In my first blog, I drew the attention of the scientific community to find a solution to the vexing problems of cosmic origin, raised questions concerning the reason for our existence, the mysterious mechanisms that keep us alive and finally, why it is all so hard to know the truth about our role here and does God really play the dice with us? (See Modern Cosmology http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/6797-m...logy-17241.html - http://rsridharan.blogspot.com/ )
Once we know how to unlock the cosmic order, most of our daunting problems are solved.
see more at
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/6797-t...erse-17722.html
http://rsridharan.blogspot.com/
Do you believe that everything is shaped by only one rule? Nothing more has any impact?
Just wondering
Just wondering
I am a bit confused as to what you are actually saying, if anything.
You essentially state the various things we know little about, give a few chess metaphors and conclude that we need to give computers intuition.
Was there something that I missed?
You essentially state the various things we know little about, give a few chess metaphors and conclude that we need to give computers intuition.
Was there something that I missed?
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Smile,,,,,,,,you should never use GOD to reolve the issues,,,,,,,,,that's a cop out.
Smile,,,,,,,,you should never use GOD to reolve the issues,,,,,,,,,that's a cop out.
QUOTE (vaunce+Jun 13 2009, 07:32 PM)
Do you believe that everything is shaped by only one rule? Nothing more has any impact?
Just wondering
'It is a combination of modern physics, mathematics, logical order and intuitive ability that one requires to know the rules of our Universe. Unless one sees the entire hierarchy in order, we can never be able to piece together the complexity of this stupendous and infinite Cosmos!'
Isn't it true?
Just wondering
'It is a combination of modern physics, mathematics, logical order and intuitive ability that one requires to know the rules of our Universe. Unless one sees the entire hierarchy in order, we can never be able to piece together the complexity of this stupendous and infinite Cosmos!'
Isn't it true?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 13 2009, 08:10 PM)
I am a bit confused as to what you are actually saying, if anything.
You essentially state the various things we know little about, give a few chess metaphors and conclude that we need to give computers intuition.
Was there something that I missed?
May be we all miss what that great Nobel Laurette Richard Feynman wanted us to see.
Don't we miss the hidden beauty of our Cosmos? This is what I meant. No confusion!
You essentially state the various things we know little about, give a few chess metaphors and conclude that we need to give computers intuition.
Was there something that I missed?
May be we all miss what that great Nobel Laurette Richard Feynman wanted us to see.
Don't we miss the hidden beauty of our Cosmos? This is what I meant. No confusion!
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jun 14 2009, 10:08 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Smile,,,,,,,,you should never use GOD to reolve the issues,,,,,,,,,that's a cop out.
The post is purely scientific, God is not invoked - it is just that truth is akin to Indian mythology.
Smile,,,,,,,,you should never use GOD to reolve the issues,,,,,,,,,that's a cop out.
The post is purely scientific, God is not invoked - it is just that truth is akin to Indian mythology.
You are still not actually saying anything of substance. It's just rhetoric and vague similes. What are you trying to say?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 15 2009, 04:14 PM)
You are still not actually saying anything of substance. It's just rhetoric and vague similes. What are you trying to say?
Have you ever played chess? Presume that we are in the middle game - if we know our moves backward we go to the origin, similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way - the same logic works with our universe. If I have to tell you in concrete terms, I would have been more than an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking.
Have you ever played chess? Presume that we are in the middle game - if we know our moves backward we go to the origin, similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way - the same logic works with our universe. If I have to tell you in concrete terms, I would have been more than an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking.
QUOTE (sridharanr+Jun 19 2009, 04:14 PM)
Have you ever played chess? Presume that we are in the middle game - if we know our moves backward we go to the origin, similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way - the same logic works with our universe. If I have to tell you in concrete terms, I would have been more than an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking.
How is it that "similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way"? If we are in the middle of the game, we only know the moves up until that point. Did I misunderstand something?
Peace,
Ron
How is it that "similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way"? If we are in the middle of the game, we only know the moves up until that point. Did I misunderstand something?
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Jun 19 2009, 05:33 PM)
How is it that "similarly we can also go to the end when we work our way"? If we are in the middle of the game, we only know the moves up until that point. Did I misunderstand something?
