in reality there is only one force: magnetism. the strong atomic force and gravity are forms of magnetism. everything is a part of the EM spectrum. even sound and thoughts.
Wow, you understand gravity when no real physicists are able to. Impressive... How exactly is sound part of the electromagnetic spectrum again?
nfq wrote:
what i mean is that how fast time goes depends on our emotions and thoughts, so it can't be affected by gravity or acceleration like einstein says. physical devices like clocks can of course mess up. clocks don't always measure time accurately. if an atomic clock loses a couple of nanoseconds, it doesn't mean that time itself has slowed down.
Don't confuse the perception of time with the physical flow of time. Atomic clocks do in fact always measure time correctly. Do you honestly believe that Einstein is wrong and none of the physicists have noticed, yet some how you are able to see the truth?
nfq wrote:
Is your intuition (or, as you call it, "logic") better than other people's?
sometimes. for example if you think that the earth is flat, you're wrong.
And, likewise, if you think that spacetime is flat, you'd be wrong as well.
nfq wrote:
true logic. god's logic.
*sigh*
nfq wrote:
according to this universal logic, the universe is actually both infinite and finite.
Physicists still do not know the size of the universe. One must be careful not to confuse the size of the universe with the size of the observable universe though.
nfq wrote:
There are many opinions on this matter.
nfq wrote:
scientists say that even matter is nothing (illusion) because they say that 99.9% of matter is empty space.
Well doesn't that mean that 0.1% is not made of empty space? Sounds like more than "nothing" to me.
nfq wrote:
There's plenty of evidence. Claiming there's no evidence means that you would have to explain all the existing evidence as false. Can you do that?
of course.
Do tell.
nfq wrote:
LED emits light when connected to a battery because the electricity is drawn there because of magnetic attraction.
Almost, but nonetheless, wrong!
I think it is rather ridiculous that you are actually considering the idea that all physicist are morons. What next? Are biologists wrong about evolution as well? I have seen this many times before. If you actually had somewhat of an understanding of physics (not just what physicists say but how they came to their conclusions), you'd realize how ridiculous the statements you have made actually are. Here's a rather ridiculous example of what I mean: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm
If you want to explain something if electrons don't exist, explain to me why I can't hook up a battery to my penis, and make it light up?
because it doesn't work for all kinds of materials. it's like asking: why can't my hand go through a rock, why can it go through water and air? the materials are different.
I would love it if you can point out to me where on this diagram sound waves should lie. If the location is not on the diagram, give me the frequency and wavelenth ranges that it should correspond to.
according to wikipedia audible sound is between 20Hz and 20kHz.
And please tell me how you can detect/measure the electrical or magnetic component of sound (or thoughts)
how do you do it for the other waves (visible light, radio waves etc.)? i guess you just do it the same way for sound and thought waves.
AQwertyZ wrote:
Well doesn't that mean that 0.1% is not made of empty space? Sounds like more than "nothing" to me.
not really. when they search more (with better microscopes), they will find that matter is 99.99% space, and then 99.999999...=100%.
Are biologists wrong about evolution as well?
yes. intelligent design has more evidence than darwins evolution.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I'm sorry, I just started laughing and now I can't stop. So if science can build a good enough microscope to prove that matter doesn't actually exist, what is the microscope made out of? Really, I'm actually laughing. Although I may not be able to actually hear myself because sound and I are two different materials, and my ears aren't actually made up of anything.
I'm now convinced this is the best and most elaborate level that has ever been accomplished in the history of leveling. I've officially stopped reading this thread to avoid losing what brain cells I have left.
If you want to explain something if electrons don't exist, explain to me why I can't hook up a battery to my penis, and make it light up?
because it doesn't work for all kinds of materials. it's like asking: why can't my hand go through a rock, why can it go through water and air? the materials are different.
Yes, this was exactly what I was refering to. Why does this phenomenon only occur for doped semiconductor material? Why not undoped silicon, or mylar? FYI, your hand does not go through water, it displaces water. And yes, if you use enough force, you hand can "go through rock," exactly how it "goes through" water and air; Terrible, horrible incorrect analogy. Next time I implore you to try harder to BS.
I would love it if you can point out to me where on this diagram sound waves should lie. If the location is not on the diagram, give me the frequency and wavelenth ranges that it should correspond to.
according to wikipedia audible sound is between 20Hz and 20kHz.
