and not actually
> seen), then, like I said, maths is not proven to be self consistent.
> One day someone may find that arithmetic contradicts itself, and all
> of maths would break down!
arithmatics is essentially a method of accouting for, and tracking variables. No amount of research will ever disprove 1+1=2. The foundations of mathematics are indisputable, based on pure unadulterated logic. Only where a mistake has been made in theory calculation can any part of mathematics be disproved.
> So, e=mc^2 could be wrong as it's maths based. However, all the
> evidence we have say that it isn't (well it is actually, because that
> version of the equation missed out some terms!).
E-MC˛, in my opinion, is likely loaded with such errors. But I have never tried to create the theory from scratch myself, so I don't know for sure. Personally, thinking about the future of mankind, we really had better hope that the equation is laughably incorrect, otherwise we are largely doomed to exist in our own solar system, as is every other form of intelligent life in the galaxy. We are truly alone.
Davy, it's interesting that you mention physics...
All physics is either based on observation or based on maths. If it's based on observation, it means it could be 100% wrong. For example, put pollen on water, and the pollen grain will go in zig zags. Physics says that this is because of the Brownian Motion effect- the pollen is hitting molecules of water. However, the fact is that this hasn't been proven. The pollen could move around because a little man inside it decides to! It couls be like super monkey ball!
If the science is based in maths (like Superstraing- 24dimensional strings have been found in mathematical equations, and not actually seen), then, like I said, maths is not proven to be self consistent. One day someone may find that arithmetic contradicts itself, and all of maths would break down!
So, e=mc^2 could be wrong as it's maths based. However, all the evidence we have say that it isn't (well it is actually, because that version of the equation missed out some terms!).
Sonic
All physics is either based on observation or based on maths. If it's based on observation, it means it could be 100% wrong. For example, put pollen on water, and the pollen grain will go in zig zags. Physics says that this is because of the Brownian Motion effect- the pollen is hitting molecules of water. However, the fact is that this hasn't been proven. The pollen could move around because a little man inside it decides to! It couls be like super monkey ball!
If the science is based in maths (like Superstraing- 24dimensional strings have been found in mathematical equations, and not actually seen), then, like I said, maths is not proven to be self consistent. One day someone may find that arithmetic contradicts itself, and all of maths would break down!
So, e=mc^2 could be wrong as it's maths based. However, all the evidence we have say that it isn't (well it is actually, because that version of the equation missed out some terms!).
Sonic
Insane Bartender wrote:
> "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum"
As Bin Laden proved !!
> "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum"
As Bin Laden proved !!
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum"
god drinks fosters
Page: