The lecturer, an assistant professor at BSU, who teaches the "Boundaries of Science" course promoted, according to the Foundation for Freedom of Religion, the Christian approach over the scientific approach. In the letter she distributed to the faculty, she says that intelligent design is a religious position that has long been rejected by science
The president of Ball State University in Indiana (Ball State University), Jo Ann Gora, announced last Wednesday that public schools should not teach intelligent design or creationism in science classes or treat them as truth. This is following the revelation of an evolution denier among the teaching positions at the University in Indiana, the president of the state university calls not to teach creationism under the guise of science.
The concept of intelligent design, which rejects evolution, holds that an intelligent force and not uncontrolled processes such as natural selection are behind the creation of the universe and living creatures. Gora's statement was in response to a complaint received about a university professor who taught intelligent design as a science. "The intelligent design approach is defined by the scientific community as a religious belief and not as a scientific theory." Gora writes in a message to the faculty members of the institution. "Therefore, intelligent planning is not appropriate content for science classes."
The announcement was made in response to a letter from the Foundation for Religious Freedom, which expressed its concern that Eric Hadin, an assistant professor at BSU, violated the constitutional separation of church and state in the way he presented intelligent design in a respected science class under the title "The Limits of Science." According to the "Inside Higher Education" website, the foundation objects to Ding sharing his beliefs and forcing the Christian point of view over other points of view.
Intelligent design can now be discussed at BSU in social science and humanities courses that focus on religions, but this approach should not be given a different weight than other approaches. Allowing the topic to be presented in science classes as a valid scientific theory does not represent the scientific community, and therefore does not meet the requirements for academic standards. Therefore, the issue is not an issue of academic freedom, Gora said, but of academic integrity.
In the end, it was decided that Din's classes would remain free from misrepresentation of the intelligent design approach and Din agreed to cooperate. It is still unclear if he will even continue to teach the "Science Limits" course.
At the Freedom Foundation there is a race religion, as is evolution expert Prof. Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and owner of the blog "Why evolution is true". At the Discovery Institute, on the other hand, the initiator and promoter of the approach, which has an impact all over the world, including the rabbis with us, says that "Gora's position is against academic freedom, it is Orwellian in its extremes, and it also condescends to a faculty member whose spiritual purchase has been robbed."
post Scriptum. On the desk of the Ministry of Education spokesman's office for more than a week has been a request from the website for a response to the request of the Freedom Association, which requests to teach evolution not only to those who chose 5 units of biology, but to all students, since this theory is the basis of all biology, but there they still chose Wait, maybe I'll give up.
889 תגובות
Wow
waiting
Well enough!
Shmulik
You are always to blame. like my.
As mentioned, I see where Einstein's alleged mistake is. My question is: how come he didn't see?
And nothing fundamental has changed in our understanding of quantum mechanics and non-locality since 1935. The only thing that Bell did was look deeply into the small details, where the devil is known to be found. But there is no breakthrough in what he did, including his inequality theorem (which is a pure mathematical theorem).
I say "apparent mistake" because Einstein was never given a chance to defend himself. He died believing he had found the loophole in the hated quantum theory. As I know the old fox, he would get out of the thick of it, and find a new argument to hit his rival and good friend, Niels Bohr.
Regarding the photon, please note: in QED the photon is not a bullet that makes its way from the gun to the target, but it goes through almost every possible path on the way. "Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.
So if an electron - or any other quantum object such as a photon - is enough to visit Andromeda during its short trip from the source to the detector - it must be moving at a great many speeds, and surely faster than light, right?
And Feynman says that, not me.
To give an edge to my idea, you might want to take a look at a link from two years ago:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/comment-page-7/#comment-312259
As you like: stories, songs, Amayat..
The phenomenon of the rainbow is described there, which is always at a constant distance from each surveyor, regardless of its location. It is impossible to reach it, it is impossible to stand under it, and it is impossible to pass it.
A bit reminiscent of the speed of light, isn't it?
And in the case of the rainbow, the answer is that the rainbow is basically everywhere - including the viewer's location - but he is only able to see the reflections that he recognizes at a certain and fixed distance.
This is my direction for making Postulate 2 a theorem.
Michael
I'm really sorry if I hurt you in any way, it certainly wasn't my intention. Please show me where and what, so I can learn and correct in the future.
Of course, you have the right to withdraw from the discussion, although in my opinion this is the stage where you are most needed.
The reason is simple: if you read my response from the article two years ago, I argued in it: "I believe that it is possible to build a model, certainly in my mind, but also in practice, in the laboratory, that would produce gravitation (according to Lesage) without friction (which Feynman pointed out in the Lesage model), Inertia, and most importantly: a wave that will spread at the same speed in every frame of reference."
And to that I will add: the possibility of non-locality
When I say "mental model" I mean a computer model.
And who is best suited to build such a computer model? One guess... even if only to prove Israel the fool that he is wrong. If you ask, I will be happy to give you the basic assumptions of the model.
Full disclosure - I'm not sure the model will yield inertia. In my opinion, it will undoubtedly yield gravitation according to Lesage without the problem of Feynman's friction, and if we change the distribution of collisions between the particles, a wave propagating at the same speed for each measurer, regardless of the speed of the measurer.
And that's what we're looking for, isn't it?
As I said, I decided to stop my participation in the discussion because all I "gain" from it is being annoyed at the way my words are treated.
I will only add that now - in addition to the fact that in my opinion all the conclusions reached by Israel about the existing theories are wrong, I also retract my recommendation that he present his theory to some scientific body.
I refrain from writing why because, as mentioned, I am tired of the endless debates and the treatment my words receive.
Israel,
Because I'm guilty…
Again, why Einstein thought and all is not a question that can be answered. Presumably he assumed, as you did, that information about the spin is nevertheless information and therefore "information" does travel at a speed higher than the speed of light and this contradicts the assumption of the theory of relativity. Physicists today solve part of the problem by claiming that there is no way to affect causality through this effect. What Bell found, in the sixties(!) is that there is no locally hidden variable theory that can be as good as quantum mechanics and if you read the wiki about the paradox, you will see that there is actually no good explanation for the entanglement phenomenon and that is really cool because it means we have a lot more to explore.
Quantum mechanics baffles us again and again because it forces us to change classical concepts, whether we want to or not. The article (not just Einstein) made claims about what "physical reality" is based on our Newtonian intuition (which is the fallacy) and quantum mechanics gave him a "no" but then, the relevant experiments had not yet been conducted and therefore it was fine to make the claims that were made but when the theory was proven again And again, we have no choice but to abandon the concepts that the article coined. On the one hand, relativity successfully predicts many phenomena, so we tend to think of it as "correct". On the other hand, we know that the "paradox" is not a paradox because the result has been confirmed in experiments. The way to reconcile these two facts is to bend the theory of relativity since reality beats any theory. I would like to mention again that Einstein could, like all people, make a mistake or use concepts that the future will render irrelevant. That's exactly what happened.
Regarding Bell, the claim that nothing has changed in 30 years is a false claim, as mathematical breakthroughs are made all the time and so it is with mathematical techniques that are constantly being perfected. It is certainly not trivial to claim that Bell's result could have been reached already in 1930 and it is absolutely clear that the EPR paradox and the results discovered as a result of the desire to test the paradox are the motivation for Bell. This is how science progresses. By the way, at the beginning of the month there was a super interesting Nobel conference that you can watch on YouTube. Prof. James Gates (whose first lecture he gave at the conference is almost like an MDB, how cool) said exactly that. He made a nice comparison between music and mathematics and said that just as new works are created all the time, so in mathematics, so also with style. He argued that the mathematical style practiced 100 years ago was completely different from the style practiced today. Here is the link to the lectures again (most of them are fascinating!) and I would be happy if the scientist did a follow-up on some of the things that were told there, such as the fact that after the big bang the universe slowed down its expansion to a certain point and then the trend reversed. not cool?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1P0HNhQE68&list=PLHuAoPzfQhGGQzB58S1iVQvu43Xvbp2c4
Regarding Ockham's Razor, this principle is by no means a binding principle but at most a rule of thumb.
I would love for you to explain in a long and detailed way (also in a narrative way) how the photon can move at infinite speeds and I again, nevertheless, suggest Kraus's forum because it seems that you have reached some kind of exhaustion here, or Michael has arrived . I guess English is not a limitation for you
my father
The theory is described in several comments in the discussion I had with R.H. (What about him by the way? Where did he go?) and start with this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-11/#comment-326491
What is important for our purposes is the following response:
Israel Shapira
We returned from the mountains.
It's pretty easy when your house is in the mountains. You just open the door, and there, mountains.
Ruby
The universe did not start from a state of total disorder. On the contrary, according to the big bang theory, its initial state was very orderly.
jubilee.
I'm not sure you have understood Ockham or the scientific method correctly.
Take geometry for example. Its axioms are simple and basic, but you can use them to build more and more complex sentences, and arrive at complicated calculations that, if you didn't learn how they were arrived at, you would think that nature couldn't have built such a complicated thing by itself (why is the volume of the pyramid the product of the area multiplied by the height divided by 3? Where did it come from Suddenly the 3?).
Physics develops in a similar way: from the simple to the complex.
A good example is the subject before us: sine waves. Seemingly a very complex thing: a wave that propagates in space and time in a very complicated way. The equation that describes the propagation of sine waves is an equation of several variables, of time and space. Yabrady, what a mess! Could it be that nature has organized such a complicated thing, or maybe the whole story exists only in the fevered minds of deranged physicists?
However, if we freeze the sine wave in two dimensions moving forward in time - by photographing such a wave in a wire - we will see the sine wave in all its glory. Thus we neutralized the time factor.
Now what will happen if we fly over the wave and take a video of it? The wave will appear to us as a simple harmonic motion. Thus we neutralized the distance factor.
But what about simple harmonic motion? It's also quite complicated, isn't it? How did simple nature create such a complicated thing?
So this is it, if we take a rotating wheel, and take a video of the light projection of a certain point in the wheel on the table, we will get a simple harmonic motion.
And that's how we got from a three-dimensional sine wave moving through space as a function of three dimensions of space + the dimension of time, to the lid of a Nescafe can that can be rotated on the table.
And the same with the mathematical treatment of the wave: simply cut out the complicated wave partially, until you reach sixth grade algebra.
That's how all physics is built. We start with F=MA, and arrive at the landing of an unmanned spacecraft on Mars.
And regarding your question: the freeway model is simply the Maxwell model for an open system.
A closed system is a system like your room, where the air is at rest relative to the room, or relative to the flying air, or relative to the air. A sound wave that moves through the air in such a system will have a constant speed (the speed of sound) relative to that reference system (the room, the air, etc.).
But what will happen to such a wave in an open system like our universe? Relative to what he will advance? (After all, this is exactly what experiment M-M tried to find).
My answer is that in an open system the wave will advance at all speeds, because in an open system the air molecules will move at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. But we as measurers can only measure one speed: the speed of sound relative to us.
Replace air molecules with Lesage particles, the speed of sound with the speed of light, see the detailed explanation I gave in the previous article why I think this is necessary, and here is the freeway model.
And another thing that emerges from the description of the open system: how could the MM experiment ever succeed? If the universe is infinite isotropic and homogeneous, isn't finding a rest system for the site equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line, which is also infinite isotropic and homogeneous?
It was said that Michelson would have found it, and that it was moving relative to us at a speed of 4576 km/s towards Andromeda. So why this one? What about homogeneity? Isn't this equivalent to finding the center of the infinite straight line as being 4576 km away from us in the positive direction of the X-axis?
April 4th, 2012
And the main thing:
A photon does not move at one speed only - the speed of light - but at all speeds, from minus infinity to infinity.
We, using our senses and instruments, can measure it at only one speed: the speed of light.
I explained the reason in that long article. I would be happy to explain once more if asked.
Quantum mechanics quite supports this approach. The very assertion that a photon - or any quantum object - does not have a defined location before the collapse, and can be anywhere in the universe with a certain probability, requires a speed higher than that of light, in fact infinite.
Also non-locality.
delusional? Maybe. The alternative is millimeter long trains without the knowledge of the passengers inside, watching the future and influencing the past.
Hope the response was successful, iPhone.
I was surprised because my memory is full but your name does not appear in the list of authors either on the site map
In any case, please point to a specific response where you raised the theory
my father
I did not write "my article". I wrote an "article in the knowledge".
This means:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/
How did you do the trick?
Avi,
You'll know:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22%D7%90%D7%9D+%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%98+%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F+%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8+%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94+%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA+%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90+%22%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7+%D7%A9%D7%9C+%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA+%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D%22
Israel,
pestle..
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/
Israel, what article are you talking about? I would love to receive a link, because I did not find any of your articles.
Michael
The whole family is getting ready for a trip to Palm Springs, so it will be difficult for me to respond in an orderly manner in the next two days. In the meantime, here's a question for you:
Reporter:
"In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality".
If you are familiar with Weiler's delayed choice experiment
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/
So this is exactly what he is talking about: influence on the past from the future.
Here is a quote from Gali's article:
"If Albert Einstein said of quantum entanglement that it is "ghostly action at a distance", then the late choice experiments are haunted by ghosts..."
Hebrew is a bit irregular, but the meaning is still clear. Doesn't this experiment violate the principle of causality?
If you agree that it is, and if you accept that Einstein (okay, not Ockham) would have immediately fainted from the current interpretation of the experiment, and if you also agree that anything is better than reversing the cause and effect, we can proceed to my theory.
In my opinion, it is much less severe.
Israel:
I'm not going to cooperate with the scarecrow role you cast on me in almost every response as you reinvent me.
You take almost every word I say out of context and try to misrepresent it.
I'm also not ready to forget the many times I asked you to present your theory (including the current time, which any sane person would have interpreted as a demand to detail the theory).
"It's nice that you admit that the changes in distance and time are results of the assumption that relativity makes about the constancy of the speed of light - an assumption that has been proven in hundreds of experiments."
I think you only read half the comment.
Here is the original:
"On the other hand, apparently there is no escape from these strange results, because if we accept that the speed of light is always constant, and speed is a measure of distance divided by time, then what inevitably changes are distance and time.
And my question is: is it true?"
Your conclusion "it's nice that you admit that" could have been true if it weren't for the words "allegedly" and "indeed" that appear clearly in the paragraph.
"The presentation as if some of them were not accepted in the experiment is of course misleading".
I am not aware of an experiment that confirms the shortening of the length. About the confirmation of relativity that I brought a few weeks ago it says that there is no such experiment. Can you point to such an experiment? Maybe some experiment where a train of a kilometer is compressed to a millimeter?
"What is more correct to say is that none of them have ever been disproved (which is the scientific test for a theory)"
God's existence has never been disproved either. Also alien landing and communication with the dead.
"In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality".
Information undoubtedly passes. The spin of the electron or the polarization of the photon.
"He just didn't think about the fact that this is not about transferring information."
Didn't think? Einstein in his most important paper since general relativity? ???
"This is the difference between him and the physicists of today."
There is no relevant difference in knowledge today from that which existed in 1935. If I remember correctly, Ehud claims that the explanation for saving relativity from the Aspect experiment is extremely narrow.
"Assuming that you accept the popular opinion on the subject of the EPR experiment, I am interested to know if there is still, in your opinion, an experiment that contradicts the theory of relativity."
No. Nor am I claiming that there is anything wrong with relativity. I claim that there can be another explanation that is not a postulate that leaves the determination of the speed of light in all reference systems, and that the lengthening of time does not correspond to the absolute time of the bang. Let's talk about the bang. Where is the end of the universe? What was before the bang?
"The whole discussion started with allegations of connections in the background radiation and had nothing to do with EPR."
The discussion started from intelligent planning in Indiana. He moved to EPR because of Shmulik's interest, but actually EPR is quite related to the lengthening of times.
"Does his leakage to the EPR indicate that you received the explanations for the errors in the thought experiments with the age of the universe and with the background radiation?"
God forbid. If time dilation exists and indeed there is an age to the universe, then theoretically it is possible to pass this age.
"Say only if you got it that the experiments you proposed with the age of the universe were based on a train that cannot be built during the limited lifetime of the universe."
In every train that passes us, and assuming that the age of the first car is our age, then according to the length of time the last car is older than us. Even on the valley train.
"The background radiation is a clock like all clocks."
Is there one clock out of all those clocks whose age is higher than the age of the background radiation? Because according to relativity, there are countless clocks whose age is less than the age of radiation (lead scouts, rushing photons, twins).
If the answer to the question is yes, please point to such an antique clock.
If it is negative, then you yourself singled out the background radiation clock as the latest clock.
"You imply that there is another possibility besides relativity".
Hints and secrets have their place in Kabbalah and the occult. I argue that there is a possible physical explanation for the constancy of the speed of light that leaves Newton's and Maxwell's absolute time and distance intact.
This does not mean that the explanation is correct, it is probably wrong. But there are other explanations.
"You (and the physicist you occasionally mention) avoid presenting the alternatives you think you have, so what answer do you expect?"
The same physicist, as I have already mentioned, claimed that there is a problem with Proper relations. I disagreed with him and even brought the question to Ofer Maged, who ruled in my favor. I believe that although he didn't admit it, I was able to show him that there is no problem in relationships without the contradiction with the absolute bang time.
I am not presenting my alternative - because I was not asked to present it. Two years ago I was asked, and I presented it in an article in Bidian. If I ask someone who understands the subject, I will present.
The discussion here and in the same article convinces me more and more that the only way to prove or disprove that alternative is through an experiment. The problem is that it is not a simple rule, and I learn from mistakes all the time and perfect the experiments. Still, the road is long.
"And one last question: Why aren't you presenting your questions to Kraus yet?"
Since my main argument is Ockham's support, and as we have seen in the discussion here, anyone can argue that Ockham is with him, I prefer to wait right now, mainly because of the lack of time (my father is still here with us and the pace of events is exhausting even without further discussion).
Speaking of which - how is your father?
Israel:
It's nice that you admit that the changes in distance and time are results of the assumption that relativity makes about the constancy of the speed of light - an assumption that has been proven in hundreds of experiments.
It is important to mention this so that it is understood that all references to Ockham were simply blasphemy (of Ockham).
Indeed - photographing Saturn from a spacecraft moving from the region of the Earth at a (constant) speed towards it will show Saturn larger (and what's the wonder? in its system it is closer).
If she misses Saturn and passes by him, he will also appear narrower to her (from the side).
These results were obtained as a result of calculating the consequences of determining the speed of light and the presentation as if some of them were not obtained in the experiment is obviously misleading. They were not accepted in experiments where they should not have been accepted because of our measurement limitations.
What is more correct to say is that none of them have ever been disproved (which is the scientific test for a theory) and some of them have even been measured.
In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality.
He just didn't think about the fact that this is not a transfer of information.
This is the difference between him and today's physicists, but I have already said that too.
Assuming that you accept the popular opinion on the subject of the EPR experiment, I am interested to know if there is still, in your opinion, an experiment that contradicts the theory of relativity.
The whole discussion started with allegations of connections in the background radiation and had nothing to do with EPR. Does his leakage to EPR indicate that you received the explanations for the errors in the thought experiments with the age of the universe and with the background radiation?
You don't need to present the experiments again - only say if you accepted that the experiments you proposed with the age of the universe were based on a train that cannot be built during the limited lifetime of the universe and that the background radiation is a clock like clocks.
You imply that there is another possibility besides relativity. Physicists today do not know another possibility and you (and the physicist you mention from time to time) avoid presenting the alternatives you think you have, so what answer do you expect?
And one last question: why don't you present your questions to Kraus yet?
Shmulik
The speed of light is undoubtedly constant in any reference system. If you take a look at Michael's link to the proofs of relativity, you can see why the alternative theories were rejected, primarily EMISSION THEORY, according to which the speed of light is relative to the source.
However, relativity predicts very strange results, of which the lengthening of time is only one of them. The shortening of the length (of which there is no experimental evidence) is an even more strange result. Since it does not include the shortening of the width, does this mean that if we photograph Saturn from a spacecraft passing by the earth at high speed we will see it much closer as if we had used a zoom?
On the other hand, apparently there is no escape from these strange results, because if we accept that the speed of light is always constant, and speed is a quotient of distance divided by time, then what inevitably changes are distance and time.
And my question is: really?
Regarding the paradox (I read, I read), it has nothing to do with the results of the experiments (by the way, Bell's proof is purely mathematical). Einstein claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity. Physicists today claim not. There is no difference in the relevant knowledge from 1935 to today. So is there a contradiction or not? If there is, why do the physicists claim that there is not? And if there is not, why did Einstein claim that there is? This is my question. Not that he was wrong about whether non-locality exists or not (a reasonable and logical mistake) but that he claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity. What, he doesn't see that there is no contradiction?
Israel,
Precisely in the theory of relativity, the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference for any observer.
Regarding the paradox, I think you are missing a simple fact which is that when the article was written it was before any experiments were conducted on the subject and this explains how he could have been wrong. Please write that you have read this paragraph.
In addition, it is not exactly a mistake in the sense that since there were no more experiments on the subject, the authors predicted a strange result of quantum mechanics that allows the transfer of information beyond the speed of light while relativity has already been demonstrated to correctly predict various findings.
The experiments that proved that entanglement does exist were conducted about 30 years later, so existence is not a paradox because with all due respect to the theory of relativity, it is a theory, but what wins are the empirical inventors and Michael explained why today entanglement is not considered to contradict the theory of relativity.
Einstein claimed that non-locality allows the transfer of information beyond the speed of light and this contradicts his assumption that nothing can move above the speed of light (when it comes to matter that started moving below the speed of light and crossed the speed of light)
In any case, all these types of questions: how could he be wrong, etc. are not good questions. Scientists are human and people make mistakes, new information is received, new theories are developed and this is how science progresses. The only ones who ask how such a shaman can be wrong and are bothered by it are religious people. Except for them, we are all wrong, a significant part of the time.
12 year warranty
Israel is beautiful that you understood everything, simplified the picture, except that the mattress is also my theory
Water, your description is indeed quite accurate, it's just a shame you didn't also mention the virtual photon mattresses that quanta rest on in simplification of assembled organs after they finish all the jumping back and forth up and down during the injuries.
Dear Israel, there are some things that are difficult for me to understand about relationships - how do you connect speeds and an individual point of view, also in quanta, randomness does not work out, apparently these are a partial and simplified picture of the physical properties of the universe, I would sort out the situation a little by explaining that light moves many times backwards and forwards in time , creates a wave, brings together elements in the wave motion such as mass, time and elongation. And on the other hand, the movement backwards and forwards many times can give the random elements an expression that comes from parallel worlds that are created from the movement backwards and forwards and from there the additional or missing knowledge, this is some kind of union that explains some mistakes and the rounding of the big picture that creates contradictions
Michael
From Shmulik's link on the EPR paradox:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the "paradox
Now, if as you say, "Physicists today do not see it as a transfer of information, but as a simultaneous creation of information" then what do those physicists know today that Einstein did not know in 1935? Has anything changed since then? According to what is written above, Einstein claimed that such instant communication contradicts relativity, hence the paradox. So is there a contradiction or no contradiction? If there is, why do the physicists claim today that there is not? And if there is not, why did Einstein claim that there is? Do we understand relativity better than Einstein?
The answer is surprising.
Regarding the link you gave about the confirmation of the relationship, and as punishment for falsely accusing me 🙂 answer the question that I have asked several times without an answer:
"Is there another possibility besides the lengthening of the times for determining the speed of light in all reference systems? A possibility that actually fits perfectly with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought for his whole life, and lost?"
And we will add: which does not contradict any experimental confirmation of relativity from any of the ones you brought in the link, and also opens a window to understanding non-locality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
As I said, physicists today do not see it as a transfer of information but as a simultaneous creation of the information.
There are people (among them also serious people) who disagree on this interpretation, but what is clear is that what is transmitted cannot be used to transmit known information and consequently - to reverse the order of cause and effect.
This inversion of order is, in my opinion, what bothered Einstein.
I don't know if the interpretation is justified or not. I tend to think it is justified but I have no better reasoning than those already given by others.
In any case - it does not belong to the arguments you raised.
Before I run, and because I'm not sure this point is clear enough:
1. Why did Einstein claim that non-locality contradicts relativity?
2. Why was he wrong?
3. How could he be wrong, since the spin information travels at infinite speed and relativity prohibits the transfer of information faster than light?
4. And my question: how come he did not see what most physicists see: that there is no contradiction.
In any case, Shmulik and myself are eagerly awaiting the discussion you will have with Lawrence Krauss.
Israel:
I thank you for the confirmation you added to my claim about the way you worded it.
Should I write that in the original response I apologized in advance for a possible misunderstanding?
How many times do I have to apologize to you?
I did not understand. In my opinion it is your fault and in my opinion it does not belong to the number of times you wrote CMB but to the fact that you did not refer (in writing) to any system. But I apologized anyway.
In your words about EPR, you repeat things I said and try to present it as a correction to my words.
I said that today's physicists do not consider it a transfer of information and I explained why (an explanation I gave even before you asked the first time, an explanation that for some reason did not make you stop asking)
Good. Now I don't understand what exactly you want.
The misunderstanding has been clarified. Although Israel wrote countless times "Cosmic Background Radiation" and "CMB", and brought the appropriate links - Michael understood for some reason that Israel meant something else.
Instead of admitting the mistake and apologizing, Michael continues to insist that Israel is simply drafting poorly. Well, we're used to it.
Einstein was not in the minority - when he brought up the EPR paradox there were not many physicists who believed in non-locality. Niels Bohr also did not believe in non-locality.
And that is not the essence of his mistake at all. The point is that Einstein argued in the article that quantum mechanics is incorrect ("incomplete" Elek), because if the uncertainty principle is true, then the electron spin information must pass from one electron to another immediately, and this is contrary to the prohibition of transferring information faster than the light of relativity.
First - he was wrong. Bell's inequality and the Aspect experiment proved this.
Second - he was wrong twice. Although the information passes, there is no contradiction to relativity.
But he claimed that there is a contradiction to relativity, and this is his second mistake.
An explanation of the nature of the mistake - if there is a demand.
Going to work.
Israel:
As I have already said - I did not understand your intention because of the way it was worded and when you understand your intention then the lack of logic does not cross any limits - it is a lack of understanding of the limits that were already set before.
Since you know very well that I know about the CMB and that the word "radiation" does not describe any "system", I assume you understood what I said.
I also assume that you understood that when I said that most physicists do not see EPR as a problem, I did not mean Einstein who was in the minority on this point.
It seems to me that you are trying to create scarecrows and if before that I stopped participating in the discussion because I saw that I had already answered all the questions you raised, then now another reason has been added to my reluctance to participate in the discussion and this reason is that as the discussion continues your wording becomes more sloppy and your responses become more aggressive.
If the problem raised in the EPR paradox was not perceived by Einstein as problematic, why did he write that it was problematic? What do most physicists see that Einstein did not?
And what is the story brought up by Israel who received answers that are both complete and correct?
Only in this article I referred many times to the background radiation or in English CMB. Those who did not understand my intention also did not know about the background radiation system at all, which nicely explains the lack of understanding.
In any case, now that the misunderstanding (yours) has been clarified, do you continue to claim "that the lack of logic in the discussion already exceeds all limits"?
The EPR paradox is not seen by most physicists as problematic because we do not create the result that Einstein feared - the one that allows the reversal of the order of cause and effect.
This is not about the transfer of information, but the simultaneous creation of information (so, at least, in most interpretations).
Some dispute this defense, but in any case, this experiment has nothing to do with the whole story that Israel is putting forward - a story that, in my opinion, received full answers.
Israel:
I explained from the beginning why I think what was said is wrong. I explained that I understood from what you said that radiation is radiation and not the background radiation system and in the same response I wrote different things about the background radiation system which was clear that in my understanding of your words it is different from what you called radiation.
In the response to which I responded, you wrote Karina and I didn't guess that you were talking about any system and in that sense it has no meaning that you never referred to another system because here you did not refer to the system.
As you noticed - I was not the only one who did not understand your intention.
Well, already.
Could you show me, the worst draftsman, where in this article I referred to a system other than the background radiation system?
Israel:
No.
This is your poor wording again.
If you mean the background radiation system (the one where radiation is isotropic) then yes, but if you mean radiation then no.
Michael, please explain yourself.
If we move at a speed of 371 km/s in the direction of Leo relative to radiation, doesn't this mean that someone who moves at the same speed relative to us in the opposite direction, moves at 0 speed relative to radiation?
Shmulik
The mischievous little Alec was a lovable and friendly electron, until one day he met the evil Positron Positron and they both became ionized...
Yes, but the speed of light is relative to what? This is where the whole relationship started, right? After all, according to Einstein and Galileo, even if you move at 0.9C relative to the Earth, you are still at rest.
And regarding the paradox: if the paradox is only on paper, why did Einstein claim that it is real? What is he, Zenon? That's how to brag in front of everyone?
Israel,
I ask that when you comment, weave stories into the comment! (at a speed that exceeds the speed of light) 🙂
Beyond what Michael wrote, I do not understand the essence of the question. Relativity describes what happens when matter approaches the speed of light. Are you claiming that even if infinite energy was not required to reach the speed of light, it would not be possible to reach the speed of light?
Regarding the paradox, the Wiki article explains that the paradox is only a paradox on paper (because of the classical assumptions of the authors that do not match with experimental results. The sentence representing this philosophical assumption is:
that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill local realism
We must add that the article was written before there were experimental results
I apologize in advance if I didn't understand the context because since I left I haven't read the comments and it is possible that the last comment was written in a different context than it seems to me but if the "radiation" mentioned in the last comment is the "background radiation" I have to thread another comment because it seems that the lack of logic in the discussion has already passed any limit
As we know - background radiation is radiation that radiates in all directions. There is no "direction" of the background radiation and therefore it is not possible to move at zero speed relative to it.
As previously mentioned - whoever moves in the universe - the higher his speed relative to the background radiation system - the more he heats up (due to the increase in the energy of the radiation he encounters from the direction in which he is moving).
Shmulik
First, thanks for the links.
Relativity does explain the mechanism, but it also turns out that without relativity the speed of light cannot be reached, and this is because of radiation.
The difference is that according to relativity the speed of light is relative to the observer and it doesn't matter from which reference system you measure it. Whereas the speed of light relative to radiation is absolute. Therefore, if you move at a speed close to the speed of light relative to a propulsion system that is almost at the speed of light relative to radiation, then it turns out that you are almost at 0 speed relative to radiation and you will not feel any warming. Still according to relativity you will not be able to pass the speed of light relative to that agile system.
Regarding entanglement, Einstein argued in the EPR paradox (from your link):
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the "paradox
But here, it has been proven that this is exactly what happens, i.e. that the two particles do communicate with each other faster than light, and despite this there is no contradiction to relativity, because although information undoubtedly passes, we still cannot send information through entanglement.
The point is this: why did Einstein Fedolsky and Rosen claim that there is a contradiction if it does not exist? After all, all the data was laid before them, so why the contradiction? What do we see that they did not see?
A bit of trivia:
The hypothesis that particle mass increases with speed already existed at the end of the 19th century. The formula E=MC^2 was also proposed already in 1903 by a French engineer.
Israel,
Because relativity is the one that explains the mechanism that prevents matter from reaching or exceeding the speed of light and its predictions match the observations. Is there another theory other than relativity that sets a limit to the speed at which matter can move?
After Einstein laid down the theory of relativity, all kinds of predictions that emerged from it were discovered by other people, and in my opinion today, most physicists specializing in relativity understand relativity better than Einstein, if only because more experiments were done, more solutions were found, more limitations to the theory were discovered, and more empirical information was accumulated. .
In relation to interweaving, the claim is that there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity because it is not possible to transmit information through this mechanism above the speed of light and by the way, he is not alive when it was proven that interweaving does occur at speeds exceeding the speed of light. read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Miracles
Here is the conventional explanation why the radiation system is not a preferred system:
How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB? Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?
The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same regardless of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!
However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.
The explanation that says that although we can always know our speed relative to radiation, and that if we fly fast relative to radiation then we will evaporate, and that there is no planet or sun in the vicinity whose speed is much different from ours (say half the speed of light relative to us), still this system is completely normal and not preferred.
But don't worry. The explanation of why non-locality in quantum entanglement does not contradict relativity, although there is no doubt that the information about the polarization of the photon or the spin of the electron passes instantly from one entangled body to its brother, surpasses it in its sophistication. Of course, there remains the small puzzlement that if there is no contradiction between non-locality and relativity, then why did Einstein claim in the EPR article that such a contradiction actually exists. Do we understand relativity better than Einstein?
I can't understand either, and I would be happy if someone would explain the point to me (Michael?) why relativity is needed to explain why an object in a particle accelerator will not be able to reach the speed of light. After all, if it heats up when it moves relative to the radiation - and in all accelerator experiments the bodies move against the radiation - then it is clear that it will not be able to reach the speed of light. The energy that needs to be invested to accelerate it becomes heat energy, doesn't it?
And all the experiments that prove the lengthening of time are done in accelerated systems or inertial systems that move against the radiation (mions). I assume that simply because it is not technically possible to do the experiment in the opposite direction, where the muon starts from a moving system and during its movement it is at rest relative to the radiation. Such an experiment would constitute overwhelming evidence for the lengthening of time, but not the existing experiments.
Israel
So you're saying there is a preferred reference system? It actually makes sense to me.
Miracles.
of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
It turns out that we are moving relative to the cosmic background radiation at a speed of about 600 km/s towards the constellation Leo.
And not to come to Israel with claims that Einstein said there is no preferred system. He also said that non-locality in quantum entanglement contradicts relativity.
for life.
Israel
You are right about the twin …. The whiskey influenced…
But... it is not clear to me what it means to move in relation to radiation. Does radiation have a direction?
My father, friends
So without much connection, a fascinating series of lectures by Nobel Prize-winning physicists and other prizes was published on YouTube under the title: 49th Nobel Conference. The lectures are fascinating and it would be nice if the scientist did a follow-up on them.
A tiny teaser of the fascinating topics they discussed: Prof. James Gates (in his first lecture) talked about an error correction code embedded in the mathematics of the Mathematical Theory and I don't remember who talked about it, but for the first time I learned that during the development of the universe, there was a point in time from which the universe started to accelerate, that is, after the bang the expansion of the universe slowed down but From a certain point, this trend developed. I was not aware of this point (not that I am very up to date so it was abnormally fun to learn this)
Here is the link. It's worth listening to all the lectures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1P0HNhQE68&list=PLHuAoPzfQhGGQzB58S1iVQvu43Xvbp2c4
Miracles
The remaining twin is the future twin. The time of the traveling twin is earlier, therefore for him he made a journey to the future. Therefore, the remaining one will not be able to conclude anything from the experiment, because he has long passed the stage where the traveling twin is found.
But your experiment illustrates my point. If the traveling twin started his journey from a propulsion system at a speed relative to radiation and accelerated in our direction, we are slow relative to radiation, then he spent most of his journey at rest relative to radiation, that is, between us. If his brother is aging rapidly at this time, then his system is moving towards the future as far as we are concerned, and as mentioned we are resting relative to radiation, that is, our age is the age of the universe.
Dear Mr. Nissim, following your last answer.
If you replicated an experiment and you know the results of an identical experiment, then with a certain chance you do know the future, tomorrow is also a good day, with respect
Michael and Israel
Let's assume that the traveling twin takes with him a (deterministic) experiment that should last a long time, while a similar experiment is being conducted here. When the twin returns, the one who remains will be able to know what the result of his own experiment will be in the future.
This does not mean that the future can be known, but it can be used to develop vaccines for example (don't take the idea seriously....)
True.. and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that only an experiment can confirm or disprove a theory.
permission question:
Is there another possibility besides the lengthening of the times for determining the speed of light in all reference systems? A possibility that actually goes well with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought his whole life, and lost?
As mentioned - Ockham did not raise an eyebrow or any other limb on the conclusions of a theory
Well, we have to go to work. Point: If the clocks of the same galaxy - the train in the previous example - are synchronized and show our time, and the galaxy is now accelerating, then on the first planet that passes by us the clocks show almost our time and on the latter the time is much more advanced.
This is what happens according to relativity if the galaxy was at rest relative to the radiation after the acceleration (Milky Way) and even if the observer is the one at rest.
If next to the clocks we use olive seeds that at moment 0 according to the galactic times will be watered and sprouted, then on the first planet we will see only a tender sapling and on the advanced one a 500 year old olive tree. On the last planet there will no longer be olives due to the warming.
And all this while the olive by our side barely germinated.
Not only will we be able to look into the future - after all, we all started at the same age - we will even be able to accelerate and join the same progressive evolutionary planet.
And what's worse, we can also go back to the mother planet that was left behind.
And Ockham raises an eyebrow at this.
Working.
Accelerations change and I am not familiar enough with the calculations related to them.
By the way: Regarding Ockham - it is important to clarify a very fundamental thing that I think you are not aware of:
Ockham was only talking about the unnecessary assumptions that a theory makes. He did not talk about the conclusions of the theory. The things that you claimed that Ockham opposes and raves about are all conclusions of the theory of relativity and not its premises.
Beauty. Now note: if the galaxy began its movement not billions of years ago but a few minutes ago, that until then it was at rest relative to us and its clocks showed our times. Does it change anything in terms of the experiment?
Sure!
Michael, while you're here:
According to relativity, if a traveler passes quickly past the Milky Way, he sees it aging rapidly, that is, the last planet is much older than the first, in a short time according to his clock.
According to the same relativity, if a fast galaxy were to pass by us, it would also age rapidly.
Do you think Ockham would have approved of that?
Miracles:
There is no going back from the future. He reaches the future and continues to move forward into the future, only that he reached the meeting point with his stationary brother in a shorter time than his stationary brother passed.
I answered and also explained why (yes! There was an explanation and it wasn't Ockham!).
Actually the explanation was related to another part of my previous response which is related to the lack of contradiction with the findings but not important
There is also no logical contradiction in answers 1, 2, and 4 in my grandfather's riddle.
And yet when asked, for some reason you answered answer 3 - 75 years - which is the only physically plausible answer.
As always you are free. But if you decide to join (you are always welcome) please stay in the field of physics. Leave the psychology of reading minds and seeing the occult to Gilad's articles.
Miracles.
He does not return from the future - he flies to it and stays there. There is no way back, aka entropy.
Israel
So the traveling twin - returns from the future. But he has no knowledge about the future of the younger brother. I'm right?
Israel:
If there is no logical contradiction and it matches the findings then you have no chance of convincing anyone.
That you brandish Ockham's name (who I don't think would know what you want from him) doesn't change that.
But the fact that you say that there is no contradiction is already progress because in the past you said that there is a contradiction between the big bang and relativity.
I hope that this time I will stick to my decision not to be dragged into this discussion again as long as I don't read something really new in it.
Let's not get into the true or false question now. Everything is chained, two and a half years. If you are interested one day I will show you exactly the places where you leave technology and go to psychology, only to find out later that you were wrong.
So spare me expressions such as "When I show you an error in the original thought experiment - the one that led you to the wrong conclusion - to create another experiment that might lead you to the same conclusion without first realizing your error in the first is an act that attests to itself like a thousand witnesses whose entire purpose is to preserve the original conclusion and not reveal The truth".
I believe I am trying to find out the truth. Not just a believer. I invest a lot of time and money to test the alternative to relative time, which I believe exists even though it is not necessarily correct. If this sounds delusional, then please remember that megaphysicist like Lorenz and many others continued to believe in the site even many years after 1905.
The watch you described is a broken watch. This has nothing to do with the length of time. The very concept of time is very difficult to define, and in Suskind's blog it appears as problem number one.
The young twin, Ofer's passenger, your speedy photon, Moans and every propulsion system relative to another synchronized system, is making a journey to the future. But what they all have in common is that with them time slows down, and what for him is the future and for the other system is the present, is the age of the universe, that is, the age of the background radiation.
When the younger twin meets his brother, he can no longer claim that his time is right - because the heating is on. He could do this in 1905 when the universe was eternal. Even the observer of Ofer or the muons or any other system, if they stop in their journey, will discover that the age of the universe, which is higher than theirs, is absolute and is not related to the time shown by their watch. If, on the other hand, we reverse the formation and the Milky Way accelerates to meet the traveler, it will not find that its clock has gone back in time to adjust to the traveler's age.
What I am trying to show in my speeding train example is the reverse process. Not a traveler or muons or twins or zebras who are always moving relative to radiation and observe a stationary system, but an observer stationary relative to radiation and observing a moving system.
Since there is no radiation reference in the relations, we accept that the age of the observer is lower than the age of the observed system, even if they both started at the same time.
There is no logical contradiction in this, just as there is no logical contradiction in a seven-year-old father or a 150-year-old lecturer. There is only the sleepy Ockham who waves and shouts that it is unlikely that we can expect, and even move, to a system whose age is higher than ours, that is, the age of the universe.
iPad.
Israel:
We are all traveling to the future all the time and the twin also traveled to the future at an accelerated pace.
If these are acceptable things for you then (as I have already asked before) even though I don't call it "seeing the future", why do you present it as a problem when it comes to seeing a system for which time passes at a different rate?
And a related question (which is similar to what I once told you about if you look at the clock you will see the time it will be tomorrow and predict the future in the same way): Suppose there are two computers running the same program and now suppose that the clock of one of them is accelerated (this is an action that could have been done on many computers in the past) And he starts running faster. Does the computer that is standing next to him and has not been accelerated "see" the future" according to your definition? And if so - is there any paradox or problem in this?
Not true, Israel.
There was one story where I made a number of mistakes, but all this happened because your cover of stories hid the subject and, among other things, freed my hands from getting into real calculations.
Dispersing the fog around the story (and it's all the same story) you got a clear and correct answer.
Miracles
Certainly the twin paradox describes reality. And paradoxically, the younger twin, as far as he was concerned, traveled to the future.
Michael, you are called to order.
As usual, you are sure that the truth was given to you from above, and anyone who dares to dispute it is necessarily wrong.
But we've been through the process several times in recent years, haven't we? Even then it turned out in the end that you were wrong.
I'm on the road now, it's hard to write. Good night.
Israel:
You are mixing unrelated things.
The source for viewing the age older than the age of the universe is the one I said.
In the new experiment, you did not build such a long train, and therefore - consider it a miracle - it has no age that is higher than the age of the universe.
There is no problem with the fact that the length of what seems to the mushrooms to be about one year seems shorter to the viewer. This is really what is happening. This is also what happens with the Moans and we can watch this continuously.
You introduced the background radiation into the story without any relevance.
And again:
When I present you with an error in the original thought experiment - the one that brought you to the wrong conclusion - creating another experiment that might bring you to the same conclusion without first realizing your mistake in the first one is an act that attests to itself like a thousand witnesses whose entire purpose is to preserve the original conclusion and not to reveal the truth.
Israel
I can't follow your train of thought. Do you accept that the twin paradox describes reality? Do you think that the future can be known in the twin paradox?
I'm not trying to fail you in anything. I am seriously trying to see if there is any error in my calculations, and I hope you do the same with your calculations, even if they don't align with your agenda.
You said: "Are you claiming that any of the things I said are not true?
Point to it and say what the error is."
In the response from two hours ago you wrote:
"The source of the time higher than the age of the universe that Israel accepts is the result of an error in the thought experiment he built in which he initially placed planets/gemini/carriages/mushrooms You name it whose age/age is higher than the age of the universe because a time longer than the age of the universe is needed to bring them to their position/relative position" .
But here we described a new experiment where all the systems - viewer and train - start from the same age. If you accepted section B (and you did), then when the last train passes the viewer, its age is several months older than the viewer's age.
If we used mushrooms instead of clocks, the viewer from the radiation system would be photographing a mushroom that began its journey at our age and arrived at the photographs when it was older and mature. If we had used twins and the train was longer and faster, it would have been us, twenty-year-old twins, photographing eighty-year-old twins in the last car.
And this despite the fact that we all started the experiment at the same age, and all the systems are not too long or too fast.
Isn't this a view of the system as you will see it in the future?
In general: this method of asking me questions that, in order to give a serious answer, requires a serious calculation and then hope that I will make a mistake in evaluating the answer and then hang on to this mistake is not acceptable to me.
It's a method of exhaustion at best and deception at worst.
Why can't we stick with what we've already talked about?
Israel:
There is indeed a difference between what I said and what I showed. That's why I used the word showed.
I didn't do the calculation, but I don't currently see a problem with the orders of magnitude you describe in sections a and b.
I do currently see a problem with drifting back into this debate.
Are you claiming that any of the things I said are not true?
Point to it and say what the error is.
Shmulik, thanks for the link. I will contact him soon.
Michael our friends.
First I want you to know that I really appreciate the investment in this problem which is my "baby".
But there is a difference between "I said" and "I showed".
So to simplify matters, let's get straight to the point. If you don't mind, I would like to harness your computing power to get a quantitative solution to the following problem:
1. A light year long train is standing on a straight track at rest relative to the background radiation. An observer standing by the track is stationary relative to the train and the radiation. The clocks of the train cars are synchronized with each other, and show the same time as the viewer.
2. At instant 0 according to the clocks of the train and the observer, the train accelerates to a speed of 0.6c in a short time of one minute according to the clock of the observer.
3. The train remains at this speed until the end of the experiment.
4. When the train reaches this speed, the viewer's watches and the passing car are photographed.
5. When the last train passes the viewer, the clocks are photographed again.
What will the photos show?
If you don't want to get involved in exhausting calculations, do you accept that:
A. In the first shot, will the shot (regardless of which side) show almost the same time for the viewer and the trailer?
B. In the second shot, will the viewer's watch lag behind the trailer by months?
If you see an error in the formulation of the problem or in the conclusions, please point to the erroneous section.
Thanks.
Shmulik:
Israel got all the answers he could get here and he should have been convinced.
I showed that in every situation there is an agreement between the observer and the observed about the time on both watches.
This means, in fact, that the viewer has no effect on the time he watches the watched and is therefore unnecessary in the whole story.
If the observer sees a time in the observed that is higher than the age of the universe, then the observed also sees the same time on his watch.
Therefore, the theory of relativity cannot yield someone a time that is higher than the age of the universe just because someone else is looking at it.
The source of the time higher than the age of the universe that Israel receives is the result of an error in the thought experiment he built in which he initially placed planets/gemini/cars/mushrooms You name it whose age/age is higher than the age of the universe because a time longer than the age of the universe is needed to bring them to their relative position/position.
I also showed that it is possible to calculate the background radiation clock for any relative system and not only the background radiation system and any observer in any system can do this so that the possibility of being observed by any system does not characterize the background radiation system exclusively.
I also showed that watching your own higher clocks characterizes everyone: from the moment of synchronization you will always watch your own higher clocks (or in the example of a train and a locomotive - if you take two trains led by locomotives when the synchronization is created at the moment the locomotives meet, then from that moment on each of the two locomotives will see its own higher time In the car to his right.
In short - there is nothing left of the problem.
Israel,
I mention, you can try asking at https://www.facebook.com/groups/14627823295/
I don't know the answer to the cosmic equivalent of the round world.
I only claim that if the age of the universe is finite and time is relative, it is theoretically possible to pass this age.
I have shown this time and time again with mushroom and twin watches. I don't get an answer to the cardinal question that I present again and again: if the age of the background radiation system is not preferred, why can't it be passed? Why can't we observe a universe older than our own?
In my opinion, the number of comments here is too large and the comments do not even belong to the topic of the article.
Therefore, it would be worthwhile to open a new discussion on the subject of relativity.
Although I do not believe that the universe has a finite diameter.
even though.
If the universe has a finite diameter. So what happens one millimeter beyond this diameter?
This question has already been asked about the Earth.
That is: if the world is flat and has a border, then what happens when you cross the border by one millimeter.
The answer was:
The world is round.
That is, walking beyond the "edge" brings you to the starting point.
Is it possible that this is the case in the universe?
That means the route is closed. The end point is the starting point. That is, it is not possible to move beyond a certain distance.
1. An observer at any speed will be able to calculate the age of the universe as if it were at rest relative to radiation, i.e. the age of the universe, right?
2. There is no system where the age of the universe is higher than the age of the background radiation system (13.7 billion years), right? Is there any system where the age of the universe is 100 billion years?
3. In 1905, (2) has no meaning, does it?
4. If the answers to 1, 2 and 3 are positive, then it is M.S.L. No? Otherwise, if there are observers for whom the age of the universe is half ours, (Ofer observers) there are probably also those whose age is twice ours, right? And if for others the age of the universe is 0 (photons are rushing), then there are also those for whom the age of the universe is infinite, right?
ב
Not that I know the answer, but if there is a limit to the universe, where is it? And if we are on such a finite planet, what does the telescope show if we look beyond the diameter of the universe? And what will prevent us from sending a satellite in the same direction? Did we expand the diameter of the universe by placing a satellite?
Indeed there is no need for an endless train. According to relativity, any observer who started his journey from a moving train relative to the radiation and accelerated so that he is now at rest relative to it, sees the occupants of the train as they will see them in the future.
Michael
I checked myself... You are right about the stopping problem, according to its definition, but it can solve problems that a computer cannot solve. Calculation on has this problem too. But - that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the fact that the mind is not a Turing machine. The model I'm talking about is not reducible to a Turing machine. It is possible to simulate any process in the brain. But a computer cannot think. To me, thinking is an emergent property (I don't know how to translate the concept). It's like temperature - you will perform a simulation of each molecule in a given volume and you will get a simulation of temperature. But the computer won't heat up from it...
B:
I already told him this and also explained to him that it is possible to calculate the age of the universe in any system according to the background radiation experienced by the observer's system (and therefore - in this sense too - the background radiation system is not unique).
The stopping problem is the lack of ability to decide if a certain program, when it runs on a normal computer on a certain input, stops.
Anyone who cannot decide this question (including the model you describe) suffers from the stopping problem.
As I have shown - for any mechanism whose decisions can be read, it is also possible to write a program (that runs on a Turing machine) that uses it to fail it in solving the halting problem.
This includes the human brain and it also includes the computer you described.
By the way, even the computer you described (as long as its number of heads is finite) can be called a Turing machine (and if its number of heads is infinite it is impossible to build it or find it in nature)
Israel:
Even without such a long long train.
Obviously, if the universe started with the big bang then it has a finite diameter. This diameter is the distance a light beam travels in a time equal to the age of the universe. No greater distance than that is possible.
Michael
Let's look at it from another angle. The accepted model for describing a computer is a Turing machine. A Turing machine has a single read/write head and an infinite tape. You learned that a parallel computer, with several heads, can be described by a normal Turing machine.
It's just a model - there is no such thing as infinite, as you said.
Now - imagine that in front of each cell in the infinite tape there is a reader/writer head. This is my model of the human brain. Don't you see that it is fundamentally different from a normal computer? Can't you see he doesn't suffer from the stopping problem?
We returned from the desert.
Michael, if you give your strength you are free, as always.
And you have the right to believe that your words are true. And they are undoubtedly true - in your eyes.
In my opinion, your words are correct. A system cannot exist in the universe whose age is higher than the age of the universe. The background radiation system is preferential radiation. Fact: Any observer can always know the age of the universe, which is also the age of the background radiation system, by using a thermometer and a computer. He cannot know the age of other systems, which proves the uniqueness of the radiation system.
Therefore, either the lengthening of time in relationships or the bang theory is wrong, or at least one of them needs revision.
My strength will not fail, but I do not see a way to explain this point to you.
Shabbat Shalom.
Michael
You said that the stopping problem applies to the brain. The halting problem only applies to a Turing machine - and let me remind you, a Turing machine and an algorithm are actually the exact same thing.
If so then I claim he is wrong. One of the features of our brain is the need for sleep. Do you really think that in the near future there will be a computer that needs to sleep? I wonder what he will dream about …….
Miracles:
Did I say the brain runs algorithms?
Read my words again.
And regarding Idan Segev:
He claims that the blue brain will think and he is so clearly wrong that his project has received grants in excess of a billion dollars.
Michael
If so - then how can you claim that the brain runs an algorithm / algorithms? How do you not know that the halting problem does not apply to any computational model, but only to a Turing machine?
Does Idan Segev claim that his computer does think? If so - he is wrong.
By the way, I also had the chance to work with neural networks and see it as a miracle: the useful implementations of these are also nothing more than a simulation on a computer with individual processors.
Miracles:
I studied the master's degree in computer science for one year and completed it with honors.
During my military service, I headed the software branch of a computer unit and won the ILA award twice (the Israeli Association for Information Processing which was something serious at the time, but I don't know if it is even active today) and once the liaison award for creative thinking.
I made millions from patents in the field of algorithms and people beg me to this day (even though I have long since informed everyone who needs to know that I have retired) to come advise them.
As you said - your model of the mind is not reality and the infinity I was talking about is not the infinity of a process but the size of some physical object (I thought you would understand that).
And I say again:
If you read what is the computer on which the Blue Brain project is based, you will have to admit that you said that Idan Segev does not understand the subject.
Michael
Did you study computer science? In particular - courses in computing?
And about fooling around. You said there is no infinity in nature. Maybe that's true. If so - then the stopping problem does not exist.
I tried to inform you earlier, I will try again. The computational model of a computer is called a Turing machine. A Turing machine has infinite memory, but of course no computer does. My model of the brain contains infinite processors, although this is obviously not reality. But just as a Turing machine is useful in computer research, so the o-machine model is useful in brain research.
And the o-machine model cannot be imitated by a computer with a finite number of processors.
If you want to be a pedant, then even the biggest computer in the world can't count. This is factually true, but it is irrelevant.
Miracles:
The stopping problem exists in front of any device that claims to determine whether a computer program stops or not, if it is able to read its decisions.
It does not belong to the architecture of the computer at all and if you read her proof you will see that.
The proof does not refer to the fact that it is a Turing machine at all.
She is talking about an algorithm but her logic would work just as well with the word "something that a computer can read its decisions" and that something could be the human mind.
And now you said something that I think is nonsense:
There is nothing infinite in nature and the mind is in nature.
And a court won't help: every parallel processor and it doesn't matter what level of parallelism it is can be imitated by a single Turing machine (slowly but surely).
And don't worry:
The Blue Brain project is not designed to contain a hundred billion processors with trillions of connections between them.
Michael
I suggest you read Akl, SG (2005). The Myth of Universal Computation. Parallel Numerics, 167-192.
Michael
The halting problem does not exist in a machine that is not a Turing machine. I'll give you an example - an elevator. The elevators have a controller that is not a "computer". It can be proven with certainty that this controller will not enter an infinite loop.
And now you said something that, in my opinion, is nonsense. I will try to explain. The calculation model we refer to as a computer is a Turing machine. According to the definition - a Turing machine has infinite memory. If we take the memory as finite then we have a finite state machine. In the brain model I describe, there are an infinite number of processors. Therefore, the model that describes it is not a Turing machine - a better model is an o-machine. Therefore, the operation of the brain cannot be imitated by a normal computer.
If a blue brain contains 100 billion processors with their trillions of connections, which run at a reasonable speed, and even create new connections at a reasonable rate - then yes, we will have a simulation of the brain. And on the other hand - it will no longer be a computer (Turing machine).
Therefore, there is no contradiction between my claim and Segev's work.
And I assume that anyone who understands the subject knows that any parallel computer (and it doesn't matter what the level of parallelism is) can be imitated by a regular computer.
It might work slower (depending on CPU speed) but it will do the same thing.
Miracles:
I know the subject well.
You make statements without backing them up with any logical argument or supporting data.
Among other things - your claim implies that Idan Segev does not understand anything (and you specifically said that I do not understand the subject).
Beyond my recognition of the issue, I am also a thinking person and I will allow myself to be modest and say that I am doing it well.
You didn't face the challenge I posed to you regarding the stopping problem. You didn't even try. You are just trying to sweep it under the carpet with words and deceive the readers.
I have no interest in such a discussion.
You really don't understand this area apparently. I said there is no problem for a machine to think. I also said that it is possible to simulate a human brain on a computer at a very, very basic level.
Blue brain is not artificial intelligence. As long as the number of processors is small - we still have a Turing machine. When the model contains an unlimited number of processors - I claim that you get a more powerful machine.
Do you know Turing's thesis?
Miracles:
It seems to me that you are the one who is underestimating.
Michael
I wrote my thesis on it. Please don't underestimate.
Miracles:
In connection with theThis is your response: I'm actually often able to discover that I'm in an infinite loop.
This time seems to be one of them. I explained your mistake, but you repeat it without considering the depth of things, so I will stop.
Miracles:
In touch For your response to this, I guess you're claiming that Idan Segev doesn't know what he's talking about.
Since I estimate that I know the subject even less than Idan Segev, I am happy that I met such a smart person who understands the subject more than all the experts who in his eyes know nothing.
Michael
I did not understand your description.
I say two things:
1) If we run an algorithm in mind then it is quite possible that it has an infinite loop and we will not know it. This does not contradict my point.
2) The mind itself cannot enter an infinite lua. I already explained why.
Miracles:
Allow me to question your assertion that the brain's parallelism gives it substantial computational power beyond that of a computer. First, a non-deterministic Turing machine which is the most powerful parallel supercomputer you can think of is still limited by the halting problem and any of its calculations can be simplified using a Turing machine. This is about the theoretical model.
And in practice as well. There are extremely powerful parallel computers. Any calculation you want to perform on one computer can also be distributed to any number of computers you want.
Everything a computer can do can our mind? I do not think so! See how quickly the search results you enter into Google are retrieved. Our brains do not come close to such capabilities
Regarding feelings, here is the interesting discussion. What makes our mind a special varnish that can feel. Calculation power does not explain this. Sorry, the internet is powerful in a way that is incomparable at all from our minds but feels nothing.
I believe you are wrong and by and large, you are looking too closely with the microscope. To understand phenomena as thinking you must rise to the algorithmic level. Level of aggravation is not relevant
Michael
So emphasize. It has nothing to do with my claim. A blue brain, provided someone budgets for this thing, can simulate a human brain. In order to portray a person, you need to bring him to the state of a certain person. A blue brain will be able to simulate brain processes, but whoever thinks you can tell him a joke will laugh... I don't understand what he is talking about.
If they build a machine with 100 billion processors, if trillions of connections - maybe, maybe, we will have something to talk about. But a blue brain is not built like that.
I want to reiterate that the Blue Brain project is based on a computer and software.
Reuven
certainly. I said it in advance!! Anything a computer can do, the brain can do too. but not the other way around.
Regarding retrieving from memory - this is exactly where you are wrong. A computer performs a search in a time that depends on the size of the memory. Our brain retrieves data at regular intervals. I am not convinced that this is exactly true, but I believe that it is close to reality. This is a fundamental difference between a brain and a computer.
I have no speculation about the stopping problem :). A computer has a very small number of processors, so any computer can be viewed as a Turing machine. In the brain, the number of computers is the size of the brain. This is a completely different computational model than a Turing machine. Here is a second difference between us and a computer.
In addition, a Turing machine is required to stop at the end of an algorithm to return an output. This is due to the machine setting. Our brain does not perform a calculation and stops to return an output. It is more like a hyphenated machine (like a real-time computer). With such a machine it is possible to prove all kinds of things (for example - that there will never be a deadlock - the equivalent of an infinite loop in a computer). And here is another difference between a computer and a brain.
Maybe the border line is language. Only humans have language.
The stopping problem is just an example. That's not what's important. A computer will feel no pain. Don't hit as much as you want, it won't hurt him. You can simulate it if you want, and you can simulate it very well. But it's a simulation.
I have to emphasize something you don't understand. We are definitely machines, therefore machines can think, and machines can feel pain. But - our brain is not a computer.
Miracles
I understand from your answer that you agree that there is an overlap in the calculation capabilities of a brain and a computer (for example, they both know how to divide). I guess you will agree with me that this is not the only operation that both of them are able to perform (for example, they are both able to retrieve information from memory - I can remember a list of items and so can a computer). There are of course other overlapping abilities.
Please try to specify for me the boundary line where there is no more overlap in the calculation capabilities, apart from your not so well-founded speculation regarding the stopping problem.
In addition to this being said and you are XNUMX% correct and the brain is not limited by the stopping problem, how does this help you explain other abilities that in your view exist only in the brain such as emotions?
Just to clear the ear (and to understand the real history and also to get out of the confusion in understanding the term "preferred system") you are invited to read theA Wikipedia chapter discussing a preferred system.
You will find that Galileo and Newton also thought there was none and in this sense Maxwell's theory was a deviation from their principles.
Einstein corrected this and returned the absence of the preferred system to the stage.
Real contract:
My proof is valid and the fact that the brain is flexible enough not to answer the question (and as you also mentioned - even a well-designed computer is flexible enough for that) does not change the fact that the brain will not decide whether the program stops or not.
By the way: there are other reasons to think that the brain cannot decide the stopping problem (certainly not my personal brain or yours).
For example: Is program QLooking for an even number that is not the sum of two primes will you ever stop
To Michael Rothschild, your proof is not valid, because in such a case the human mind is flexible enough to say, "If I decide that she will stop, she will not stop, and if I decide that she will not stop, she will." Of course you could design a machine that could say this, then another machine to work on it and so on, but the human mind is always flexible enough to notice all the tricks.
Miracles
The mind is not limited by the problem of stopping. It cannot solve the stopping problem. The brain does not run an algorithm. According to the definition - the algorithm has an end, the brain never finishes its calculations. The brain can simulate running an algorithm, step by step, but it does not run an algorithm.
A person paralyzed from the neck down must be thinking. The question is what is thinking. I don't know how to define thinking, but it sure isn't running an algorithm. And running an algorithm - that's all a computer can do.
Thinking is not on-off. Animals think too. I believe there is a continuum from worms to man. But, there is a stage where the model needs to be replaced. I will give you another illustration. There are two recognized calculation models - finite state machines and Turing machines (of course there are more). In theory - these two models are very different. For example - a state machine does not know how to count.
In the real world there aren't really Turing machines, all computers are actually finite state machines. But, the Turing machine model gives us more convenient tools to analyze huge state machines. In the same way, I believe that the correct model of the brain is not a Turing machine. As I already wrote, the basis for the idea is Turing's own (his PhD thesis).
Miracles:
Wikipedia says that it is not known whether the human brain can solve the stopping problem.
It is written - really - what to do?
I showed that the human mind cannot solve the stopping problem, therefore if what I showed is correct then what is written in Wikipedia about the same question is incorrect.
There is no other option.
now according to you
Reporter:
"Many operations can be performed with the help of a computer, but a computer is limited in its ability, because of something called the "halting problem". Our brain, in my opinion and my understanding, does not have this limitation."
What you wrote is completely clear.
The computer is limited (and the stopping problem demonstrates this) and the brain is not.
I showed that the mind is not able to solve the stopping problem.
So it's not limited? After all, this is exactly the limitation you gave as an example of the computer!
And I repeat and ask: Is a person paralyzed from the neck down not alive? Do not think?
So why should a computer be given all the organs that this person does not control and does not receive stimuli from in order for it to live and think?
Israel:
Tish my power (once they asked me how to say impotent in Hebrew and when I didn't know how to answer they told me "crossword puzzles").
If you can't accept my explanation then I can't help anymore.
I have no doubt that my explanations are correct.
It is also clear to me that you will not be able to present a logical argument that draws your conclusion "we would not receive a photon of zero for eternity passing across an aging universe, or twins that separated when their time was synchronized and met when their time was different" from my words.
My words are correct.
We have a preferred system because there is a system you prefer.
It is a system that is attributed to a certain object in the universe (the background radiation) that is everywhere and therefore has importance in terms of orientation in space, but it has no importance beyond that - certainly not important in terms of the theory of relativity and certainly not a contradiction to the theory of relativity.
You may prefer a system because it gives the universe a maximum age.
It is legitimate and meaningless.
You can equally prefer the system that gives a minimum age or those that give the average age.
It's a spoiling preference, in my opinion, but that's just my taste.
The fact that you prefer something does not contradict the theory of relativity.
I presented several confirmations for the theory of relativity and all the confirmations of Newton's theory also confirm the theory of relativity (the advantage of the theory of relativity is that the false predictions of Newton's theory also confirm the theory of relativity because it gives those predictive situations correct).
But it is.
enough.
Reuven
There is software and hardware. And there are also data. A von Neumann computer (there is also a Harvard one, but we'll leave the difference for now) has a processor that reads information from memory. Any information that describes commands to the processor is software, any other information is data.
No - the brain is not a piece of hardware. Hardware contains no information.
Long division is an algorithm. Our brain contains parts that, with the help of natural language, know how to simulate running an algorithm. Unlike a computer - the brain will not get stuck in an infinite loop if there is a problem with the algorithm.
In particular - and this is Turing's discovery - our brain knows how to run an algorithm. It is more powerful than a computer, so it can do what a computer can do. There is no contradiction here.
You are entering a sensitive area with the idea of flies, etc. Turing's computational model does not exist in reality. In particular - a computer should contain infinite memory. In the computational model of the brain (the model I believe in) there should be an infinite number of neurons. That is - just as a simple computer (think of a 4-bit processor if several hundred bytes of memory) is not equivalent to a Turing machine, so a simple brain does not match my model either.
It is very possible that the human mind is the only one that is powerful enough to fit my model. In particular - it is the only brain capable of containing language. No other living creature in existence has this ability.
Miracles,
How do you define the diagnosis between hardware and software? A computer is a piece of sophisticated hardware capable of performing calculations. So are our minds.
How is a program that sorts numbers different from a person running an algorithm that sorts numbers in his mind?
When we teach our child to divide long division what are we doing if not teaching their brains how to run a division program?
Again, explain to me where the common abilities of computers and brains come from? Are you an infidel by claiming that our minds are capable of calculations?
Another question, does the brain of a fly also transcend the limitations of a computer? what about fish Dog? monkey? A one-year-old baby? A four year old?
What is the stage at which our mind receives the wonderful ability to be free from the limitation of the stopping problem?
You did explain over and over again, but I cannot accept your explanations. If they were true, we wouldn't get a 0-year photon forever passing through an aging universe, or twins that separated when their time was synchronized and met when their time was different.
There is no problem in putting the mushroom train at rest relative to us so that all the clocks are synchronized with ours and then accelerate. Even then we will be able to see and photograph mushrooms as mushrooms. It can be said that the acceleration changed the result, but we, the mushroom researchers, were given the opportunity to see and study future mushrooms and it does not matter to us how the result was achieved.
But as you pointed out, we enter an infinite loop. The bottom line for me is simple: the radiation system we live in is a favored system, because the time in it is the latest physically possible: the time that has passed since the Big Bang.
In terms of relativity as you mentioned, this system has no priority over other systems.
This leads to a paradox in my opinion since all systems exist in the same universe. Therefore, if in Ofer's hurrying photon system or observer the universe is younger than 13.7 billion years, and the radiation system is not favored as you claim, then there is no problem with systems where the age of the universe is 60 billion years.
And since one system can be observed and photographed from another, we could foresee such future universes.
The mathematical possibility exists, just as a 150-year-old university lecturer or a 7-year-old father is mathematically possible. From the physical point of view, it's a little more complicated.
Many times you mentioned the many confirmations for special relativity (I believe that there are just as many confirmations for the theories of Newton and Maxwell, two scientists of Einstein's caliber who believed in absolute time). If you can show them we can see if they really contradict the idea of absolute time.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, there are no contradictions in proper relations apart from the absolute time that results from the big bang. This is a theory that is much more difficult to test. You said: There is no time to bring additional planets beyond the edge of the universe. I don't understand what the connection is with my question. Do you think there is a final planet? If we live on the same planet, what is the problem for us to send some sputnik beyond the limit of the universe and thus expand it? It is not clear.
My opinion is that there are other possibilities to explain the results of the MM experiment, without giving up the absolute time. My opinion is that even from a purely logical point of view, Maxwell's ether model is so complex and accurate and derives the speed of light so accurately from the constants of electricity and magnetism, that it simply must be true, otherwise this is the most discounted guess ever except for Mr. Nachshon's guesses.
And I see no point in trying to do the psychological analysis you claim to do on me.
I hope that I had the necessary openness to understand Einstein's innovations, if only because of the fact that Newton's theory actually failed at this time in the experiment.
Note that the situation is not the same (and I'm not talking about the fact that you don't accept Einstein's theory after many more of her predictions have been proven and yet you stick to Newton's theory). While in favor of relativity (against Newton's theory) Michaelson and Morley's results could be attributed, your claims are not based on no failure of special relativity!
Israel:
I explained and I repeat and explain (and you can also read the details in the link you provided yourself and in general and more fully in the calculations I showed):
You see later clocks in the more distant cars only because you are a viewer They were out of sync with the first one in the first place.
they Advance the first watch In a crowd, during the journey to them (or their journey to you) part of this crowd is offset by the fact that their time is advancing slowly more but they still remained in Por.
I already feel in an endless loop after explaining it so many times and in so much detail.
The mushroom is no longer young. she is older As mentioned - the watch that it is is a better watch than the watch that is the first to begin with. From the point of view of the viewer, there was not even one moment when the mushrooms were the same age. They are synchronized only in the train but not in the viewer. I explained it over and over and over. And now again.
OK, take your time (…).
And in the meantime, it is important what your reaction would be if you had heard about Einstein's theory in 1905. Times are getting longer? Kilometer-long trains are shortened to a centimeter and the people inside are not aware of it?
After all, every star we observe confirms Newton's theory, I hear you say. Hertz managed to send ripples on Maxwell's site, I see you writing. So how dare the impudent Mr. Albert challenge everything we know about physics just because something small doesn't work out in the Michaelson Morley experiment?
According to the link I provided, the time in the cars, the same as the cameras, is higher than the viewer's time.
The viewer can argue that his time is actually the highest, but this is a complex mathematical argument, not a physical argument, i.e. photographs.
If this is your argument, i.e. that the mushroom that appears to be actually younger than its confusing sister due to relativistic effects such as the shortening of the length, then we have finally come to an agreement.
Maybe this will also convince the old twin of the paradox and he will renew his youth as before.
Israel:
I don't have time right now, but as I mentioned - both I and the link you provided explained how it is that time on the train flows slowly More as far as we are concerned, even though we see each and every caravan as a later age than ours (which is due to the clocks being out of sync in our eyes).
If you still don't understand I will try to explain again later but I doubt if I will succeed because it seems to me that everything that needs to be said has been said and even though things seem completely clear to me you are not convinced.
It is not only relative - in the given example time in the train system flows faster than our time. At least that's what the cameras show.
This is consistent with what you say - the background radiation system, i.e. the age of the universe, is no different from any other system, isn't it?
So if time in the Milky Way system flows faster than in Ofer's observer system, or in your accelerating photon system which is always 0 years old, why won't time flow faster in the train system than in our system which is relaxed relative to radiation? All systems are equal, right?
Israel:
Again: there is no physical meaning to the claim that time moves faster on the train.
Both the link you provided and my calculations show that in different carriages we will see different times according to relativity (higher than ours) and at the same time we will see our time running faster than the time in each and every one of the carriages.
ב:
It doesn't belong in photography.
In the experiment in question, the photographs are taken from zero distance.
The problem is, as mentioned, in the contradiction between the assumption of the existence of the big bang in which all the elements of the universe come out from one point and the assumption of the existence of objects in the universe that somehow we managed to move them further apart than this time allows (assuming the limitation of the speed of movement by the speed of light).
The camera captures at the moment of the photo the age of the stars from their point of view and Israel's claim was actually trying to show a contradiction between their seeing their age and their seeing the age of the universe (actually - without any relation to the viewer from another system).
Israel:
I have no problem with the fact that the mushrooms look to the viewer as if they are of a different age. Their ages are really different. This is because time is relative.
That's what cameras are for, so that it won't be possible to say what you said.
And they are unequivocal: the pictures show both clocks together - the viewer's and the cars' - and we see that in successive cars the gap between the watch's clock and that of the cars is widening - the viewer lags behind, i.e. the time on the train moves faster.
agree?
Israel:
It is not clear why such a long train is needed.
At every point in the universe the time from the big bang to the present moment is the same time.
So the time of the camera at the moment of photography is the time from the big bang to the moment of photography.
If so :
The light rays leave the photographed object and reach the camera. They don't do it in no time.
That is why the photographed object is always older than its image in the camera.
That is, the photographed object was discovered more than the age of the camera at the time of the photograph.
But the age of the camera at the time of the photo is the age of the universe from the moment of the big bang.
Therefore, every photographed object is older than the universe.
Obviously I understood your words and the wording in your last comment is again misleading.
There is no assumption that time in the train system flows faster than our time. The assumption is that from the train's point of view time flows faster than our time, while from our point of view time flows faster with us.
I believe so. and you my words?
What happens if a (not very long) train with forest mushrooms passes you by and you take a picture of the mushrooms in it together with the comparison mushroom standing next to you.
In the first trailer you will see a young mushroom, but the mushroom in the last one will have already curled up, right?
So you claim that there is no problem with the fact that time in the train system flows faster than our time, relative to radiation?
Did you understand my words?
What is inflation? Only trains and twins.
Better actually mushrooms. They grow fast.
And again: there is no problem with a faster progression of time in this or another system.
The problem is actually assuming the possibility that in a limited universe there will be stars whose distance between them requires a time that exceeds the age of the universe.
It is clear that if you created stars that require a time greater than the age of the universe to create the distance between them, there will be stars whose age exceeds the age of the universe.
Request: Don't bring inflation into the story for me now because it wasn't in it in the first place and I don't know enough about the theory involved in it to deal with a new question that will be formulated just by the fact that I mentioned it.
Israel:
come on!
There is no wall! There simply wasn't time to get them there because the time needed to get them there exceeds the age of the universe!
Until now your stories have not allowed me to understand exactly what is bothering you and I thought that the thought experiment you are talking about should be consistent with the data and only the conclusions arising from it contradict them, but as soon as the confusing shell was removed it became clear to me that you are talking about an experiment that the mere assumption of the possibility of conducting it contradicts the big bang assumption And the problem is not in the contradiction between the big bang theory and relativity but between the big bang theory and your private theory that such an experiment is possible!
Repair (iPhone).
The last sentence is a conditional sentence: if the time in the first car is the same as ours, the time in the last one is ahead of ours.
Is there a final limit to the placement of planets?
And after the last planet we placed, what's up, Kir?
On the one hand, I am happy, because you may have finally understood that my argument is not necessarily against relativity, and it is very possible that the big bang theory with limits to space and a starting point to time is the problematic one.
(Could you perhaps explain to me and the forum what finite space and a beginning to time mean? What is there after the last planet, and what was there before the bang? "There is nothing" and "there was not" sounds a bit too axiomatic in my opinion. Please explain).
On the other hand, I feel that I did not make the point clear enough. It is not necessary for the twins to pass the age of the universe. It is enough for us to observe - and photograph - a system in which time flows faster than ours, to reverse the twin paradox.
And this is what happens if a train passes us, no matter how long it is or how long it has been traveling. The time in the later cars is more advanced than in the early ones.
And since the time in the first caravan is the same as ours, it therefore follows that the time in the latter advances from ours.
agree?
Michael
If someone builds a computer that resembles a cell in a human body, the size of a human body, that looks like a human body and even works at the same rate as a human body... then we have duplicated a human and I have no problem with that. This is what we do at Startrek …….
I did not say that the person knows how to solve the stopping problem. I said that this limitation did not apply to him. That's a big difference.
And no, Wikipedia is not wrong in this case. On what basis did you say that?? You didn't understand the meaning. It is easy to prove that the halting problem exists in a Turing machine - the whole proof is half a page. What is open is the question of whether there are machines "stronger" than a Turing machine. Martin Davies claims there is no such thing. Diane Proudfoot says it's possible. And Alan Turing himself thought it was possible - it was the topic of his doctorate 🙂
Brain imaging is fine. But it is not a thinking mind.
By the way, miracles:
The project in question simulates the brain using normal software running on a normal computer (well, unusually powerful, but based on normal principles of computer construction).
Miracles:
You gave the stopping problem as an example and I showed you that it is a wrong example.
accepted?
And if it is acceptable - then Wikipedia's words about the problem being open are also wrong.
Miracles:
In principle, there is no objection to doing all of these and it is also possible to prepare electrifying delicacies for him.
Alternatively, you can build a virtual reality environment for him.
I guess you don't think that people who are paralyzed all over are not alive and unable to think. The ability to hear, speak, see, taste and smell can be given to such a brain without any particular problem and it is also possible to neutralize the feeling of hunger in him (you don't need to neutralize because if he is not hungry he is not hungry and the feeling of hunger arises as a result of a lack of something that he will not lack).
Michael
I don't need to show that a brain can solve every problem a computer can't. I just need to find one. As I said, it is an open question whether there is a "supercalculation". I think there is….
And I'm not speaking with any certainty!!! I am making a claim. In recent years I have found a lot of reinforcements for this claim.
Michael
All of these perform imaging of the brain.
But - will this brain behave differently when it is hungry? If you build such a brain, like a human brain, connect it to all the body's sensors, give it all the movement capabilities of the body, as well as its physical limitations, let it age at the rate of a human being, make sure that it is surrounded by humans - that is, it will see other people who look Like him... Do all these so maybe he will think like a human. Of course you can't plug it in ……….
Miracles:
And regarding your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-30/#comment-451074
You ignore the fact that I showed you exactly how you can fail the brain in the stopping problem
Miracles:
You confidently state statements that many experts in the field disagree with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AR1cUlhTk
http://www.mada.org.il/brain/tools.html
http://www.themedical.co.il/Article.aspx?itemID=1868
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/1.1916318
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
Reuven
You are comparing oranges and apples. A computer has hardware and software. The brain has nerve cells. These two things cannot be mapped. And by the way, a computer cannot process natural language.
A computer, by definition, can run algorithms. It can run any algorithm imaginable. And besides, that's all a computer can do.
My claim is that our brain can also solve problems that do not have an algorithmic solution. I explained a little why I think that way in my previous comment.
So what are you telling us all in all?
You say that there is a limit to the distance at which you can place planets (and we knew this in advance because in a finite universe such a limit really exists) (and I will also add that the synchronization between the clocks will last much longer in this system than the age of the universe)
By the way - the universe is probably bigger than 16 billion light years, but that's because of inflation and because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, so you probably won't be able to get through it if you limit your speed to the speed of light.
The reason I go from three seconds to a hundred thousand years, a billion years and three hours, etc. is simple: we are dealing with a parallel to an article that you have not read. The data there is three seconds and one hundred thousand years. To talk about round numbers and not about fractions, the gumma travels one hundred thousand light years in three seconds, according to his watch it will travel a billion light years in about three hours. that's it.
And of course the background radiation clock is unique. If a traveler travels a hundred thousand light years in three seconds according to his watch, then in two days he sees and photographs planets whose biological age is at least 16 billion years.
And if we reverse the creation, that is, we observe the system of the same passenger (twin train in our example), then within two days we see and photograph twins whose biological age is at least 16 billion years.
Possible in 1905.
Impossible if the maximum possible age for twins is the age of the universe.
agree?
Miracles:
Your arguments for a computer's inability to simulate thought processes can be valid for any process our minds perform. Why should a computer be able to process language? Why should a computer know how to process visual information? Why did he know how to calculate routes or solve problems? After all, it is made of different hardware than ours.
And the other side, why would we be able to sort numbers or perform any calculation such as division? These are actions that a computer performs and it is made of different hardware...
The point I'm getting at is that there is clearly an overlap in our abilities and that of computers, you claim that the overlap is not complete but why go down to the level of aggravation to explain these differences. If the explanation is at the level of aggravation, this explanation should also tell us where the overlap in calculation capabilities comes from.
Water blowing
1) If Einstein said that the universe is infinite then necessarily the universe is infinite?
Einstein did not think the universe was infinite.
2) What does this rule have to do with our conversation???
3) Is this your stupid sentence for the day??
Israel:
I didn't read Ofer's article and I don't see the need for it.
What you wrote is self contained so there is no need to read additional material.
I was talking about the accelerating twins - not because of Ofer's article and not because of something specific that you wrote in the current response, but because of Delal, who said at the time that you have no problem with general relativity.
I wanted to point out the fact that the same (unjustified) objection you have to special relativity can equally apply to phenomena of general relativity and express my astonishment that the same problem bothers you in one framework and does not bother you in another.
The truth is that biological twins - as I have already mentioned - actually have a problem with your scenario because it is impossible to scatter them in the universe without accelerations, but I would be willing to make an assumption on the matter because I do not see twins as anything but a clock and clocks we have no problem scattering and then synchronizing (which is quite difficult do with twins).
He will indeed see the planets at their age in terms of their appearance and I did not claim otherwise and I do not know why you find it appropriate to "explain" another trivial thing to me. After all, I even mentioned it in my response! After all, even in the calculation I presented it appears! Why is it necessary to exaggerate words about nothing and to use patronizing and patronizing language for this purpose?
You play alternately between a hundred thousand years and a billion. I ask you to stick to one number (billion is shorter to write) and not add unnecessary confusion.
While on the observer's watch one day has passed (again a game between a day and three seconds - we will stay on the day - one story is enough!) A billion years have passed on the observed system. I agree and even said so!
Phew! Now suddenly three hours! Why do you have to repeat the same story every time while exchanging data?! Why is it useful other than to confuse?! One Day! We're done! I don't mean to count.
If the observer passes by any system, be it the Milky Way or the Central Station, in three hours according to his watch - his age increases by three hours compared to his age at the beginning of the journey. I don't know where and where the billion years you indicate as the viewer's age came from.
The viewer is a clock. It is more convenient because it can be synchronized - which cannot be done with a twin.
When he met the first twin on the train, both of them are children.
When he met the last one, he was a day old according to his own clock (not three hours! I see that in the previous sentence I was dragged by this confusion that you just added) and the last twin is a billion years old according to the twin clock.
This is what I said in my previous comments, this is what I say now and if I say it (and more than once) it must be a sign that I can tell you this - so why are you asking if I can tell you this?
By the way - this is not a minimum age at which he meets someone. With each twin he meets at a certain age of his own and at a certain age of the twin (a certain age which is both the minimum and the maximum of himself).
But I ask you to decide: is it related to the background radiation or not? Here you didn't talk about the background radiation and other times you talked about it.
I'm already really exhausted! I'm trying to answer you (and I think I've already answered many times) but it seems to me that we're broadcasting in parallel universes.
Michael, did you read Ofer's article?
If so, can you show me where it is mentioned there - or in my example - acceleration?
You don't need acceleration in the example. You don't need twins either. They were only brought up because we used them in previous examples, as natural clocks with a natural 0 point: the birth. If you extrapolate from Ofer's article, any traveler traveling at relative speed will see the Milky Way pass by in three seconds according to his watch, whether he is a twin or an only child.
And it has nothing to do with the age of the universe from his point of view. After all, he is photographing the planets as they pass by, so what the photographs will show is their age from their point of view, not his.
If it's hard for you to see this, think about that traveler who passes by the Milky Way in just three seconds according to his watch:
Since the Milky Way system is inertial for the purpose of the example, if we set clocks on the first and last planet it passes by and synchronize between them, then the time difference between the time it took on the first planet and the time on the last one is a hundred thousand years, do you agree?
In that period of time only three seconds passed according to his clock, but this does not change the fact that the system he is passing through - the Milky Way - has in the meantime aged by a hundred thousand years according to its clock, and this is also what the photographs will show. Acceptable?
If the Milky Way galaxy were a billion light years long, it would pass by in about three hours on his clock, and a billion years on her clock. agree?
He is now a billion years old according to his clock.
Can you say what is the minimum age of the planets on their faces he passes and their natural clocks, twins, he takes pictures according to their clocks?
Good night.
Dear Nissim, good morning.
A. Einstein said the universe is infinite
B. There is a rule in physics - what is here is there, and this includes the big bang
third. The space is in general mathematical, infinite and has no end of dimensions - mathematical, and matter can be on it
Israel:
You devote more time to formulating the story (in a way that makes it very difficult to understand your intention) than to understanding the problem.
It is again the same deity of the background radiation clock of the stationary system relative to it.
As I have already said many times - the same thing would have happened if any other system could (and it probably can) spread its clocks in space and allow everyone to read them.
You refuse to acknowledge that when someone is in a different system, the age of the universe they are computing is different.
Your twin (for reasons kept with you) is no longer excited by the age difference when acceleration is involved (after all, the accelerated twin left an hour ago and here he is back in the universe having matured by a billion years and neither twin is surprised) but he is excited by a location that has matured more or less than him (even though his biological systems have also And the background radiation clock are just clocks like clocks).
As I said - the lack of symmetry is only due to the fact that one was chosen as the background of many clocks and the other was chosen as a single viewer.
That's why I also explained in a previous response that the synchronization point in the background will show its own larger ages against the opposite background.
Now: it is probably possible to really calculate from any system (including the one that is stationary in relation to the background radiation) the background radiation clock of any other system (just correct the light frequencies so that it reflects the desired movement) and then the exact same thing will happen in front of this system.
Ok, get on the train. The controller whistled and also gave the signal with a greenish flag.
The whole family of twins sits in carriages and their watches are synchronized with each other. When they are twenty years old, the last carriage with the last twin passes over a planet that is a billion light years away from Earth. They travel in the same direction at the speed of light almost against the cosmic background radiation. The latter twin photographs the same remote planet and measures the radiation temperature.
He knows that he has a long journey - a billion years - to the end of the world, but this hardly bothers him. The reason is simple: the last twin, like the other members of the twin family, for them are generally at rest. The train is wide and comfortable and they can live their lives in peace, and also have fun watching the stars and planets fly past them at almost the speed of light. For them, they are those at rest and the passing stars are actually the train.
When he arrives at KDA, he photographs it and measures the temperature of the background radiation. Even though he is already a billion years old, he sees in the picture the viewer in Israel who grew up in just one day. The viewer from Israel sends him an iPhone
The picture of himself that the viewer took when he passed by. There is no doubt that he does not look bad compared to the rest of his fellow billionaires...
The viewer in Israel looks at the picture of the billion-year-old twin and smiles, until suddenly Olim Kamati appears on his forehead.
After all, he read Ofer Magad's article "The Milky Way in just three seconds". He knows that when a traveler moves against the background radiation at the speed at which the last twin moved, every three seconds according to the traveler's clock the universe ages by a hundred thousand years.
After all, there is no doubt that the last twin started the journey after the big bang. He even took a picture of the planet he passed by a billion years ago.
If every three seconds, according to the clock of the last twin, the planets on their surface age by a hundred thousand years - and this can be seen in the pictures - and the last twin is now a billion years old according to its clock, and this is also shown by the picture held by the viewer in his hand - then how old is the universe on its surface The last twin when he filmed KDA with the viewer who is part of the same universe?
Could you kind commenters help the viewer calculate how old the universe that appears in the picture taken by the last twin if it is a billion years old and every three seconds according to its clock the universe ages by one hundred thousand years?
Maybe Turing can help, it seems to me that it is the most suitable for calculations of this magnitude.
If mistakes - desert, iPhone.
Michael
This is really an open question. It is my personal opinion that the mind is not a computer. The basis of the idea is a not so well-known claim by Alan Turing. Turing raised the possibility that there are machines more powerful than Turing machines (of course they didn't happen to be Turing machines....). He called them "O-machines". The O comes from the word Oracle. Broadly speaking, the idea is that there is an oracle that can be asked questions and it answers in a blocked time. Today, this approach is called hypercomputing and there are many debates about it - does it exist at all.
Now - I take the idea of left-brain/right brain (which originally came from the analyzes of Roger Sperry): you can look at the brain as 2 machines. The first (left side) is responsible for language and works linearly. The right side has parallel access to memory and is therefore similar to a parallel computer.
And added: I claim that our brain is a hypercomputer, so I don't believe in strong AI. John Searle must have been proud of me, even though I think his way of drawing conclusions is wrong (even though the conclusion is correct in my opinion).
That's very, very briefly. I analyzed a lot of details in the idea and there are a few more "layers" that I prefer not to detail.
Miracles:
On what basis do you claim that our brains are not limited by the halting problem?
Can our brain decide whether the program that creates the paradox in proving the halting problem about computers halts or not?
Let's say you put a sensor on your head of the type used in the experiment of Loves which reports its findings to the program and lets the program enter an infinite loop if the brain decides it stops or stop if the brain decides it doesn't.
It is interesting thatIn the description of the stopping problem in Wikipedia They did not insist on this possibility and the issue of the existence of the stopping problem in the brain is presented there as an open question.
Reuven
I don't see any level of similarity between them. Many operations can be performed with the help of a computer, but a computer is limited in its ability, because of something called the "halting problem". Our brain, in my opinion and understanding, does not have this limitation.
You are wrong by saying "different hardware" - our brain does not have hardware and/or software. We are not a computer.
"Passengers on the Emek train remember that the travel time on it took them at least a billion years..." - Uvahaha. They must have come a long way, haven't they? Passed Eilat, right?
Israel:
As I said the last time you asked exactly the same question - I didn't do an exact calculation, but in principle the answer is positive. After all, if the distance between the cars is about a billion light years and if the viper was caught by the train at a speed very close to the speed of light, then the time that passes between the meeting with the first car and the meeting with the last is about a billion years.
ב
I wasn't talking about an infinite train but about a train whose length in its rest system is a billion light years, a few centimeters from the viewer's point of view.
The train is the same as the Milky Way in Ofer Maged's article, only longer. Its uniqueness is that it moves against the background radiation while the Milky Way rests (almost) relative to it.
But in terms of private relativity there is no difference between the two systems. Einstein didn't even know about radiation in 1905.
Passengers on the Emek train remember that the travel time on it took them at least a billion years...
Water blowing
It's good that you think so. That doesn't make it true.
Miracles:
I agree that at the lowest level the brain is different from a computer, but I am not at all sure that this level is relevant for examining traits such as emotions. With the same logic, it was possible to think that only a person is capable of counting or solving puzzles or processing an image, but today we know that these are actions that a computer can also perform, even though it is not made of neurons.
Regarding the dynamism of emotions and the nature of emotions, this dynamic is indeed different from person to person and from person to animal, but you have an example of how the same aggravation gives rise to different behavior. Perhaps the sensitive computer will develop feelings that characterize its features, or rather the identity of this or that person
If a bar is spreading there is no way to know it other than comparing it to another bar.
If the space is expanding there is no way to know it except by comparing it to another space.
Dear B
ב
There is no connection between the big bang (no need for quotes) and the radius of the universe. It is the space itself that expands, so the radius, if there is one, does not increase with time. This is how I understand theory.
And of course there is no such thing as an "endless train"... Not even in a thought experiment.
Israel:
If there is a claim that the universe was created in the "big bang" then the conclusion is that the universe has a finite radius. (even if it grows over time).
That is, the maximum length of a train in the universe is the diameter of the universe. That is, even if the train is composed of an infinite number of cars, its maximum length will be the length of the diameter of the universe.
conclusion:
Connection of lengths aims for an upper limit just like connection of velocities. That is, a meter plus a meter is a little less than two meters. So even a train of infinite cars has a finite limit of length.
That is, we must abandon the cylindrical transformation in the connection of lengths and move to another transformation (Lorentz?) in the connection of lengths.
Israel regarding synchronization, if one clock sees "late" and another clock sees "early", and from the other side it appears that one clock sees "late" and the other sees "early" then they can only be in individual perspectives or in other words in parallel universes and yes and therefore "back in time" is possible. Sincerely
The issue of synchronization is critical to the discussion, so it is important that we clarify the point.
In the twin train which is an inertial system, the clocks in the cars are synchronized with each other but not synchronized with the observer's clock or other clocks in the observer system.
The only thing that can be done is that when the first car passes by the viewer that their age (or age) is the same. In the future, of course, gaps will be created. That's why I wrote that the train clocks are synchronized with each other and not that the train clocks are synchronized with the watcher's clock.
There should be no problem in placing such twins on the train. They can even be cloned robots identical to the original. Einstein shows in the original article of relativity how any number of clocks can be synchronized in an inertial system.
a question:
If such a twin train that is a billion light-years long (in its rest system) passes by the observer at a speed equal to the speed of Ofer's observer (as I recall, he eclipses the hundred thousand light-years of the Milky Way in three seconds according to his clock, so that his speed is almost that of light), and in the first train We photographed a 20-year-old twin, at what age will the twin be photographed in the last trailer?
Hint: Because of the symmetry to Ofer's passenger, its age should be about a billion years.
As you remember, the viewer taking pictures is stationary relative to the radiation and the train is the one that rushes past him with a barman and a tractor. For him, the journey of the short train takes only one day.
Is everything agreed up to this point, i.e. that the age of the last twin photographed by the viewer is about a billion years?
Shmulik, thank you. When we return from the trip I will take a look at the blog.
Israel:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes (assuming you managed to place the twins that way without creating another problem). Biological twins are physical systems like any other system and when they move the time of each and every one of the atoms that make them up is affected. If a billion years pass by them, then the age of the universe - according to them - increases by another billion years. If the first twin is synchronized with the observer (from the observer's point of view) then all the others are not synchronized with it and the time differences are as I mentioned.
In terms of the distant twin, the time when the former meets the viewer is the same as the time seen by the viewer. The viewer does not see the future - he only "sees" unsynchronized clocks.
Israel,
Lawrence Krauss is a physics professor and has a pretty lively and active Facebook fanclub. Do you want, at the same time as the discussion you are having here, to ask your question (in English, not that it should be a problem for you)?
Here is the address:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/14627823295/
Michael.
From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no problem with the other solutions to the puzzle. If you enter the puzzle data into a computer, it will output that all the solutions are correct. The mismatch is physical, not mathematical. This is what I mean by mathematically but not physically correct solutions.
You may be able to understand what bothers me if you answer the following questions:
1. Do you accept that an observer flying at relativistic speed along the length of a train whose clocks are all synchronized and the time of the first car is the same as his own, will see and photograph in the last car a time later than his own, and the same picture will be taken by the observer from the last car? Yes No.
2. Do you accept that according to relativity there is no difference if the observer is moving or resting relative to the background radiation?
3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are positive, do you accept that an observer who is stationary relative to the radiation - that is, all of us - and such a train passes by, will see in the distant cars that their time is getting later and later?
4. If the clocks are natural clocks - twins for example - do you accept that he will see older and older twins, and it is quite possible that if the twin in the first car is the same age as the viewer, the twin in the last car will be much older than him? Yes No.
My problem lies in the answer to question 4, so it is important that you answer it.
By the way - as I have written several times, I have no preference between relativity and bang. Why don't you claim that I am attacking the big bang theory? And as I mentioned, the same person, whose name I cannot say because I did not get his consent, claims that there is a problem with Proper relations, regardless of the explosion. Not only did I disagree with him, I confronted him with Ofer Maged who ruled that he was wrong.
Let's hope that father's condition will improve. My father is quite happy here in the desert, let's just hope that the wild doesn't eat us.
Israel:
My father is still suffering badly and fills all my time.
The "riddle" you gave (with its solution in 75) does not belong to us. The reason for rejecting the other solutions is based on facts that we know about nature and not on gut feelings that we cannot explain.
By the way - in your last attempt to describe what bothers you, you used a scenario in which the universe as a whole moves relative to the background radiation.
This is a situation that does not exist in reality and is in contradiction to the big bang theory. If it existed, the formula for calculating the age of the universe would not be correct.
I repeat that I honestly have no idea what is bothering you.
Reuven
A computer includes hardware, on which software runs. Our brain does not have this separation. Each cell is basically a calculation unit. Therefore, I don't think they can be mapped.
Beyond that, the cells themselves undergo changes all the time: cells die and are regenerated, new connections are formed, and existing ones are strengthened. This is very different from a silicon computer.
In addition - our consciousness is, among other things, a consequence of age. The baby has almost no consciousness. And it doesn't stop as long as we live. Let's imagine that we will indeed build a perfect simulation of a brain - it will be the brain of a certain person at a certain moment in his life. Let's assume that at this moment the person was hungry.... How will we make him a week? Let's assume he is sitting - how will he get up?
There is a lot more to say about this…. But it's boring to read long comments 🙂
Michael how are you dad?
Details.
I brought a riddle first. Can you seriously solve it please?
Thanks.
Israel:
I think I answered you in Rachel your little daughter and it is you who is ignoring my words.
I don't know what Einstein wrote in mockery, but the Torah he developed is described by mathematical formulas and these formulas have so far passed all the tests of experiment and observation.
The fact that you found someone who thinks like you and doesn't identify with his name and doesn't say anything in the professional circles doesn't change the fact that all the scientists dealing with the subject (apart from him and maybe a few others) don't see any problem.
If he is so sure that he is right - why doesn't he write something about the subject?
I repeat - I do not see any problem with the conclusions arising from the relativity formulas.
I didn't try to calculate every possible conclusion of them, but I guess that all the physicists must have already plowed every possible corner.
When you say that something is possible mathematically but not physically - it is you who appropriates physics (and even does so without substantiation - and know that the only substantiation we even know how to give something - apart from the observations itself - is a mathematical substantiation).
That's why it certainly upsets me that when I respond to this you accuse me of appropriating mathematics and physics and psychology.
Miracles:
How confident are you that a computer will never think or feel? Where do emotions come from in humans? Isn't emotion some kind of abstraction like a triangle is an abstraction?
But my question is whether it will ever be possible to know for sure that a computer does feel and if so (or not) then how
Sorry if I sounded blunt, but what am I supposed to do if for all my targeted and specific questions I get a sweeping answer "you don't understand" and the matter is closed?
I believe I understand what I am talking about. I also believe that answers along the lines of "the locomotive believes" or "the wagon feels" are not physical answers. I believe that this is also what Einstein believed when he conceived of relativity, at least according to what is written in Kaku's book "Einstein's Universe":
"Einstein mockingly wrote "The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With the help of mathematics you can prove anything." For him, the essential thing was to get a clear and simple picture (like that of trains, falling elevators, missiles). p. 57.
And that's what I'm trying to do here without minimal cooperation, just general and condescending comments without going into details, where, as we know, the devil is.
So if you are ready for questions about the little daughter Rachel, and also her own house and her granddaughter, there is something to discuss. But if I answer every question I have about trains and spectators with answers along the lines of "I've already answered you a million times" (but you didn't answer correctly), and "you just don't understand" (what exactly?) then I have no interest in such a discussion.
In this article I have given examples of academics who are considered experts in the theory of relativity that contradict each other. I also brought a quote from an email I received from one of the top physicists in Israel who claimed that the cosmic background radiation is relatively stationary for any observer. Of course, I cannot accept from Ilya any claim that contradicts my understanding and knowledge just because this is the writer's belief.
And in conclusion: if anyone wants to return to the subject with me, then only in Einstein's method: trains, wagons, birds and zebras.
Talking, iPad.
Well top!
If this is the attitude after all the effort, then thank you very much
I didn't know I was rebelling against something. But if you have already appropriated the mathematics and physics, then why not the psychology as well.
Let me know if and when you would be interested in giving simple answers to simple questions. Before that there is no point in continuing.
ב
If you found any contradiction in what I said, please point out where.
(Maybe something with messengers and arrows?)
Israel:
I don't think you will be able to convince physics to disobey mathematics.
All the things you rebel against in relativity have been confirmed experimentally.
Israel:
"I believe my words are based on understanding."
Your faith is no different than anyone else's.
When there is understanding there is no contradiction.
Michael.
I believe my words are based on understanding.
Of course I may be wrong, but I cannot accept your words simply because you say so and so.
I offered you the Socratic method for the pursuit of truth - questions and answers that lead to a contradiction. The only time we implemented this method we did come to the truth - and it is not the one you pointed to.
Since we are left only with the way of the parliament - everyone says their opinion without confronting and verifying it with the opposite opinion - so here is my opinion:
You say: "For the photons - the age of the universe is zero and you will not be able to convince them otherwise".
If for a photon the age of the universe is zero, then for a traveler whose speed is slightly less than the speed of light the age of the universe is a few days according to his clock.
If this traveler were to pass by us, he would be able to see (and photograph) the universe when it is 13.7 billion years old. If it stops, it will measure a temperature that, according to Friedman's formula, corresponds to a 13.7 billion year old universe. He will not be able to see or measure temperatures of universes of different ages, much less of universes that are 20 billion years old.
And if you reverse the process as I suggested, meaning that the traveler is at rest relative to the radiation and the universe is the one that moves - then you will get that the traveler is watching universes older than ours.
Mathematically possible but not physically.
I am traveling with my father for a few days so it will be difficult for me to respond. My version of entertaining a father is to do his (and mine) favorite thing - invite him on a trip to the California deserts and experiment with lasers, telescopes, fast-spinning gears, light meters, cameras and radios.
And yes, it directly relates to everything written here.
And in the meantime - a riddle:
Father and son work at the university as lecturers. The age of the son is a multiple of 25. The age of the father is twice the age of his son.
How old is the grandfather?
1. 59
2. 120
3. 75
4. 170
Hint: Mathematically - all answers are possible.
Israel:
Unfortunately, I must say that the correct things you said were also said based on a misunderstanding - even if you cited correct calculations while I had not yet done the calculations but gave answers (sometimes wrong) that are based on understanding.
I have explained where your mistake is more than once and the explanation has not changed.
In general - ask yourself what the term "age of the universe" means.
If it is a term measured in time then it is the distance on the timeline that separates two events.
What are the two events that define the age of the universe?
One of them is the formation of the universe. OK, but what is the other one?
The only thing that comes out of your words about the second is that it is the event of "now" but what to do that "now" is relative and what appears to be synchronous in one system is not synchronous in another?
In general - there are many more problems with this term since in the same atom there can exist at the same time particles that were created in the big bang and whose ages are different because of their private history.
Not only the synchronicity but the entire course of time is different between different systems and therefore the term "age of the universe" like any other period of time has meaning only within a given inertial system. It has no universal meaning.