Which would put it in the lower VHF range and AM spectrum. Now tell me why doesn't our TV tuner pick up human sound waves in addition to broadcast tv? It's impossible (or damn well close to impossible) to filter out two things that occur on the same frequency.
And please tell me how you can detect/measure the electrical or magnetic component of sound (or thoughts)
how do you do it for the other waves (visible light, radio waves etc.)? i guess you just do it the same way for sound and thought waves.
Spectral analysis is the first thing that comes to mind. Too bad that sound/thoughts don't have magnetic components, and can not be detected this way (i.e, they don't exist).
Tell me what frequencies do thought waves emit at?
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
Brain cells communicate using tiny amounts of chemicals like dopamine and serotonin.
Where, precisely, does the energy to get those molecules going at c come from?
Alright nfq, all-knowing master of the sciences, can you explain to me how it is conceivable that the theory of evolution (an incorrect theory) has withstood 150 years of scientific study? I challenge you to name one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. Of course I can go all day pointing out cases of unintelligent "design" in the the natural world. Take wisdom teeth for instance. There is not enough room in the human mouth to support them and as a result, they almost always come in painfully and crooked. The fact that they are routinely removed proves that they are troublesome and unnecessary. What conceivable reason could there be behind that particular "design" choice?
nfq wrote:
according to wikipedia audible sound is between 20Hz and 20kHz.
But where on Wikipedia can I find the frequency range of the "thought" waves you've mentioned?
My view on this argument:
according to wikipedia audible sound is between 20Hz and 20kHz.
The selfsame article also calls sound a "compression wave", a kind of longitudinal wave (a wave in which the "waveness" is in the same direction as the motion), while electromagnetic radiation is a transverse wave (a wave in which the "waveness" is not in the direction of motion). Why believe some but not all of the article? If one part is wrong, surely the rest is as well?
Also, could you stop posting? Like, at all? Please?
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
in reality there is only one force: magnetism. the strong atomic force and gravity are forms of magnetism. everything is a part of the EM spectrum. even sound and thoughts.
Are you saying you can hear sound coming out of speaker wires? :D
everything is a part of the EM spectrum. even sound and thoughts.
Yeah. It's a well-known fact that sound, like all electromagnetic radiation, can travel in vacuum. Also, like all electromagnetic radiation, sound travels at the speed of light in vacuum.
Are you saying you can hear sound coming out of speaker wires? :D
Yes, he can if he believes he can.
And matter doesn't exist, but is an illusion. Matter is the partial absence of chaos. Chaos can never be totally absent. If it could, time would be able to stand still. Matter only exists at a certain point in time, that means if we treat time as if it could stand still, but it can't.
These are all facts that can be proved by logical thinking.
The way to the truth can be a very painful one as described in Plato's allegory of the cave. Stuff like this always makes people feel stupider at first.
Yeah. It's a well-known fact that sound, like all electromagnetic radiation, can travel in vacuum. Also, like all electromagnetic radiation, sound travels at the speed of light in vacuum.
Just because they can't do the same things doesn't mean they are not parts of the same thing. Light can't go through opaque walls but it can go through vacuum. Sound can go through walls but not vacuum.
Titus Kwok wrote:
Where, precisely, does the energy to get those molecules going at c come from?
braincells and molecules that travel at lightspeed? forgive my ignorance, but what molecules are you talking about?
Boco wrote:
Why believe some but not all of the article? If one part is wrong, surely the rest is as well?
that's like saying that if something is wrong in the bible, the whole bible must be wrong. the tree is not known by its fruit.
DK64_MASTER wrote:
Why does this phenomenon only occur for doped semiconductor material?
because that material is made of the right type of vibration.
FYI, your hand does not go through water, it displaces water.
define "go through".
Now tell me why doesn't our TV tuner pick up human sound waves in addition to broadcast tv?
because soundwaves are different from those waves. for example, they only travel 340mps. tv's are not designed to receive such signals.
Tell me what frequencies do thought waves emit at?
there are no scientific instruments that can detect them yet. only our brains can. but they are way higher than gamma rays at least. in the future we will be able to record our dreams and nightmares, like we record tv programs.
AQwertyZ wrote:
Alright nfq, all-knowing master of the sciences, can you explain to me how it is conceivable that the theory of evolution (an incorrect theory) has withstood 150 years of scientific study?
the same way that the bible has withstood 3000 years of religious study.
