Different laws of physics??

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 01:30pm

You've admitted to being prejudiced on the subject and that the evidence is in fact irrelevant. I see no point in continuing this discussion. You will get your equations when I find them (it does require some amount of searching, you'll agree). Until then, and until you can show that the equations are not correct without me having to walk your silly ass through them step by step (which you seem to need), this discussion is over.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 01:32pm

kojikun wrote:You've admitted to being prejudiced on the subject and that the evidence is in fact irrelevant. I see no point in continuing this discussion. You will get your equations when I find them (it does require some amount of searching, you'll agree). Until then, and until you can show that the equations are not correct without me having to walk your silly ass through them step by step (which you seem to need), this discussion is over.

In other words, you can't prove your point in the face of logic(Just as the author admitted in an excerpt you posted!), so you're going to whine, cry, and run the fuck away. Good.

Concession Accepted, asshat.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 01:33pm

I said you will wait a fucking while until I can give you evidence. Its you who cannot prove the theories are incorrect because you don't WANT them to be correct, as you've already displayed.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 01:35pm

kojikun wrote:I said you will wait a fucking while until I can give you evidence.

I don't give a shit what you say you'll do, Koji. The text you posted reveals alot more than you want it to about this, and it'll take alot of evidence to overcome the fact this guy is clearly afraid of an educated adult's grasp of logic.

Its you who cannot prove the theories are incorrect because you don't WANT them to be correct, as you've already displayed.

Wow, I don't want a load of psuedeoscientific bullshit to be proven true. What a horrible crime. I suppose people who don't want Creationism to be true shouldn't debunk that, either, eh asshole?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 01:38pm

Pseudoscience isn't backed up by all the laws of physics, Nitram. And Michio Kaku is hardly afraid of an educate adults grasp of logic. You'd be wise to pick up a book on the subject and try to understand what hes talking about and why he makes the analogies he's making. Do you remember, Nitram, back when everyone thought that things like space travel were silly? The preeminent scientists of the time said space travel couldn't work, that it was impossible. Thats why he said adults tend to have a very rigid view of the world, they've become fundies of their own little dogma, refusing to even look at the math and saying its wrong before they've seen it (like someone in this debate, how funny).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 01:44pm

kojikun wrote:Pseudoscience isn't backed up by all the laws of physics, Nitram.

But a good conman can certainly make it appear so.

And Michio Kaku is hardly afraid of an educate adults grasp of logic.

Funny how that quote snuck into his book then, who wrote it?

You'd be wise to pick up a book on the subject and try to understand what hes talking about and why he makes the analogies he's making.

I'm fairly familiar with the various theories on multiple universes, Koji; I've never heard of this guy, though, and the text you've shown me of his was dismembered for the stupidity it is. You want to contest that? How about you actually deal with my criticisms?

Do you remember, Nitram, back when everyone thought that things like space travel were silly? The preeminent scientists of the time said space travel couldn't work, that it was impossible.

'Scientists were wrong once! They could be wrong again!' Textbook Creationist argument.

Thats why he said adults tend to have a very rigid view of the world, they've become fundies of their own little dogma, refusing to even look at the math and saying its wrong before they've seen it (like someone in this debate, how funny).

Funny how he throws in their rigid adherence to Logic as a bad thing, then, if he has nothing to fear.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 01:53pm

SirNitram wrote:But a good conman can certainly make it appear so.

And a good conman and make a valid theory appear false.

Funny how that quote snuck into his book then, who wrote it?

The book? Michio Kaku, one of the most preeminant scientists of our time. MKaku.org.

I'm fairly familiar with the various theories on multiple universes, Koji; I've never heard of this guy, though, and the text you've shown me of his was dismembered for the stupidity it is. You want to contest that? How about you actually deal with my criticisms?

Do you know who Kip Thorne and Steven Hawking are?

Scientists were wrong once! They could be wrong again!' Textbook Creationist argument.

Actually I was referring to you as being wrong beause, of your own admission, you've already made up your mind.

Funny how he throws in their rigid adherence to Logic as a bad thing, then, if he has nothing to fear.

Actually he said rigid adherance to their PREJUDICES about space and logic, not their rigid adherance to logic but their prejudices about it. Don't twist words.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 01:58pm

kojikun wrote:
SirNitram wrote:But a good conman can certainly make it appear so.
And a good conman and make a valid theory appear false.

Again, instead of debating the rebuttals I've made, you try and make me seem like a bad guy. That speaks for itself.

Funny how that quote snuck into his book then, who wrote it?
The book? Michio Kaku, one of the most preeminant scientists of our time. MKaku.org.

No, retard. If he has no fear of logically minded educated adults, why does the line I specficially quoted appear?