As I mentioned - for the photons - the age of the universe is zero and you will not be able to convince them otherwise.
Reuven
If you ask Asimov's Dr. Susan Calvin, she will tell you that only a human who has passed the Turing Test would be considered to "think like a robot" in the full sense of the word.
The machine is allowed from the person.
Reuven
I think that our brain is nothing more than many nerves connected to each other, and in theory it is possible to build a machine that can wait for the action of a brain (a certain brain at a certain moment).
But - the brain is not a computer (ie: it is not equivalent to a Turing machine) and therefore a computer will never think or feel (even though it can symbolize these phenomena).
Distinguish between a Turing machine and a Turing test. Alan Turing also understood that our brain is not a computer.
This topic is not directly related to the article, but I wanted some platform to discuss it and this is the only one I found.
This is a Turing test for distinguishing between a human and a computer. I expand the scope a bit and ask whether the test will be able to decide whether it will be possible to say that a computer that has passed the test "thinks like a human being" in the full sense of the word, meaning that it has thoughts and feelings like a normal person. And if not a Turing test then can anyone think of another test.
The standard answer from AI proponents is that a machine that in every sense behaves like a human has no reason or basis to think that it does not think like a human. This answer does not satisfy me
Michael
deja vu.
And quite close too. Just less than two weeks ago you wrote:
"The relativity answer is not the one you describe and I have no intention of trying to justify anyone's misunderstandings.
This last comment of yours was really exaggerated because I didn't find even one thing true in it."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-26/#comment-448600
When we started to find out, it turned out that all the things I wrote in the response were true, including the issue of crocodiles' vegetables.
But - the righteous in his faith will live. If you don't want to apply the Socratic method of questions and answers, you have the right to believe whatever you want.
ב
It seems to me that you are confusing the cosmic background radiation and the rays of the sorcerer's apprentice.
Israel:
I found a misunderstanding and a mistake in your words, but I also explained it many times, so I retired.
Israel:
The theory of relativity states that it is not possible for a clock to be stationary with respect to light (electromagnetic background radiation).
Because light moves at a constant speed relative to any measurement system including the system in which the clock is located.
From the theory of relativity you came to the conclusion that there is background radiation.
But then you assumed that there is a clock that is stationary with respect to the background radiation. This assumption contradicts the theory of relativity.
And ten times I told you that you are free.
You still haven't found a contradiction in my words.
Miracles - if you can watch your older twin, then assuming you are identical and deterministic, you see how you will look in the future.
It happens to the traveler's twin in paradox, he sees his remaining brother as his future self.
But here we are talking about the reversal of the paradox: the remaining twin watches his older traveling brother.
It is said: Paradox, the twin paradox.
football.
Israel
I referred to "if each system has its own time and I can observe - and photograph - a matching DH that was discovered one day older than ours, then assuming that it is a deterministic system I can observe tomorrow.
I am running now to build such a match and a train to carry it. The blow that will come from knowing tomorrow's stock prices makes the project extremely profitable
"
I wanted to make it clear that you can't know the future...
We have already been here ten times!
enough!
Pretty!
But the age of the background radiation is the age of the universe, so it turns out that the last twin, born with us, is a billion years older than the age of the universe.
I am now going out with my dogs and my father for a morning walk in the mountains.
I don't understand what this has to do with the background radiation at all, because both in the background radiation system and in any other system, we will see the last twin a billion years older than us, and that's because when we see it, it will be a billion years older than us, and that's because a billion years have really passed for it
Michael.
I actually referred to your words, and said that what I am looking for is the physical picture, not the mathematical one.
"As soon as you meet the first twin, it is clear to you that the last one is a billion years older than him" I try to remove all the psychological elements from the problem. It is not clear - closed. Only photographs. I didn't get a direct answer, but I assume from the indirect answer (twice) that it is positive - the observer will see the observer's clock lagging behind the carriage clock by a billion years.
This happens because the viewer moves in the train system whose clocks are synchronized with each other, but not if it is his own. But as far as he's concerned, he's the one who sleeps and the train is the one who moves, right?
Therefore, if such a train passes by an observer who is stationary relative to the radiation, that is, you, me and miracles (flowing water, so it is not at rest relative to the radiation), we will see - and photograph - the last twin that is a billion years older than us.
But the last twin is actually our twin.
If you accept this description, please state clearly.
The last response is to miracles..
Got it, got it.
What is the connection to what I am saying about the fact that if we reverse the process, we can observe twins older than us from the resting system of the cosmic background radiation, that is, the twins older than the age of the universe?
Israel:
What I said is true for every clock and the calculations that show it I have already presented (and as mentioned - an example of them also appears in the link you provided yourself that does not talk about the background radiation clock).
Your twin story is not true and I have already explained why.
I also explained why this has not even the most indirect connection to seeing the future and also that your whole perception of synchronicity is wrong.
I said - and I repeat - as soon as you speed up, you see that their time is speeding up a lot and already when you meet the first twin, it is clear to you that the last one is a billion years older than him (again - I haven't done the calculation yet, but this is the direction and the order of magnitude).
I explained the connection of all this to relativity, but I don't think you are referring to what I said.
One more story can be told here - intuitive and inaccurate - but with the potential to give a more comfortable feeling towards the facts (and experimentally verified that these are facts!).
If that doesn't help either, I will give up on trying to convince you (although I will remain determined in my opinion and the opinion of the scientific community as a whole)
Keep in mind that every millionth of a second the twins transmit a signal that indicates that another millionth of a second has passed in their time.
As far as they are concerned, they transmit the signal at the same time, and the same goes for the viewer as long as he has not started to accelerate.
He meets timed pulses from each of the twins.
Let's say that these beats sound like "tick".
Let's say that now it starts to move with increasing speed.
Time for the twins slows down for him, but not all at once. He notices the slowdown only when the signals reach him and he hears "tick....tick" instead of "tick"
Now - from whom will he hear "file....file" first?
Of course, the closest watch to him.
When this happens, there are still "ticking" signals from the last clock on the way and there are many of them - in fact they represent the billion light years that separate the clocks (signals that have been transmitted for a billion years) and he will notice all these signals before he can notice that the last clock has also slowed down.
Since he is moving towards them at high speed and since the billion light years are shrinking in his world to a distance that he can cover in one (his) day, he will receive the transmissions of the last clock at a "tick" rate over a billion years - on that day and only then will he notice that the rate has dropped to "tick... ..file"
Until that moment it will seem to him that the time of the last twin has actually sped up.
To Israel and Michael with the stories about the trains it was possible to travel on the Emek train and in short the twins of miracles.
The twins are not ordinary twins, they are about the same as the atom in the last article, one human being who duplicated himself in time travel, that is, through going back in time many times he is connected with his double self. And in relation to the transfer of information, since there is a connection of transferring information back in time, and the evidence of the duplication of the twin itself after being born, there is a statistical connection and some of the information in a partial form, exists in the duplicated person and will act according to the experience he himself has gained in the future, but again statistically, limited information, information partial and therefore if you don't do it with a large scale or some twins - it will be a little harder for you to win the lottery, respectfully
Israel Shapira
That twin who moved away and came back has no knowledge of what has been done here over the years.
Let's do a thought experiment. Sending one twin into space today. Next Saturday the results of the toto games will be published. This information travels at the speed of light, and it takes time for the traveling twin to receive it. At this moment the twin returns. Question - Will he return with the information before Shabbat?
To simplify we will do 2 things:
1) The twin does not need to return at all, he can transmit a message back with the help of light. After all, this is the highest speed that information can return.
2) Therefore, we can assume that the twin is only holding a mirror.
3) Instead of a twin flying, holding a mirror, he needs sleep, oxygen, food and a place to poop - let's just assume there is a mirror in space at that point X, which is the point the twin would meet the information.
From here the information will come back to us in a week + twice X/c. That is, after Shabbat……..
Do you understand what I'm saying?
I read the responses in the hospital from the mobile phone and get annoyed because it is impossible to respond reasonably from the mobile phone.
I hope I will be able to answer later.
"I hope you understood and accepted that when there is an observer that moves relative to the background clocks, then the farther the clock is from the synchronization point, the further it is shifted forward."
I hope you meant the radiation clock, not the observer clock. I accept that. My whole argument is based on the fact that if we reverse the creation - that is, a synchronized system (a train in our example) moves relative to us, relative to radiation, then according to the principle of time dilation we will accept that the train clocks show a time later than ours. If the clocks on the train are natural clocks - twins for example - we will get twins that are older than the twins that are relatively favorable to radiation (reversal of the twin paradox).
This means that the future can be expected. Mathematically possible, physically difficult to digest.
That is why it is important that we refer only to cameras, which show a physical image. I repeat the question:
"You can have a train that is a billion light years long and we are standing next to it.
The 0 time on all the train clocks is synchronized to our 0 time.
We now accelerate to a tremendous speed, so that we pass the whole train in what to us is one day.
It is impossible to say that the time in the last trailer is a billion years older than our time, according to the data of the problem.
When we reach it, the time it takes will be a billion years (2.8 billion to be exact) for us - one day.
Acceptable?"
That is, do you accept that a photograph from both sides - the train and the observer - would show the observer's clock lagging behind the train's clock by a billion years?
If you don't understand then I will try to explain.
I hope you understood and accepted that when there is an observer that moves relative to the background clocks, then the farther the clock is from the synchronization point, the further it is shifted forward.
This is a conclusion of the theory of relativity and all the things brought here on the subject including the calculations in the link you provided and also the calculations I did show.
So let's really look at such a system that moves relative to the background of mutually synchronized stationary clocks, and let's add to the story a system that started from rest relative to the stationary clocks and then accelerated and stuck to a system that was moving from the beginning and stopped accelerating.
In fact, these are systems that have merged and their world picture is supposed to be one, but while the constantly moving system saw the clock shift increasing with the distance all the time, the accelerated system started from a world picture of "all background clocks are synchronized" and ended with a world picture in which the more distant clocks are more advanced.
The only way to interpret this is by the distant clocks maturing faster (from zero to greater deviation) as a function of distance.
And I say again: the perception of the pace of time in another system depends on the observer and not the observed.
The observed will feel the same all the time and different observers will discover different time rhythms in him - this is what also happens in private relationships and the fact that nothing has changed in him is irrelevant.
I don't understand what "the last trailer gets older faster" means. The last car is constantly at rest and is not affected by what the observer does or does not do, or another observer moving in the opposite direction at a different speed.
Because according to this logic, if there really was another observer moving at a different speed, the train would age faster or slower even relative to that other observer. So when the cameras roll, what time will the car clock show, of viewer A or of viewer B?
In my understanding, there is no such thing as "this is what happens in the reference system of those who accelerate and do not affect the train." Even the usual relative lengthening of time is a matter of the observer and not of the observed." After all, we have cameras and they are unequivocal. Also in the twin paradox there is only one observer who has matured, and this is agreed upon by both sides. Even in the Jack and Jill example of inertial systems that I brought before, only Jack is the one who has matured.
If the last car matures faster then the direction of the acceleration has meaning.
If so then acceleration in the opposite direction should have negative maturation.
Suppose the viewer accelerates back and forth between car A and car B.
Will this acceleration affect the measurement of times?
As mentioned: All of the above (on the topic of acceleration) are not based on serious calculations but on intuition only.
Yes. In my opinion, the last car matures faster (I remind you: this is what happens in the reference system of those who accelerate and do not affect the train. Also the normal relative time extension is a matter of the observer and not of the observed). In my opinion it also corresponds to the equivalence between acceleration and gravitation.
Does the latest trailer age faster?
After all, if we speed up, he is not aware of our existence at all.
Unless you move to the next stage where the train is the one that accelerates, and here all the problems that I talked about emerge, and also news that I haven't talked about yet..
At this point Ockham gives up and goes home.
If you haven't given up on yourself, here's a little exercise in alternative physics:
The whole idea behind the lengthening of time is well explained in the Hebrew translation of Einstein's book (Rafi Moore):
http://www.rafimoor.com/hebrew/SRH.htm
The logic behind the lengthening of times seems unquestionable. Rafi presents the only options available in the example described from the woman's point of view:
A. The woman is in the center of the train.
B. Both lightning strikes occurred simultaneously.
third. The speed of light progress from both lightning bolts is equal.
d. The light from the front flash reaches the woman before the light from the back flash.
and excludes option b.
Question (only if there is time and desire, this is really just speculation):
Is there another possibility that does not appear there and leaves Newton's absolute time intact as well as the two postulates of relativity?
A possibility that fits well with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought all his life (and lost)?
A possibility that also explains the Wheeler experiment (influence on the past from the future) without making Ockham faint?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/
(Water is the place and time to exhale and inhale, hold for a few seconds and release).
Good night.
In my opinion, it can be said that the last car matures faster during the acceleration period.
The formulas of general relativity are less familiar to me, but if I naively extrapolate from special relativity, then it is definitely so - again - because of the known X
Ofer's article:
http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html
Instead of the Milky Way, let's have a train that is a billion light years long and we are standing next to it.
The 0 time on all the train clocks is synchronized to our 0 time.
We now accelerate to a tremendous speed, so that we pass the whole train in what to us is one day.
It is impossible to say that the time in the last trailer is a billion years older than our time, according to the data of the problem.
When we reach it, the time it takes will be a billion years (2.8 billion to be exact) for us - one day.
accepted?
I didn't read Ofer's article and I didn't check the numbers, but in principle I don't see a problem with a positive answer to both questions.
What I think you're forgetting is the fact that when he left, the last planet was, for him, a lot older than the first (again - I didn't do the math, but I estimate that this is also about a billion years old)
1. Do you accept that Ofer's traveler travels a billion light years while for him it is only one day?
2. If he photographs the planets on their surface, he passes by and assuming that each of them has an evolution like in the New Testament, do you accept that on the last planet the evolution progresses a billion years more than on the first, and this will be shown by the photograph?
It is also important that you shell the match and cause that you will be shelled....yesterday
By the way, this really contradicts the existence of a beginning for the universe
It's really strange to me that you say that and not because of the strange idea about the compatible earth.
If this is the level of clairvoyance you are talking about then just take a watch and look at the time it will show in 24 hours.
There is probably also a lack of logic in thinking about the existence of such a match because if it matches to the end then it also has a match that is older than it by a day and the earth has a match that is younger than it by a day and so on to infinity (twice infinity)
If each system has its own time and I can watch - and photograph - a match that was discovered one day older than ours, then assuming it is a deterministic system I can watch tomorrow.
I am running now to build such a match and a train to carry it. The blow that will come from knowing tomorrow's stock prices makes the project extremely profitable.
Israel:
First of all, the symmetry must be emphasized: the synchronization point in the background radiation system also "experiences" exactly the same thing and meets its own "adult" clock drive system.
In general, I don't understand what bothers you and I don't see these phenomena as having anything to do with watching the future. Every system has its time. that's it. You are not watching your future - you are watching your present. Always.
It is true that your present includes data that is a result of your past (like rays of light coming from stars that have long since died out) but it does not contain (at least until Aharonov proves otherwise) any information that comes from your future.
Indeed interesting, Minkowski, Sakhtein about the investment.
Do you know the story about von Neumann and the fly?
They asked him the following question: Two trains are traveling opposite each other on a track, one going east at a speed of 20 km/h and the other going west at a speed of 40 km/h. When they are 120 km apart, a fly leaves the front of train A towards train B. The speed of the fly is 100 km/h. When he reaches train B, he turns around and returns to A and returns, God forbid, until the inevitable end (and end).
How far will the fly travel?
Von Neumann smiles and answers immediately: 200 km.
Well done, physicist, they tell him. You immediately noticed that the trains run for two hours, eh?
Shaw Physicist, Oona Von, I calculated the infinite series…
Anyway, as you have shown, a photograph will always show the same situation in the clocks. I also brought the time formula 't' after "in short" 10 years ago in issue 65 of Galileo in response to a question about the reversal of entropy and going back in time, without imagining how relevant it would be.
Because as you can see from the formulas, both parties agree that the moving clock shows a time earlier than that of the synchronized clocks in the system in which it moves.
There is no problem with this if the time of the clocks is arbitrary. But if it is natural time - the age of the universe - and to which biological systems (twins) are attached to the clocks, it turns out that the viewer predicts what he sees as the future.
There is no problem with that in 1905 either. Every twin who goes on a journey knows that he is flying into the future. Traveled an hour, arrived in the world in a million years.
Ofer's traveler also sees a future universe. After a time of 4 days according to his clock, he sees a universe that has matured in 15 billion years.
Both the twins and the traveler can claim in 1905 that their time is as real as the systems before them.
The situation is different today. The traveling twin cannot claim that when he drinks tea with his older brother, their time is equally real. Because if this is true, why does the heating work?
And by the same token, if we travel a billion light years in the time of a day according to our clocks, we see colder and colder planets.
It makes sense if the planets are relatively inferior to radiation and we are favorable relative to it.
It is very strange if the situation is reversed. Especially if we watched them for a week according to our clock, and they are already 30 billion years old according to their clock, which is also the biological clock of the systems in them, which we observe from our 13.7 billion year old location.
If there are errors and mistakes - iPhone.
Good night.
Israel:
I don't know what systems are older than ours.
What clock is the age of the system measured?
If the clock is the background radiation clock, then the propulsion system in relation to the background radiation does not use the clock to measure the age of the universe because, as I mentioned, it is actually copying our clock and if it synchronizes the clock with our clock at a certain moment, then from that moment on the clock will show "the age of the universe" which is younger than the age shown by the background radiation clock at the point where it passes.
In the same way - if synchronized clocks are scattered among them in this system, the background point where the synchronization took place will see in the propulsion system, from the moment of synchronization onwards, clocks that show a time higher than that of the background radiation clock, but it is not a clock that measures the age of the universe, but just a clock (which, as far as she understands, was set from the beginning to show a time that is higher than the age of the universe).
You might be interested to read this
For me, the discussion showed that what remains is whether to accept that such a system of ours, which is almost stationary relative to the background radiation, can be expected in systems older than ours. I don't see how that's possible, but it's a matter of perspective I guess.
Anyway, thanks for the investment. It helped me a lot to know that a mathematician went over the idea and didn't find some simple mistake like replacing a plus with a minus.
To the guy I quoted earlier, who claimed that there is no time dilation because of a contradiction built into relations itself, I showed that his assumptions lead to a contradiction with what we know about the nature of the speed of light.
Since he claimed that the mistake was mine, I directed the question to Ofer Maged:
http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html
Ofer said he was right with me, which did not convince the guy. This made me wonder a little, because these are two academics who have been dealing with the topic of relativity for many years. The same person, who sounds very serious, also lectures at conferences and claims that a professor of physics at Tel Aviv University agrees with him.
Apparently everything is really relative.
Israel:
I'm sorry because I think I've already answered everything.
You presented the story with the twins without the background radiation being mentioned at all, but that is no longer important.
This debate made me think about many things and understand them better, but for me it is already exhausted.
All the questions you presented to me received a very satisfactory answer for me and that's enough for me.
I never claimed to be trying to disprove relativity. I claimed that in my understanding, the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts the Big Bang theory, from which an absolute age for the universe derives. I did not express a preference one way or the other. I said, and I say again, that it is almost certain that the lack of understanding - or more likely a lack of sufficient knowledge - is on me.
Unfortunately, the reasons you put forward do not explain the alleged contradiction.
"If the twins are close (the carriages are short) he will hardly see a difference in their age."
Can Ofer's passenger who passes by the Milky Way in three seconds not see - and photograph - the planets he passes?
And isn't the last planet a hundred thousand years older than the first? What if you scattered synchronized twins in the planets, wouldn't the last twin be a hundred thousand years older than the first?
Relativity, by the way, claims that I believe.
That's not the problem. Even with Einstein, the moving twin makes a journey to the future, and Ofer's traveler sees the planets aging rapidly.
But for Einstein in 1905 - actually until the meeting with Hubble - there is no problem with this, because time is infinite.
The problem arises when starting from the assumption that our universe has a finite age, about 13.7 billion years.
Because if we reverse the rest system of the traveler and compare it to the rest system of radiation (that is, of all of us), he will see twins - or planets, or whatever - whose age is higher than his age, and this from a system whose age is already the age of the universe.
In all the known scenarios the situation is the opposite: the younger twin returns when his age is lower than his brother's age, which is the age of the universe. In GPS the clock lags behind stationary clocks, not the other way around. Ofer's traveler remains young as the Milky Way ages, but he can never see a planet older than the age of the universe.
The time of the passengers of all kinds is always lower than the stationary ones.