I challenge you to name one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.
there's no evidence that creatures can morph into different creatures over long periods of time.
What conceivable reason could there be behind that particular "design" choice?
this may not have to do with design. there have been several types of human races, which have mixed together and that might be the reason why we inherit wisdom teeth.
Alright nfq, all-knowing master of the sciences, can you explain to me how it is conceivable that the theory of evolution (an incorrect theory) has withstood 150 years of scientific study?
the same way that the bible has withstood 3000 years of religious study.
Oh, so you mean to say that, even though it has withstood many years of rigorous study, the bible is fatally flawed, just like evolution?
Also with regards to
nfq wrote:
According to whose logic? Yours? Mine?
true logic. god's logic.
How do you know what God's logic is? I guess you must be God?! Pleased to meet you, God. I have a few questions for you...
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I challenge you to name one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.
there's no evidence that creatures can morph into different creatures over long periods of time.
Of course there is no evidence of this. Since it is populations from one generation to the next. They do not "morph", but the ones with desirable qualities survive, and the others die.
Take a good biology course, and drop a small bit of the ignorance, kthx.
nfq wrote:
the same way that the bible has withstood 3000 years of religious study.
Oh, so you mean to say that, even though it has withstood many years of rigorous study, the bible is fatally flawed, just like evolution?
By that he (maybe) wants to say that it's not very smart to use 150 years of withstanding as a pro evolution theory argument, when the bible which seemingly contradicts it has withstood more than ten times as many years.
This is the most ridiculous discussion ever. *sigh*
nfq wrote:
the same way that the bible has withstood 3000 years of religious study.
In Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells his followers he will return to Earth within their lifetimes. It has been 2000 years and we are still waiting. The Bible makes tons of claims about happens after death but unsurprisingly, none of those claims can be verified. The Bible is a work of literature and has been studied in the same ways as any other literary work. People draw inspiration from the Bible in the same ways as from The Little Engine that Could, yet no one claims that that story is true.
kuwaga wrote:
By that he (maybe) wants to say that it's not very smart to use 150 years of withstanding as a pro evolution theory argument, when the bible which seemingly contradicts it has withstood more than ten times as many years.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible religions in the world shows us that a religion can be wrong and still exist almost indefinitely.
nfq wrote:
there's no evidence that creatures can morph into different creatures over long periods of time.
Um...there's this thing called the fossil record.
nfq wrote:
this may not have to do with design. there have been several types of human races, which have mixed together and that might be the reason why we inherit wisdom teeth.
That's one hypothesis. The whole thing about science is that after you make a hypothesis, you actually have to prove it. The real explanation for wisdom teeth has to do with human ancestors having larger mouths, etc.
You still haven't said which God you believe in or which religion. If I asked any real God if he knew you and if he had told you to write these things, I have a feeling that the answer would be negative.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible religions in the world shows us that a religion can be wrong and still exist almost indefinitely.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible theories about how the world works shows us that theories can be wrong. nfq stated lots of theories. Just because other theories are more common, it doesn't make them more true. Evidence is the result of subjective interpretations of reality.
And btw, nothing can be proved. "I know that I know nothing." Discussions like this start because people think they can actually prove something. None of you can prove nfq wrong, so please stop trying.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible religions in the world shows us that a religion can be wrong and still exist almost indefinitely.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible theories about how the world works shows us that theories can be wrong. nfq stated lots of theories. Just because other theories are more common, it doesn't make them more true. Evidence is the result of subjective interpretations of reality.
And btw, nothing can be proved. "I know that I know nothing." Discussions like this start because people think they can actually prove something. None of you can prove nfq wrong, so please stop trying.
Imagine I present to you two coins. One coin is a normal coin with one side "heads" and the other side "tails". The other coin is doubled-sided with "heads" on both sides. I then randomly select one of the two coins and then proceed to flip it repeatedly. After 10 flips, it has landed on heads every time. 20 more flips and it has still never landed on tails. It would seem that it is reasonable to conclude that I have been flipping the double-sided coin the whole time. Of course, there is still that minute (and I mean minute) chance that I flipped the normal coin 30 times and it landed on heads each and every time. Although I can't disprove nfq's claims, I think that they should be regarded as having a similar unlikely probability of being true.