I'm fairly familiar with the various theories on multiple universes, Koji; I've never heard of this guy, though, and the text you've shown me of his was dismembered for the stupidity it is. You want to contest that? How about you actually deal with my criticisms?
Do you know who Kip Thorne and Steven Hawking are?

Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Do you know what a red herring is?

Scientists were wrong once! They could be wrong again!' Textbook Creationist argument.
Actually I was referring to you as being wrong beause, of your own admission, you've already made up your mind.

'Scientists think Creationism is wrong, they aren't worthy of debating it!' Just as textbook.

Funny how he throws in their rigid adherence to Logic as a bad thing, then, if he has nothing to fear.
Actually he said rigid adherance to their PREJUDICES about space and logic, not their rigid adherance to logic but their prejudices about it. Don't twist words.

Yes, we all know how evil the prejudices of thinking logically and scientifically are. We should take things on faith because the nice man said so.[/Sarcasm]

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 02:12pm

SirNitram wrote:Again, instead of debating the rebuttals I've made, you try and make me seem like a bad guy. That speaks for itself.

Just live you've been doing.

No, retard. If he has no fear of logically minded educated adults, why does the line I specficially quoted appear?

Because he was giving an example of how people tend to make up their minds on a subject before seeing it.

Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Do you know what a red herring is?

Actually I was asking to see if you really are well read on the subject of higher dimensions as you so claim.

['Scientists think Creationism is wrong, they aren't worthy of debating it!' Just as textbook.

Uh, no? You're the one whos already decided that wormholes and parallel universes don't exist and that any equations for them are wrong, so you're playing the part of the creationist. You've not provided one shred of reasoning AGAINST wormholes and paralle universes.

Yes, we all know how evil the prejudices of thinking logically and scientifically are. We should take things on faith because the nice man said so.[/Sarcasm]

Well they can be evil when someone decides that they know what science is and anything that isnt that isnt science, and thus determine everything to be wrong before knowing what they're talking about. And no, we shouldn't take things of faith because a man said so, we should accept that we are woefully uneducated on the subject and that peer review is a good method of indicating who's got a better theory.

Why are we arguing, btw? I mean, what brought this to an arguement?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 02:16pm

Tell you what, Koji, when you actually have a logical argument against my rebuttals or statements, let me know. This bullshit you're pulling it tiresome and circular.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 04:00pm

Shrykull wrote:Would it be possible to have a universe with different laws of physics, and are most of them just common sense and logic really, like conservation of energy- what goes in must come out, and that something can't come from nothing. What about if you had several universes connected, and sometimes the energy could disappear- go into another universe, and it seemingly looks like it vanished.

Anything is philosophically possible. Logically, the only appropriate answer to this query is "show me the money", ie- there's no reason to think there is such a thing unless we are presented with observations which require that hypothesis. See Occam's Razor.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 04:19pm

mike, isnt it true, tho, that occams razor does not inherently determine the factuality of a theory, just its applicability? i think yourself have said absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, and in a purely theoretical sense, as long as two theories have the same conclusions, the extra stuff that doesnt interfere is irrelevant..

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 06:40pm

kojikun wrote:mike, isnt it true, tho, that occams razor does not inherently determine the factuality of a theory, just its applicability?

No, it determines whether a theory is nonsense. If it is unnecessary, then any theory which invents a new mechanism or phenomenon is nonsense. It is possible for a nonsensical theory to be true through sheer luck (for example, a psychic might arbitrarily point out one person in her neighbourhood as a child molester, and it is actually possible that the psychic is right), but it would be sheer luck.

i think yourself have said absense of evidence is not evidence of absense,

Wrong. In fact, I said the opposite: that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, because any argument with no supporting evidence whatsoever for its central thesis is nonsense by definition.

and in a purely theoretical sense, as long as two theories have the same conclusions, the extra stuff that doesnt interfere is irrelevant..

Redundant, not irrelevant. The theory with fewer terms and equal performance is superior.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 06:51pm

What I meant is that, for instance, other universes are a theoretical byproduct of various theories, but not an observed byproduct. Concluding they dont exist is not necessarilly correct, because theres nothing extra required to explain them nor is there anything preventing them from existing, the only thing missing is a mechanism by which we could observe them. Its like when people assumed there were only 12 or so moons of jupiter but now we know that there are 68 or so. The moons didnt appear because we observed them, we just become able to observe them. Stating that its theoretically possible for something to exist without evidence is not inherently wrong its just an assumption which has no relevance in the other theories because its clearly not AFFECTING them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-09 06:54pm

If you're trying to save face, Koji, let me remind you what you actually wrote.

shrykull, energy cannot leave The Universe, but it can leave a universe. the difference being a universe, lowercase, is a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes; where as The Universe, capitalised, is everything that exists everywhere.

Which you still haven't proven, of course.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 06:55pm

kojikun wrote:What I meant is that, for instance, other universes are a theoretical byproduct of various theories, but not an observed byproduct. Concluding they dont exist is not necessarilly correct, because theres nothing extra required to explain them nor is there anything preventing them from existing, the only thing missing is a mechanism by which we could observe them.

Therefore, the theory which does not posit their existence is superior, since it lacks the redundant nonsense.

Its like when people assumed there were only 12 or so moons of jupiter but now we know that there are 68 or so. The moons didnt appear because we observed them, we just become able to observe them.

Correct. Nevertheless, the theory that there are more moons is subject to the demand for evidence. Now that it has been satisfied, it is reasonable to say that it has more than 12 moons. This does not mean that theories incorporating unverified phenomena are just as reasonable as other theories. By your "logic", it is just as reasonable to say that it has 1500 moons as 68 moons.

Stating that its theoretically possible for something to exist without evidence is not inherently wrong its just an assumption which has no relevance in the other theories because its clearly not AFFECTING them.

It is also theoretically possible for an intangible fire-breathing dragon to be in my garage.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 07:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:Therefore, the theory which does not posit their existence is superior, since it lacks the redundant nonsense.

Maybe so, but its an invalid theory if it does not include them.

Correct. Nevertheless, the theory that there are more moons is subject to the demand for evidence. Now that it has been satisfied, it is reasonable to say that it has more than 12 moons. This does not mean that theories incorporating unverified phenomena are just as reasonable as other theories. By your "logic", it is just as reasonable to say that it has 1500 moons as 68 moons.

Only as reasonable as 68 moons were when we were convinced jupiter had only 12 moons (or however many it was). My point is that fact and occams razor can and very frequently point in very opposite directions and completely dismissing a theory which has extra unknowns that DON'T make the theory's MECHANISM any less is a bad idea. It's better to say that the theory permits such things, not that such things do not exist.

It is also theoretically possible for an intangible fire-breathing dragon to be in my garage.

I know a dragon. E's got spikes on eir head.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 07:48pm

Would it be possible to have a universe with different laws of physics, and are most of them just common sense and logic really, like conservation of energy- what goes in must come out, and that something can't come from nothing. What about if you had several universes connected, and sometimes the energy could disappear- go into another universe, and it seemingly looks like it vanished

What do you mean by different laws of physics?
obtusely different ones in place of the ones long established, or new physics that are (yet to be discovered) extensions of the physics we currently understand.

Most of the physics we currently understand can brought together under the Standard Model (SM). But even this has problems, since one question it needed to answer was why (fundamental) particles have the mass that they do? In order to answer the standard model had to incorporate a particle known as the higgs particle, and the higgs field along with it (the field responsible for giving particles mass)

Although the higgs does answer the problem of origin of mass, it creates a new one, called the Heirarchy problem. And this is basically the inability of the SM to explain the quadratic dependence of Higgs mass at higher energy scales, while the SM fermions depend logarithmically.

Hence we have a theory called supersymmetry (SUSY) that provides symmetry between fermions and bosons, of the same mass and charge, as a solution to the hierarchy problem. Yes the masses of the so called super partners are large. and have not been observed. hence the symmetry is referred to as a broken.

To overcome this problem we have the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), which simplifies SUSY through minimal extra parameter/particle content , and which introduces r-parity which is negative for SM particles and positve for SUSY particles. Then the minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA) was introduced where its assumed that gravitational interactions break SUSY symmetry at the Grand Unification Scale (GUT) of around 10^16Gev. Both MSSM and mSUGRA predict an absolutely stable supersymmetric known as the LSP (lightest susy particle) or lightest neutralino. This behaves like the SM neutrino (very rarely interacts due to its stability) but billions of times heavier, and is a candidate for cold dark matter.

the only way to detect particles like these to determine missing energy (via energy conservation) from possible interactions/decays that could result in those particles

signatures for higgs masses have been found in particle accelerator experiments such as LEPII. further clues and signatures for SUSY may well be found in the LHC project (a 14TeV pp collider), soon to operate around 2007.

SUSY links:
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/u ... /ssym.html

Different "universes" as you put it may well contain different physics.
but they wouldnt neccessarily be that much different since certain physics would have to be same in order for that universe to exist (as in to interact and produce observable signatures) in the first place. The difference could be in terms of energy scales of the fundamental particles contained in that universe, and perhaps their behaviour

as for conservation of energy, whatever physics, or universe we can theorise, energy conservation is always part and parcel of how we can observe them. for (i=0;i<numleps;i++)
{
cout << " leppt: " << lepidpt << endl;
}

