You sure about this? Yeah, the double slit experiment can be interpreted as a single particle being in two places at once, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any phenomenon that unequivocally contradicts the law of the excluded middle.
One for the loons.
Re: One for the loons.
Re: One for the loons.
Okay. I quoted the wrong law, and it's because I am not well versed in formal logic.
1. There is evidence that sometimes caused events and even caused objects precede on a timeline their causation. The difference is not large, but it is there. It's like the kid is born before his parents are present.
2. There is evidence that in quantum space, the smaller the space, the larger its energy content. The larger the space, the smaller its energy content. This is independent of what matter it contains, or what temperature it is at. This contradicts the intuitive thought that the more full containers and the larger full containers have more stuff in them than the smaller full containers and the fewer full containers.
3. An infinite amount of energy is generated when certain electron clouds go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. They cause a photon with a mass to escape. The photon will have gained its mass times the speed of light times the speed of light. But its mass is infinite, when it travels at such speed. So it has infinite energy. This contravenes the intuitive thought that in an instant any something could be accelerted to the speed of light.
Please don't ask me for details. I am hopeless in both quantum mechanics and formal logic.
-
surreptitious57
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: One for the loons.
An infinite amount of energy is simply impossible as that would be greater than the energy of the entire UniverseI wrote:
An infinite amount of energy is generated when certain electron clouds go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state . They cause a photon with a mass to escape . The photon will have gained its mass times the speed of light times the speed of light . But its mass is infinite
when it travels at such speed . So it has infinite energy
Photons can travel at the speed of light because they are massless and only massless particles can actually do this
Any thing with mass could never reach the speed of light as it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so
Re: One for the loons.
Here's one who has.
An accountant friend of mine at a social gathering went to the washroom. He was there for quite a long time. When he came back, I asked him, "Pacey, did it come out all right, in the end?" to which he replied, "At first I got stuck with it, but I worked it out with a pencil."
Re: One for the loons.
Well, yes, but it could be generated from a quantum energy that is contained in an infinitely small section of space.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:30 pm An infinite amount of energy is simply impossible as that would be greater than the energy of the entire Universe
I am just saying. I don't know anything. I know even less than the amount Socrates would admit he does.
-
barbarianhorde
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 pm
Re: One for the loons.
No serious thinkers here at all?
-
surreptitious57
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: One for the loons.
I cannot really say that I am aware of any significant difference in the levels of intellectual rigour between the two sites
Did you come here with a preconceived notion that here was better than over there without any good reason to think so
Because if you did then that is a problem entirely of your own making and one that you cannot project on to anyone else
The fact of the matter is that there are good posters here just like over there but after only three days you are judging way too quickly
You want to engage a really serious thinker then check out Age - he is simply one of the most rigorous debaters I have ever come across
Did you come here with a preconceived notion that here was better than over there without any good reason to think so
Because if you did then that is a problem entirely of your own making and one that you cannot project on to anyone else
The fact of the matter is that there are good posters here just like over there but after only three days you are judging way too quickly
You want to engage a really serious thinker then check out Age - he is simply one of the most rigorous debaters I have ever come across
-
surreptitious57
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: One for the loons.
An infinitely small section of space is non existent so what you mean is infinitesimally smallI wrote:
an infinitely small section of space
This is not just mere semantics because in science language has to be as precise as possible
Re: One for the loons.
What do you call a geometric point? I call it an infinitely small three dimensional space.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:10 pmAn infinitely small section of space is non existent so what you mean is infinitesimally smallI wrote:
an infinitely small section of space
This is not just mere semantics because in science language has to be as precise as possible
Re: One for the loons.
No, our thoughts are all funny. You'd better become funny or else. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Re: One for the loons.
BORONS NOT ALLOWED.
Re: One for the loons.
You must allow people their illusions. That's sometimes all they got. In most cases, opinions stick like crazy glue no matter how crazy they are. It's the life blood of philosophy forums. The term common sense is actually an oxymoron; in practice it's extremely elitist.