Science reminds me of a TAS. For any given game, there exists a TAS that completes that game in less frames than all other possible TASes. A computer program could be written to find this best TAS but it would take an indescribably long time before it found the result. As a compromise, TASes are made that attempt to approximate the perfect TAS. Each improvement gets ever-closer to the theoretical limit but may or may not ever reach it. Everyone knows the TASes on this site are exceedingly good but probably all have room for improvement. In the same way, scientific theories are getting ever-closer to the truth. Scientists know that there is probably room for improvement, and that is why they keep at their work. When nfq makes untrue (ok fine, highly unlikely) scientific claims, it is similar to someone submitting a TAS to this site that is slower and less entertaining than the run that is already published.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible religions in the world shows us that a religion can be wrong and still exist almost indefinitely.
The fact that there are multiple incompatible theories about how the world works shows us that theories can be wrong.
Well... of course theories about the world can be wrong. nfq the prime example of this. nfq's beliefs seem however more religious that scientific. One will change his scientific beliefs is a better theory is presented... nfq will not change his beliefs though.
Kuwaga wrote:
nfq stated lots of theories. Just because other theories are more common, it doesn't make them more true. Evidence is the result of subjective interpretations of reality.
Indeed... it's not the fact that other theories are more common than nfq's theories that makes them more true, it is the reason why they are more common that makes them more true. The reason why they are more common is that these theories correspond to what everyone is observing. If everyone is is observing the same, it is called objectivity... not subjectivity.
I think you were arguing that due to subjective interpretations, not everybody is observing the same really, for example the perception of color. First off, because this can't be disproven, it does not mean that it's equally likely to be true as it is to be untrue. You even go a step further, but saying that it is true (of course, without proof, but hey... who can blame you, you don't belief in proof after all (funny that you do use it as an argument (proof?) that nothing can be proved)). But ok, lets assume this is true. Everyone is seeing their own, subjective reality. Everyone is however also agreeing with one another on the observations, and the predictions a theory makes. The theory seems to be valid for each of them, even though they make different observations, and the theory provides different predictions for everyone. I would find this even more remarkable, and would assign more truth to such a theory, than to a theory which would be valid for observers that actually observe the same.
"Kuwaga wrote:
None of you can prove nfq wrong, so please stop trying.
They should indeed stop trying to argue with nfq. Not because he can't be proven wrong, but because he will never accept (or maybe even understand) that he is proven wrong.
AQwertyZ: When Kuwaga was saying that nothing can be proven, I don't think Kuwaga was talking about the problem of induction.
My point is that if we got fooled by reality or some strange (maybe godlike) phenomenon, we would never notice. Therefore we can never be a hundret percent sure of anything.
You're kind of right about the coin flipping, though I fail to see an analogy to all of nfq's claims.
nfq wrote:
everything is a part of the EM spectrum. even sound
This is not impossible to be true. It could be that it is and we just aren't able to measure it and it doesn't expand in vacuum for unknown reasons that are totally unimaginable to us. They are unimaginable because we can't detect them with our senses, not even by using tools as assistance. Can we make any assumptions about how probable this scenario is?
(Also, things we are able to detect by observing sound and not with (other XD) electromagnetic waves could be side effects of something else we know nothing about.)
nfq doesn't have any proof for his claim, nor do we have for the opposite. We cannot fully grasp reality with our senses, but we can try to make the best of it, which is what science does.
Baxter wrote:
But ok, lets assume this is true. Everyone is seeing their own, subjective reality.
Yep, there are differences between everybody's vision of reality, but they have even more in common because we belong to the same race. We're carried out with similar sensors. And by communicating with each other we can try to elaborate what our views of reality have in common. So an objective view is actually humanity's subjective view. That's as objective as it gets; atm.
Kuwaga wrote:
Just because other theories are more common, it doesn't make them more true.
By this I meant in terms of really objective truth, which we cannot reach.
And btw, my post about matter shouldn't be taken too seriously, lol.
i can imagine people might find this an unintelligent question, but it popped into my head today. Why do people prefer wireless mice and keyboards? I realize that it cuts down on cord space, and i also realize that you could take them across the room and STILL type on your computer... but who actually does that? i just bought a wired keyboard for 20 bucks and couldnt be happier... always plugged in, will never die, and no batteries required for use. i cant tell you how many times i had used i wireless mouse and the fucking thing died in the middle of browsing the internet/playing a game or a mixture of the two. anyways, that is my question and side of the argument...
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