But if the observer is the one who is relaxed relative to the radiation, then his age is always the age of the universe, and in every train that travels relative to him, the clocks show a time later and later, i.e. higher than his age, i.e. higher than the age of the universe.
The reversal of the twin paradox: the traveling twin returns when he is older.
And that's all Ockham is angry about.
Regards to father.
And by the way: even if you imagine a futuristic world where you can take fertilized eggs and fly them to different points in mutual rest and synchronization where the eggs will enter the incubator and the babies will be born at the same moment at different points, there will be no problem because in terms of the moving system in relation to these points - the babies were not born at all at the same time.
By the way - sitting next to my father's bed today I had a few minutes of silence and I was able to calculate the ratio between the natural clock of a point and the clock obtained by permanently copying the local clocks of a system of mutually synchronized stationary clocks that pass by it.
The description of the problem is complex in itself and the formulas cannot be written here (and it also seems to me that no one here is interested in them).
If there is a demand from the audience, I will try to write a file that shows the calculation and the result.
In general - if the twins are close (the carriages are short) he will hardly see a difference in their age, and if they are far apart, the process that created the distance between them must be taken into account (this process will inevitably cancel their identity as twins).
It doesn't seem to me that you managed to undermine special relativity in the slightest.
At first I thought that the attempt to talk about a point that passes over different points in another system was intended to point out to me a contradiction with what we expect from the temperature clock (and indeed - as long as I did not correctly understand the meaning of this clock - there was apparently such a contradiction - a contradiction that I removed when I found the meaning the correctness of this clock) but now it seems to me that you are trying to find (unsuccessfully) an internal contradiction within the theory of relativity.
Even when you photograph an identical twin, you are actually predicting the development of the phenotype from the genotype with uncertainty
When the phenotype is deciphered from the genotype, a future picture of an organism's development can be assembled.
But this picture is uncertain. Errors in calculation, environmental effects and more, can and almost certainly do affect the phenotype.
This is different from viewing (and photographing) a future image. There is an unambiguous description of reality.
I gave the example of Ofer's passenger flying at speed over a train loaded with twins. In each carriage he will see older twins, while he remains young.
And I asked a question: what if the passenger is one of the twins who just sits at the North train station in Tel Aviv and watches a twin train pass by? Even then will he see older twins (himself) in the following cars? What about each krone is actually the Earth and he watches it for 5 days according to his watch, will he see the Earth at the age of 25 billion years?
Because in the example of Ofer's traveler, this is what comes out.
In my opinion, there is no phenomenon of looking into the future here.
This is about watching someone else in the only way you can watch them while you are there.
This is the present.
Do you think the ability to decipher the phenotype from the genotype would also bother Ockham?
It is not at all clear to me how he belongs to the matter.
In the original twin paradox, if during their reunion they take a picture of each other, then the picture taken by the young man shows how he will look in the future (assuming they are identical and deterministic twins).
As far as the young man was concerned, he had indeed made a journey to the future. Traveled for an hour, arrived in a future universe: there are no glaciers and everyone wears caps.
My contention is that this is only possible because in acceleration, as well as in steady motion but against the radiation, the clock ticks more slowly. Also in gravity, the same as acceleration.
Therefore, the process is one-sided: Ofer's passenger will see the Milky Way pass by while it is in front of him for only three seconds. If the path is full of land matches, he will see the evolution before his wondering eyes, with each match the monkeys are more and more erect.
If, on the other hand, a galaxy compatible with the Milky Way were to pass in front of us, relative to the radiation, it would not mature quickly but on the contrary: after a hundred thousand years with us, Earth compatibles would barely advance in the annual cycle of the sun.
(This is of course if they don't evaporate immediately, like Ofer's passenger will evaporate immediately, because of the friction with the radiation).
Gps, circumnavigating planes, clocks in a strong gravitational field, all accelerated systems. The clock is slowing down.
Long-lasting ionizers move against radiation. same as above.
But the process cannot happen in the opposite direction. This is my baseless speculation, which is based only on Ockham's energetic nods that seep into the future, that is, in systems that are older than the age of the universe.
Tel, especially since I'm writing from the iPad.
Israel:
This is not a photo of the future.
This is a photo of them in our time.
Do you agree with the claim that in accelerated systems time changes and that this is even expressed in the GPS system, so Ockham gets angry there as well?
Michael
Theoretically, it is possible that in systems moving relative to the background radiation the life of the universe is longer. But then if we take a picture of such a system from our system, an almost complete discount relative to the background radiation, then if the age of the system is much higher than ours (we won't go crazy, only 50 billion years) we are taking a picture of the future.
Not that it is impossible - the APR paradox was resolved in an unexpected way (non-locality) - but Ockham shows signs of discomfort.
And don't be afraid of Bolsheviks. They are the biggest atheists, and in command.
There is another computational direction that needs to be checked - one that checks the relationship between my clock and a clock that I am constantly synchronizing with the clock of another inertial system passing by but I don't currently have time to do so.
Maybe I will when the Bolsheviks put me in prison for hurting religious feelings.
Israel Shapira:
I have to run, but suddenly I thought seriously about the following idea (which had already crossed my mind and was fluttering for some reason before):
The use of a temperature clock in a moving system in relation to the background radiation is nothing more than a constant copying of the local background radiation clock (which is known not to be synchronized in a moving system with the previous copied background radiation clock or the next to be copied).
In other words - it is not a clock of the driving system.
Therefore it will also show the same results as the photographed background radiation clock.
If this is the correct interpretation of the situation, the question arises whether this clock represents something in the drive system (in relation to the background).
The natural tendency is to multiply this time by the size characteristic of the time transition between the systems to get the age of the universe in a moving system, but then this means that the life of the universe in any moving system relative to the background actually seems longer and this leads to the problem that if the background radiation system takes the same process towards a moving system it is You will get an even bigger universe age and so on to infinity.
A possible solution to this problem probably lies in referring to the moment of the bang and its location. I have some thoughts on the matter but I don't have time right now to develop them and see where they lead
Michael before I go to sleep (quick huh?)
What bothers me is the reversal of the twin paradox.
In the original paradox, in 1905, when the two twins meet each twin could say that their time is the real one, since time had no beginning.
When there is the big bang theory, if they meet after a billion years, the young man will not be able to claim that his time is the real one. There is the temperature that shows him that the universe has aged.
If he had started his journey from a system moving at a high speed relative to radiation instead of the other way around, then most of the time of the journey according to his clock he would have spent at 0 speed relative to radiation, while his older brother would have remained in motion relative to radiation. Here is a paradox, precisely the moving twin grows up, while his brother who spends time among us remains young.
The equivalent of the twin paradox in inertial systems are trains full of twins. Twins are deterministic systems with a clear 0 age: birth.
So if your hurrying photon or Ofer's nimble passenger passes a long train full of twins, he will see young twins in the first cars, and as he moves forward he will see older and older twins, while he himself is hardly growing older.
But what about the agile passenger who is one of the twins himself relatively stationary relative to the radiation, i.e. sitting at the North Railway Station on a bench and looking at such a twin train passing by at enormous speed?
Even then he will see the same, except that way he will be able to see himself growing up (real identical twins are completely deterministic), his sons, his grandchildren, and his entire future. All this without getting up from the bench.
This makes sense when we are moving at a speed relative to a stationary train relative to radiation, because our own time (cesium clock) does not reflect the age of the universe (temperature clock), and is always lower than it. It doesn't make sense when we are at rest relative to radiation, and our own time is the same as the time of the universe, while the living clocks that pass quickly in front of us - twins - show a time higher than ours, that is, of the universe.
Good night.
Israel:
First of all, I understand what's bothering you.
Although I do not accept the argument about a clock with a time of 0 because more than any other clock it is an arbitrary time, but I understand what bothers me when I pass by a clock that bothers to discuss the calculation of the age of the universe and tell him that his result is incorrect even though he shows me how he calculates And I find no fault in that.
I hope to find time to think about it from other directions because it is possible that treating a temperature clock as a clock is a wrong idea because it only works on statistics and various events may change its readings and also produce wrong results.
There are other similar directions that are worth delving into, but as we said, this is probably not the right time
Michael.
I have to run to work, but here's the problem I find with your argument:
You write: "All that is necessary for this is to direct it from the beginning to a time that is higher than the age of the universe".
I already addressed this claim when I wrote: "It can be argued that the synchronization is artificial and does not reflect reality."
To see the problematic nature of this argument, I brought the article by Ofer Maged, in which the first clocks passing by the viewer show the minimum possible natural time in a physical system: 0. (You are not claiming that there is a natural clock in the system that can show time less than 0, right?)
Even then, after 4 days according to the observer's clock, the age of the passing system will be much higher than the age of the universe.
You can go through the Jack-Jill Shablink example in detail, to see that if you start with a system of synchronized clocks whose time is the age of the universe, you can observe them from another system relative to radiation, and from which clocks whose time is higher than the age of the universe will be observed.
But it requires a lot of work and details, so let's release you for now to take care of dad (unless you want me to bring the details. Quite tiring, try).
Israel:
For some reason you are basing yourself on the deity of the background radiation system and there is no justification for this.
First of all - it's really easy to detect movement in relation to it and you don't need a temperature watch for that.
All that is needed is to measure the radiation in every direction and identify the lack of isotropy.
This is obvious to everyone and it also forms the basis for creating a temperature clock in the propulsion system in relation to the background radiation.
So what if it is possible to detect movement relative to the background radiation system?
It is also possible to detect movement in relation to the Earth system!
This does not make one system or another superior.
This does not mean that you are not allowed to refer to it, but it has no effect on the theory of relativity.
There is no problem watching a clock that shows future time (relative to the age of the universe).
All that is necessary for this is to direct it from the beginning to a time that is higher than the age of the universe.
It may seem like a joke to you but it's not.
After all, what is the phenomenon of the shell suit based on watches that show the future even though time in the shell is faster?
It is based on the fact that from the point of view of the shell - the farther the clock is from the point where it was zero and on the ground, the higher the time in it to begin with.
This is exactly the same phenomenon that I pointed out in my description of my uncalculated guess as to what was happening.
In my guess - the advance in advance was just enough to cover the slower progress of the clock and in the correct calculation the advance is greater than what is needed to cover the slower progress of the clock, but in both cases, the clocks that are far enough away show times much greater than the age of the universe to begin with.
It reminds of the following joke:
Question: What's the easiest way to make a small fortune?
Answer: Start with a big one
And as for my father:
The situation is still difficult but there is an improvement (at least temporarily).
I am not revealing the details for reasons of personal modesty, but if I detach myself for a moment from my feelings, I must mention that I recently received a practical lesson on the essence and vulnerability of what we call "I" - things that I have already addressed in my articles "What is a soul".
At least once I won.
Regarding relativity - there are a million versions and in my opinion even the "correct" version doesn't work out until the end and you have to go into parallel universes and program to go back in time to straighten corners, basically if someone is behind you in time then you are ahead of him - and this gives a logical slap in the face to symmetrical systems that are solved again in parallel universes And back in time. And there is no end to the debate, thank you
ZA in the previous response.
No water on you!
Your last sentence is a classic example of going back in time.
Good night.
I wanted to point out something about reality relative to the place at the level of graduation, but maybe I'm wrong on this specific issue
. Let's take an elastic collision between two balls, and it seems that according to the formulas if you move them, the same collision in motion relative to their movement (only the observer) it seems that the equations show other energies and there is a possibility already there, in an elastic collision between two balls, the possible solution is in parallel universes, (you have to play with the equations to understand what I'm talking about, and references like the word scalar and energy won't satisfy me even though I'm completely satisfied and it's hard for me to discuss the issue right now)
Israel Shapira studied at the University of the Sea of Galilee and transferred to the baccalaureate in Israel https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-in-israel-060813/
Michael
Let's hope everything goes well. Now all that remains is to hope that Marnan's surgery will also end successfully.
The problem is this: if you look at the link, you will see that a passenger (in our case Jill, attached to the clock ('C) moving in one synchronized inertial system (clocks C1 and C2) sees (and photographs) her clocks showing a time higher than his own.
From the point of view of that passenger, he is the one at rest, and the clocks - even a thousand - passing by him show a higher and higher time.
If this traveler is in the radiation system and is at rest relative to it, and the first clock that passes by is set to show the same time (the age of the universe), the clocks after it will show a time higher than the age of the universe.
It can be argued that the synchronization is artificial and does not reflect reality.
This claim can be qualitatively contradicted if we look at Ofer Magad's article "The Milky Way in three seconds".
http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html
If the traveler described there was stationary relative to the radiation (i.e. you, me and all of us), then in 4 days according to his clock the system that passes in front of him exceeds the age of the universe by a lot, so even if the first clock in it simply shows 0, then the last one was already in the future.
It is also possible to show this quantitatively if we take the example in the time lengthening link (Jack and Jill), and stick to the normal clocks with temp clocks.
If we assume that Geek is at rest relative to the radiation, then if he calibrates his cesium clock to the time of the temp clock, then any future shot will show the same time in both.
With Jill, on the other hand, the PM clock will fall further and further behind the temp clock.
The first thing we got is a contradiction to postulate 1: both Jack and Jill are in inertial systems, in fact they are at rest. But while for Geek there is no difference between the watches, for Jill there is a gap between them. And this is in contrast to postulate 1 which states:
"The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
So here is a way to determine: if there is a gap between the clocks - you are in motion relative to the radiation. Not created - you are at rest.
I will not go into the claim that radiation is a factor outside the system (R.H.'s claim) now.
The second thing we got is that if we reverse the link creation, that is, that Jack is the one moving in Jill's inertial system, then he passes by normal clocks that show a time higher than his temp clock, that is, a time higher than the age of the universe.
In this case, the synchronization is not artificial - if Jill's inertial system is a train, then the first car that passes by is at the age of the universe, and all the clocks after it will show a time higher than Jack's two clocks, C.H. and Temp., which show the age of the universe.
If we proceed from the assumption that it is impossible to expect from a relative discount system for radiation in another system that passes the age of the universe, (it is theoretically possible to build such a train that, if it moves fast enough, the clocks in it will show a time of 50 billion years), then we have received a contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory.
In practice, in any regular train that passes us (assuming we are completely stationary relative to the radiation), according to the same principle, if the age of the first car is the same as the age of the observer (which is true), then the age of the last car is a fraction of a second higher than its age, that is, in the future.
Note:
When Einstein published the "Paradox after", the paradox was that quantum entanglement contradicts the principle of locality, a principle that was beyond any doubt in his time and Bohr also believed in it.
Bell's inequality theorem proved that what is considered impossible is actually a reality: non-locality exists. Therefore there is actually no paradox here.
My argument for the contradiction between the big bang theory and relativity is also based on the assumption that it is impossible to observe (and photograph) systems whose time is higher than the age of the universe, i.e. in the future. On the other hand, if this assumption is not true, then neither is the claim. Who knows, maybe if, as Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows, it is possible to influence the past from the present, then it is also possible to anticipate the future from the present (where does water blow?).
The doctor said the operation was successful.
I am currently waiting for them to let me enter the neurosurgical intensive care unit because even though visiting hours have arrived, the doctors' visit prevents entry.
It remains to be seen if there will be no complications and if the treatment will achieve the desired results.
I thought a little more about the problem and I'm impressed (even though I haven't yet entered the link with the calculation and I didn't think for myself that the conclusion in the link is correct.
On the other hand, the more I think about it, I don't see why the existence of the background system temperature clock that everyone can see would interfere with the theory of relativity.
All in all it's another clock and it happens to measure the age of the universe according to the background radiation system.
If we build a clock system that shows the age of the universe according to another inertial system (and it doesn't matter how) it will have the same properties because it will also be a clock like all clocks.
מ
Get well for your father.
Heal Shalom, report what's going on with dad.
Israel:
I really don't have time to continue the story. Tomorrow I have to be in Ichilov at 07:30 and I don't live nearby.
I told you I didn't do the exact calculation and my guess might not be right.
I see where this is leading in the context of the temperature clocks and that was actually the reason for my guess about the result on the train.
It could be that the problem is with these watches after all but I have to stop pursuing it for now.
Michael,
A complete recovery for your father (and if I missed it and everything is behind you, even better)
Gardener Elek... promised me that the slope above the garden would bloom with flowers in two colors: orange and yellow.
He promised and fulfilled, a button and a flower. But the oranges bloom in May, the yellows in September.
Claim 2. At the time you claimed: each photograph from each side will show the opposite of the other.
At the time I made the same claim (response 10):
"Let's try it. It is said that the car also has a camera.
Since its speed is about half the speed of light, the time difference between the road and car clocks according to the Lorenz equations is approximately 15%. And the time the car spends next to each clock on the road is about a billionth of a second.
Let's take the eighth watch for example. The time difference already reaches a full second. According to the camera on the road, the car is behind and according to the camera in the car, the clock on the road is behind. However, the photographs were taken with cameras that were practically next to each other in the blink of an eye, and in fact they can even be exchanged between them. How could they see such a significant difference? And what will happen to the 10th camera, when the difference increases to 090240 seconds? The camera on the road will show 090230 on the road and XNUMX in the car, and the camera almost next to it in the blink of an eye, the one in the car, will show exactly the opposite?"
And here is your answer (two and a half years (who's counting?), but still in the "at the time") category:
Michael Rothschild
Israel Shapira:
I was busy and didn't turn around to answer, but to your question in comments 10 and 11 the answer is yes.
March 24th, 2011
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/comment-page-1/#comment-288037
3. Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock.
As you can see in the link I provided, this is indeed the answer of relativity (do you disagree with what is written in the link?).
4. But the photographs will show that the locomotive is behind.
Both sides agree that clock 'C (the locomotive) lags behind clock C2 (the car). As written below:
What does Jill's digital snapshot show? It must be identical—two snapshots taken from the same place at the same time must show the same thing!
And as indicated in the link, both Jack and Jill (the protagonists of the story) can claim that time moves slower with the other. But the cameras show that Jill Ho's season is slow.
And so when Jack sweetly whispers to Jill, "You're retarded again, dear," she chirps back: "You're retarded yourself!"
Attitude at its best!
Michael
1. An example of the way in which the extension of time works can be found in the link I provided earlier:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
The thought experiment there is the same as my train example, with clock C1 as locomotive B, C2 as a car, and 'C as locomotive A'.
Note that when 'C (locomotive A') passes C1 (locomotive B) the time in both is 0, just like in the train example.
When he passes C2 (the car) his time is 8 seconds and C2's time is 10 seconds. The locomotive time lags behind the train time, as I claimed.
Note that under the second picture it is written that they both agree that time C2 (the locomotive) lags behind time 'C (the car).
In the example there is a mathematical (and correct) explanation of how the locomotive can also claim that the train's time is behind, but the picture - and this is what we talked about - shows that the locomotive's time is behind.
I'm running to talk to the gardener, we'll continue later with the other sections.
Israel:
I didn't say it was a temperature clock.
I said that's also what I said about temperature watches.
In any case, I also said that I didn't try to calculate the times according to the formulas and actually it's a kind of guesswork.
You have to understand that science is not on my mind at the moment.
An exact calculation may give a different result, but I'm sure the theory will stand firm
Before I answer: I'm not talking about temp clocks - if indeed they always show the same time in a shared photo - but about regular clocks (cesium).
Is it still not true?
1. This is still my answer and I have been consistent with this answer ever since I talked about the temperature clock and I have already answered you several times that this remains my answer.
2. Don't remember that I ever said what you claim I said. I already told you that I don't remember and I asked you to point to the place where you think I said that. You didn't vote and you keep claiming that.
3. What you think of the answer of relativity is not the answer of relativity. The relativity answer is the one I gave
Michael.
Here are my claims in response.
1. Your answer was: the two clocks, locomotive and wagon, will show the same time in the photographs (is this still your claim?).
2. At the time you claimed: every photo from each side will show the opposite of the other.
3. Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock.
4. But the photographs will show that the locomotive is behind.
5. Alligators… we'll leave it at that.
Please indicate what you think is incorrect in the response. If there is something else that is incorrect that I missed - point it out.
feel well.
Thank you to everyone who expressed concern for my father's well-being.
Unfortunately we have been waiting since morning for his turn for surgery and he has been fasting since yesterday evening.
He had already joked that there was no way he would die in surgery because hunger would kill him first
feel well!
To all participants in the discussion:
I am still with my father in the hospital and I am reading and writing on the mobile phone.
The letters are small, the eyes are not what they used to be and the fingers are thick.
All of these can lead to distorted responses - either because I didn't read the things I'm responding to well, or because of distractions, or because of wrong typing.