Peace,
Ron
You would agree that for every game there is a beginning and an ending, though we know our beginning, our ending is hidden from us - that's the reason I added "If I have to tell you in concrete terms, I would have been more than an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking" - I think the truth is every time a scientist discovers something new and widens our knowledge we actually find our way up - would you agree, Ron? This is how we progress, though it may look infinitesimal.
Peace,
sridharanr
Peace,
Ron
You would agree that for every game there is a beginning and an ending, though we know our beginning, our ending is hidden from us - that's the reason I added "If I have to tell you in concrete terms, I would have been more than an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking" - I think the truth is every time a scientist discovers something new and widens our knowledge we actually find our way up - would you agree, Ron? This is how we progress, though it may look infinitesimal.
Peace,
sridharanr
Looks more like the more information we gather, the more questions we then have to ask. Turtles and more turtles.
Chess games end because there is a point where all parties agree the game has ended. By checkmate, by stalemate, by inclement weather, by death of one or more of the parties. But does science have an end?
If I told you that the String Theory was the ultimate answer, gave you a book where you learn the techniques to calculate all physical phenomena observed by Man over the past 50,000 years from string theory, and demonstrated that answers match observation out to 5-18 digits depending apparently only on measurement difficulty, would we be done? I say that we would not be done, since there is no one judging our answers, and no test we can do to prove that there is not a still more precise answer out there. So we keep on refining the experiments to higher precision hoping to catch the String Theory with its metaphorical pants down. Then we get the Nobel Prize. Easy.
If I told you that the String Theory was the ultimate answer, gave you a book where you learn the techniques to calculate all physical phenomena observed by Man over the past 50,000 years from string theory, and demonstrated that answers match observation out to 5-18 digits depending apparently only on measurement difficulty, would we be done? I say that we would not be done, since there is no one judging our answers, and no test we can do to prove that there is not a still more precise answer out there. So we keep on refining the experiments to higher precision hoping to catch the String Theory with its metaphorical pants down. Then we get the Nobel Prize. Easy.
To be honest, I only skimmed this thread, but I have something to throw in for consideration...
Are the laws resultant from the universe? Or is the universe resultant from the laws?
Are the laws resultant from the universe? Or is the universe resultant from the laws?
where in e=mc2 is the mention of time? its like e=mc2 is everything yet it doesnt mention time
QUOTE (Murdoc+Jul 11 2009, 11:32 PM)
where in e=mc2 is the mention of time? its like e=mc2 is everything yet it doesnt mention time
Why should it mention time? It doesn't mention any other dimensions; it only mentions mass, energy and the constant.
Why should it mention time? It doesn't mention any other dimensions; it only mentions mass, energy and the constant.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
E=MC^2
What is C and what is it related to?
E=MC^2
What is C and what is it related to?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 12 2009, 02:22 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
E=MC^2
What is C and what is it related to?
Are you serious Harry?
E=MC^2
What is C and what is it related to?
Are you serious Harry?
Actually, I was willing to assume that Harry Costas was succeeding in the comprehension department and only failing in the communication department. Socratic method and hanging rhetorical questions don't work in forum posts. You have to write essays to teach people things, and you have to answer your own rhetorical questions in this medium, because your audience is not an individual but the whole of the Internet.
I think (hope) he might be trying to be rhetorical.
He probably knows what c is. I think he is eluding to the fact that c is measured by a ratio of distance over time, seemingly opposing Murdoc's quote of "where in e=mc2 is the mention of time? its like e=mc2 is everything yet it doesnt mention time"
Although, Harry would be wrong to think this is any opposition, because c is a constant; not just a "speed".
He probably knows what c is. I think he is eluding to the fact that c is measured by a ratio of distance over time, seemingly opposing Murdoc's quote of "where in e=mc2 is the mention of time? its like e=mc2 is everything yet it doesnt mention time"
Although, Harry would be wrong to think this is any opposition, because c is a constant; not just a "speed".
G'day Latro
You said
You hit the nail on the head.
You said
QUOTE
He probably knows what c is. I think he is eluding to the fact that c is measured by a ratio of distance over time, seemingly opposing Murdoc's quote of "where in e=mc2 is the mention of time? its like e=mc2 is everything yet it doesnt mention time"
Although, Harry would be wrong to think this is any opposition, because c is a constant; not just a "speed".
Although, Harry would be wrong to think this is any opposition, because c is a constant; not just a "speed".
You hit the nail on the head.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.