// lepton combination processing
// Need to get data of leptons of flag 4

if (numleps<=1){flag=0;}
if (numleps>=2)
{
sign1 = lepid[0]/(TMath::Abs(lepid[0]));
sign2 = lepid[1]/(TMath::Abs(lepid[1]));
lep1 = TMath::Abs(lepid[0]);
lep2 = TMath::Abs(lepid[1]);

if (sign1==sign2){flag=1;}
if (lep1==11 && lep2==11 && sign1!=sign2){flag=2;}
if (lep1==13 && lep2==13 && sign1!=sign2){flag=3;}
if (lep1==11 && lep2==13 && sign1!=sign2){flag=4;}
if (lep1==13 && lep2==11 && sign1!=sign2){flag=4;}
}

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 07:53pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Therefore, the theory which does not posit their existence is superior, since it lacks the redundant nonsense.
Maybe so, but its an invalid theory if it does not include them.

Wrong. Theory follows observation, not the other way around. A theory is only invalid if it does not properly model the information at hand. At the time, the theory did properly model the information at hand.

By your "logic", it is just as reasonable to say that it has 1500 moons as 68 moons.
Only as reasonable as 68 moons were when we were convinced jupiter had only 12 moons (or however many it was).

Right. It's possible to stumble onto the truth, but this doesn't mean that the method of doing so is valid or logical.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 07:54pm

warlock, is that code part of an open source universe project or are you being naughty and using hacked code? or did you write it yourself for a universe you designed?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 07:54pm

I see Warlock has arrived with his trademark regurgitation of completely irrelevant trivia in order to try and make himself look smart.

Much like "The Atheist King", he typically uses volume of data in order to compensate for not addressing the point at all. He always employs this method in his B5 wanking too (we're talking about a guy who claimed that neutron beams should make any heavy metal undergo nuclear fission, thus increasing the yield of the beam by orders of magnitude, and then blathered a lot of quantum mechanics handwaving when challenged).

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 07:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. Theory follows observation, not the other way around. A theory is only invalid if it does not properly model the information at hand. At the time, the theory did properly model the information at hand.

So you're saying that a theory is still valid if it's shown to not include all aspects of reality?? Cause thats what I said..

Right. It's possible to stumble onto the truth, but this doesn't mean that the method of doing so is valid or logical.

But it also doesnt mean that if you have a theory and the theory has consequences (like einsteins theories permitting wormholes) that the consequences, while unobserved, are an entirely invalid or impossible concept. they fit with the theory, and so arent impossible. that was my point, that something neednt be immediately discounted as impossible if it fits with theory but isn't observed.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 08:01pm

I see Warlock has arrived with his trademark regurgitation of completely irrelevant trivia in order to try and make himself look smart.

TADAA!
*bows*

does an accountant look smart while at work in accountancy?
im not smart, but im just doing what i do.

warlock, is that code part of an open source universe project or are you being naughty and using hacked code? or did you write it yourself for a universe you designed?

er no..i have too many open windows. thats part of my analysis program for processing results from a monte carlo simulation of particle interactions (one expects from an accelerator) called pythia.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 08:07pm

Much like "The Atheist King", he typically uses volume of data in order to compensate for not addressing the point at all.

i did address his (the origin posters) point of making ado without conservation energy, and other universes. are you hard of reading these days?

He always employs this method in his B5 wanking too (we're talking about a guy who claimed that neutron beams should make any heavy metal undergo nuclear fission, thus increasing the yield of the beam by orders of magnitude, and then blathered a lot of quantum mechanics handwaving when challenged

ahh the good old days. still lingering on it are you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 08:08pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. Theory follows observation, not the other way around. A theory is only invalid if it does not properly model the information at hand. At the time, the theory did properly model the information at hand.
So you're saying that a theory is still valid if it's shown to not include all aspects of reality?? Cause thats what I said..

"All aspects of reality" are not knowable unless you are omniscient. Theories can only account for observation.

Right. It's possible to stumble onto the truth, but this doesn't mean that the method of doing so is valid or logical.
But it also doesnt mean that if you have a theory and the theory has consequences (like einsteins theories permitting wormholes) that the consequences, while unobserved, are an entirely invalid or impossible concept. they fit with the theory, and so arent impossible. that was my point, that something neednt be immediately discounted as impossible if it fits with theory but isn't observed.

Einstein's theory is valid because it is necessary in order to explain observed time dilation, orbital irregularities, etc. The unobserved ramifications of the theory are considered valid theoretical predictions because the theory IS necessary in order to explain what we already know.

Consider the analogy of a man whose DNA was found in a dead rape victim found 100km away from his house, in the woods. The forensics and DNA evidence call for the theory that he must have raped and then killed her. Based on this theory, you can conclude that he must have also driven her body to the woods, even if you can't find the car in order to examine it for DNA evidence. That's an unobserved theoretical prediction relating to a theory which is necessitated by evidence.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Different laws of physics??

Re: Different laws of physics??