Sorry for the inconvenience
Israel:
As I said - nothing in the response is true and I don't want to repeat the entire response.
It is not true that I did not answer the question about the photographs as your response implies. Not only did I answer but you even addressed what I answered.
Not only did you make a reference, but even in the response where you claimed that I did not make a reference, you also claimed that I made two contradictory references.
And also the claim that I gave contradictory answers is not true.
Your claim about what relativity supposedly claims is also incorrect.
In short, nothing in the response is true
Ofer
Some kind of connection to the Magistrate? (Ofer Maged)
Lots of physicists are ofer, deer and elk.
Michael, how is dad?
What is wrong in the response, don't you agree that alligators are longer than greens?
Prepare a list of everything that is not true in the response, I will try to prove to you section by section that everything is true.
Israel:
I claimed that both watches would look the same.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-24/#comment-448276
This relates to your question and I don't know why you claim not. I don't remember that I claimed that everyone would see the opposite of the other. Can you point to a comment where I wrote something like this?
On the contrary - I made the exact same claim regarding the temperature clock of system A when it meets the temperature clock of system B.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-24/#comment-448130
The relativity answer is not the one you describe and I have no intention of trying to justify anyone's misunderstandings.
This last comment of yours was already really exaggerated because I did not find even one thing true in it
I asked "whether" and you showed me "yes" and therefore we agree - there is no demand.
Ofer
Does your question refer to a paragraph from my previous response:
"And if the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the wagon clock. (The question arises, of course, so how is it that the locomotive can also claim that the car is lagging behind. The answer to this question is if there is a demand)'.
That is, is there a demand?
Israel,
You did mention that the clocks on one train are not synchronized with the other, but on the other hand you wrote, and I quote:
"What will the clocks show when the locomotive from train A passes car 6789 on the opposite train?
According to relativity, in the A train system, the time in the car lags behind the time in the locomotive.
According to relativity, in system B, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car."
For the avoidance of doubt, your second sentence is incorrect. According to relativity (as I have shown), even in the A train system, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car. But why did you write it? In my understanding, it is only true if the phenomenon of the lack of synchronization between the trains is ignored. I may not have understood what you meant.
In short and to the point:
Do you agree that relativity predicts that even in the A train system the locomotive lags behind the car. If so, there is no argument between us. If not, please explain why she predicts it (and again, "lengthening of time" is not enough, you need to explain why she overcomes the lack of synchronization).
Michael.
All of us on the site wish you and your father a successful operation, and a full and easy recovery.
When you come back, maybe explain to me how your words relate to my question. I asked a very simple and clear question: what will the photographs look like from both sides, the locomotive and the wagon. I repeated several times and emphasized that it was just that, no mathematics, no philosophy, no zebras. Just physics. Photographs.
Your answer was: the two clocks, locomotive and wagon, will show the same time in the photographs.
At the time you claimed: every photo from each side will show the opposite of the other.
Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock. (The question arises, of course, so how is it that the locomotive can also claim that the wagon is lagging behind. The answer to this question is if there is demand).
But the photographs will show that the locomotive is lagging behind, and we are only dealing with this answer.
If you agree with this answer (do you?) and are still interested in the discussion, we can go to the main point: the contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory.
Ofer - I don't understand what the point is. What failure? After all, I specifically stated that the clocks of each train are synchronized with each other, but are not synchronized with the other train. So where is the problem here?
Water - special for you: if there is an extension of time, then it can be proven that it is possible to move into the future!
No fun? To sit on a cosmic cloud in Sotul, blow and inhale water from the hookah.
Regarding the crocodile - the initial intuition is that it is of course greener, since it is long only lengthwise, but green both lengthwise and widthwise.
This answer is correct for cucumbers. But a crocodile can be passed once lengthwise, and repeat the stripes in the crocodile's skin, so that you get two lengths, which are of course more than length and width, so it is actually longer.
🙂 This will be confirmed by Israel - the alligator trainer
It is not green in volume.
On the other hand, the final banon is also long
The problem comes in the hedgehog!
The crocodile is green on the outside both in length and width as well as in height and in volume, while it is long only inside and out.
But the crocodile is long both inside and outside and is green only on the outside
Machel
Right. Explain it to us (especially to Israel).
feel well.
Israel
The crocodile is more green. Because it is long only lengthwise but green both lengthwise and widthwise.
M. We fixed most of it and maybe that's why you don't see it after returning time, but,
You can get a little impression of Yitzhak Rabin's group in the last year, and the part with the food, it may be that they wrote it just to remember, what's more, I had the honor of seeing the deer after time repetitions, and it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't seen it, with respect
Blowing water:
You are not religious but you believe in the fairy tales of the Bible.
interesting.
If you think what is written in the Bible is true then why are you not religious?
Do you want to bring destruction on us all?
Remember: the end of the world is coming!
My beautiful Michael, I am not religious, but your daughter, and not only people, knew things about the future. Sincerely
Written from Ichilov's lobby.
Water blowing dear.
In my opinion the effect of time and mass in Judaism comes as a result of the movement of Jews back and forth in prayer and what you feel is its gathering both at the Kotel and at an average frequency.
Thanks for not forgetting the end of the world is coming
Israel,
There is no dispute between us that there is a way to synchronize any number of clocks that is required - inside the train. After all, the way I presented exactly synchronizes the clocks! But from R. He said correctly - the A1 locomotive is not part of this system. In fact, according to the story, no matter which way you synchronize the clocks, once they are synchronized on train B it **necessarily** means that they are not synchronized on locomotive A
There are 2 ways to see it: an easy way and a complicated way.
The tricky way is to let you sync the clocks any way you choose. Then we will place next to each clock a "pulse clock" that synchronizes in the way I described earlier. In the train system, each clock will necessarily be synchronized with the "pulse clock" next to it. But as I showed, in the other locomotive's system, the pulse clocks are not synchronized and therefore inevitably your clocks (regardless of which way you synchronized them) will be out of sync.
The easier way is to look at a space-time diagram (please open the link! It's a simple animation, no exemptions!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
There are 3 circles A, B, C which are 3 clocks that are on the train, in different places. Let's say they all light up at exactly 00:00. The diagram shows very nicely that they are indeed synchronized in the resting system, but not synchronized with respect to the moving system.
The honorable Mr. Israel Shapira
In my opinion, the effect of time and mass on the relationship, comes as a result of the movement of the particles backwards and forwards in time many times, and what you feel is its convergence, both in mass and in time on average, thank you, don't forget Simchat Torah is coming
Ghosts:
And there are many relationships and not all of them are transitive.
It turns out that simultaneity is not a transitive relation.
Some people understand it and some don't.
Israel:
come on!
It's not just a computational thing but it's pretty funny to require people who aren't next to each other to sync their clocks right now by being next to each other.
As you said - there is a way to synchronize all the clocks in an inertial system and as you know the locomotive of A and the locomotive of B are not in one inertial system.
Now - there are two ways to approach the problem: one through checking the consistency of the solution (and that's what you've done up until now) and the other through experiments (which includes the impossible experiment you propose - being next to each other while you're not).
The way of experiments - as I demonstrated to you - also confirms the theory of relativity.
so that's it.
I have to stop this argument because this morning I am bringing my father to the surgery which he decided to undergo in the hope that he would come out of it healthier but also with the danger that he would not come out of it.
Michael.
If you believe that the lengthening of time in inertial systems is only a computational thing, i.e. it is not possible to check it by comparing photographs of clocks passing each other - I am ready to close on that.
Unfortunately, this is not the answer of relativity as I know it. According to relativity there is an unequivocal answer - the time of the locomotive lags behind the time of the wagon and this is also what the photographs from both sides will show.
So how come each side claims the other side is retarded? What is this, a teddy bear garden where everyone shouts at the other that they are retarded?!
There is an answer, and it is not the one you gave. I know how precious your time is, and how much you hate to waste it, especially on stubborn people. That's why I'll save it for you.
Ofer.
There is a way to synchronize any number of clocks required in any inertial system, and a train is such a system. See Einstein:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Chapter A, Definition of Simultaneity
And this way is perfectly fine for the purpose of the calculation, so there is no problem.
Ghost.
Is a crocodile longer or greener?
The locomotive pulls the wagon and a ratio drags a ratio. In other words: everything is relative. There are 3 types of people in the world - those who know arithmetic and those who don't.
Israel,
First of all, your question is interesting to me. In my opinion, your fallacy is that synchronization is not "transitive":
Locomotive A1 is synchronized with Locomotive B1
Locomotive B1 is synchronized with carriage B60000 (the number indicates the serial position on the train).
But **no** it follows from the fact that the B60000 car is synchronized with the A1 locomotive.
And in Wikipedia, it is explained better, by Relativity of simultaneity.
Regarding the question about the trains: how exactly will you achieve the synchronization on the B train? Let's say a pulse of light coming out of the locomotive towards the end of the train. If each carriage is 1 millisecond long, then each carriage should reset the clock to be the serial number times milliseconds. Thus, after one minute, all clocks from Kron B1 to Kron B60000 (inclusive) will show the time 00:01.
Let's say, according to your story, that you sent the sync pulse just as the locomotives pass each other.
What happens in the trailer for 60000?
When the pulse reaches him, the time is 00:01 and the time in locomotive A1 is earlier because the clock there is behind.
What is happening in Qatar A1?
Train B is shorter, because of the shortening of the distance (according to the Lorentz transformation). That is, its length is (let's say) only 45 light seconds and not a light minute. When the pulse arrives at B60000, the time on locomotive A1 is only 00:00:45, but for some reason car B60000 sends a message that its time is 00:01, which is in the future at all, and on the other hand, locomotive A1 is lagging behind and shows a time from the past. A clown train, its head in the past, its tail in the future and the scattered from Kfar Azer are not found. Will this gap be enough for the cameras to see something reasonable? I don't know how to do the math. But you can imagine what will happen when the relative speed of the trains is very close to the speed of light, i.e. the Lorentz factor (time/distance contraction) is very large:
Car at 60000: the pulse arrives, so the time is 00:01, and a fraction of a second later locomotive A arrives. The clock in locomotive A hardly moves, so the time there is 0 + epsilon.
Train A1: Train B is very, very short, so it takes epsilon time to get to B60000. But the pulse arrived a little bit before that, so the clock at 60000 shows 00:01 + a fraction of a second.
It came out, with a wave of hands, that A1 and 6000 are coordinated in their photos.
You are welcome to think of other ways to synchronize within the train. But I think you will find that they all suffer from a similar problem: what seems synchronized on train B is not synchronized on train A.
Sorry for the moat, and good night..
Israel:
It's not about what they think in the secrets of their hearts, but what they would come up with in a synchronicity test.
exactly.
😀
Like this: D? 😀
Got it, profit.
Yuval also knows how to make square smileys, the ones with teeth bursting with laughter.
Why doesn't the smiley come out?
We will try again:
: )
Without a doubt you answered. But I'm not so sure you answered correctly :)
Come on, Michael, urges from veteran commenters. You still haven't answered what do you think about the response I received before:
"I repeat what I wrote before. The sentence "If the sun and we move relative to the system
The cosmic background radiation at a speed of 370 km per second" is meaningless. In terms of all systems
The cosmic radiation is at rest."
I'm digging, but there's this thing with the cameras...
You see, when the locomotives meet, the photographs from both directions show: Locomotive A 0, and Locomotive B 0 as well.
And that's the only thing that matters. Not what Qataris think in the secret of their hearts.
And if when the locomotives meet the wagons even then the photographs show the same thing, then there is no measurable lengthening of time in inertial systems, except perhaps for the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of locomotives and wagons.
And this is in contrast to airplanes that circumnavigate the country with accelerated systems, with which you can photograph the lengthening of time with clocks, or twins, with which you can measure and compare the length of the twins' beards...
Israel:
And if you read deeper, you will see that I also answered your next question 🙂
Israel:
I have already explained well several times and it seems to me that you are not reading deeply.
I will present one of the points of view again:
Carrier A, during his meeting with Carrier B, thinks that although the time in Carrier B is 0, like his, the time in Car B is later.
When he meets Kron B he (Cater A) sees that their watches are the same.
The meaning of this fact is that the more locomotive A feels, the less time has passed in wagon B (that is, the time in it progresses more slowly)
So if they both show the same, where is the time delay?
I said that if the photo from the locomotive shows a locomotive 12:43 it will also show a carriage: 12:43
The photo from the trailer will show the same
Michael
Let's leave Lorenz for now.
The photo from the locomotive shows: locomotive 12.43 car 11.52
What will the photo from the trailer show?
Israel:
I don't understand why you are caught by the phrase "the last car"
I only used it to simplify the wording.
Do you really care about the cars after him or do you want me to waste more time?
The clocks of the locomotive and the car will look the same in the photos, but this will happen because from the locomotive's point of view, the car on the other train will show a time greater than zero as soon as the locomotives meet and from the clock in the car, the locomotive's clock will show a time greater than zero when the locomotives meet.
Yes!
The car and locomotive of the same train will see different things in the locomotive of the other train once each of them sees the moment of the meeting and that is because of that X I mentioned.
I estimated this without making exact calculations, but you have to understand that the whole story stems from the loss of absolute simultaneity, and even in the event that the cameras on the two trains show different situations, you shouldn't get excited.
See, for example, the ladder "paradox":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
The warehouse could show a film where the two gates were constantly in exactly the same position and at a certain moment the ladder was inside while the ladder could show a film where it was never entirely inside the warehouse and there were moments when gate A was open and gate B was closed.
Michael.
The last train did not appear in the question. The number of cars in the train was not specified, and it can certainly contain 765667 in the capacity of 766543 cars.
Only the locomotives that pass each other at time 0 (photographed from both sides), car number 6789 on train B, and the times of the clocks when the locomotive from train A passes by were noted.
And a question was also asked: what will the photographs from the locomotive and the wagon that take pictures of the two clocks together look like? Will they see pictures where the clocks are reversed? Is it possible? And if not, what will the photographs show? And how does this fit in with the claim that each system sees time in the second as slower?
Or in short: what will the photographs look like? Only it.
Israel:
I already answered that.
From the point of view of the last car in train A, the locomotive of train B did not show time 0 when it passed the locomotive of train B.
This is due, as I mentioned, to the fact that X appears in the Lorentz transformation.
In fact, there appears a product of X and V as the factor that determines the time.
The locomotive and the end of train A are synchronized because V between them is 0
The locomotive of train A can be synchronized with the locomotive of train B because the X between them is 0
But the end of train A is not synchronized with the locomotive of train B when it passes the locomotive of train A.
He can be synchronized with him only when he meets him and the X between them will be 0
Come on, you don't let a man see Thield play!
iPhone.
Here is the definition of the problem for the forum:
According to the lengthening of times, when two trains are moving relative to each other on adjacent tracks, the viewers of each train see the time in the other train as slower.
So it is said that the clocks on each train are synchronized with each other but of course not with the clocks of the other train, and when the locomotives from each train pass each other the clocks show 0 on both.
What will the clocks show when the locomotive from train A passes car 6789 on the opposite train?
According to relativity, in the A train system, the time in the car lags behind the time in the locomotive.
According to relativity, in system B, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car.
So what will happen if we use high-resolution cameras that will photograph both watches at the moment of the change from both directions?
Will the photo from the locomotive show: locomotive clock 14.23 wagon clock 11.27 and the photograph from the wagon will show wagon clock 14.23 and locomotive clock 11.27?
Is it possible?
And if not, then what will the photographs show? They will see something, won't they?
And how does this fit with the principle that "every system sees time as slower than the second"?
I don't know what you mean and I don't think there is any problem left open.
Michael.
I'm taking the kid to soccer, I'll be back later.
The problem is your answer to question 3 I presented. Without closing this matter, it is impossible to move forward.
What is "self-time"? And why does the temperature clock give an eigentime of the background radiation system more than it gives an eigentime of a system that is in motion relative to the background radiation?
So the background radiation system is not a preferred system? Can there be systems in which the self-time is higher than its time, as there are systems in which the time is lower than its own?
Israel:
Regarding what you wrote about the problem in question - I have already answered it.
Regarding the claim - the theory of relativity does not fit with foresight. I don't know if anyone will ever sue you for anything.
Private Relativity does not deal with temperature clocks, only regular clocks. According to which, they tick at different rates in different persistence systems.
What I tried to show is that if we assume that the radiation system is just "another" random system, then this assumption inevitably leads to ordinary clocks in which the time is higher than the age of the universe - which is impossible.
By the way, what do you think about the following sentence:
"I repeat what I wrote before. The sentence "If the sun and we move relative to the system
The cosmic background radiation at a speed of 370 km per second" is meaningless. In terms of all systems
The cosmic radiation is at rest."
Michael, thanks for the input. By the way, am I expected to be sued?
Sent: 12/24/2011 2:30:44 PM Pacific Standard Time (Me
Subject: (no subject)
Hi Gil
I would like to thank you for taking the time and discussing with me the issue of time dilation. After you left, I thought that what may demonstrate my idea of an absolute time is the following example: suppose we have a powerful transmitter on earth which transmits, using radio, to the universe earth's time in 1 sec intervals.
So the 0th' point will be for example Dec 31 2011 at 12 midnight Greenwich's time, and then every second it will send a short and powerful signal: 1, 2, 3, …..100^100.
At each point in the near universe, a receiver which will receive the pulse can calculate earth's distance (at time of transmission) from the signal's strength and Doppler shift, and thus arrive at what will be called: "UNIVERSAL ABSULUTE TIME". in our example of attacking ships which try to synchronize their clocks, this universal time will give them a useful way to coordinate the attack. Note also that if there were more sources of signals which are arranged in the same way as the original one, and their clocks are synchronized initially with earth and they are moving in a constant velocity in space, no matter how far and in which direction, then every ship in the universe will receive from them the same "UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TIME", no matter which of the sources it will elect to use.
What about NASA?
Or Israel? 🙂
It's a patent I'm still looking for a buyer for.
Therefore, as far as I know, the method is still not implemented anywhere (if I knew of someone who implements the method I would sue him).
The advantage of this method over previous methods of measuring distances is not that it succeeds in doing so (there are already methods that do this quite well) but that it allows many more such measurements to be performed simultaneously (and as a result it allows handling systems with many more transmitters).
It may be that no one sees the need for simultaneous handling of so many transmitters.
This Jewish head... never stops inventing patents for us..
When will you build us an anti-matter and dark energy mantic clock?
By the way, where does this method exist?
By the way - those who are interested in understanding how it is possible to synchronize clocks and distances in our everyday reality where clocks also drift, are welcome to read This patent
The value given by the temperature clock is the same value in all systems.
The temperature clock cannot operate in a system that moves at the speed of light where the concept of time does not exist at all, but in all systems that move at a speed lower than the speed of light the same time is obtained.
In other words - it is a clock for all systems and not a clock for a specific system.
Therefore there is no preferred system.
1) It is impossible to start from the assumption that there is no preferred system and come to the conclusion that there is a preferred system.
There is an internal logical contradiction here.
2) Science uses logic. If there is an internal logical contradiction, you should check where the contradiction comes from and correct accordingly.
ב
All your statements are correct, except:
"1) If there is an explosion, then there is an expansion from the inside to the outside. That is, there must be an "inside" and there must be an "outside".
Otherwise it's not a bang.
2) If there are two non-discrete points then there is a third point between them.
This third point cannot be both a center point and an envelope point.
conclusion:
If every point is both a center point and an envelope point then all points are discrete.
If so :
According to you all points in our universe are discrete points.
but:
In our universe, a straight line runs between two points.
That is, at least two non-discrete points can be found."
Good night from Los Angeles.
No problem Michael, you're free.
Just to summarize, here is my claim: of all the synchronized systems, according to the bang theory, the radiation system is a preferred system. If it were a random system, there could exist systems where the eigentime is higher than the eigentime of the radiation, which is the age of the universe.
In practice, there are only systems where, according to relativity, the self-time is less than or equal to the age of the universe. You mentioned one - photons whose own time is 0. Ofer Maged showed a system whose own time is about 3 days. One can think of countless other systems where the self-time is lower than the age of the universe.
But there is not a single system in which the self-time is higher than the age of the universe. Only in the radiation system and systems synchronized with it, the self-time is equal to it, which makes it a favorite.
And if you or someone is willing to go through the Sisyphean process where you check what time is measured by clocks in systems that move relative to radiation from a system that is sugared with radiation, you inevitably get clocks that show a time that is higher than that of the clocks in the radiation system, or higher than the age of the universe, which is impossible.
And this is the contradiction to the lengthening of time that I pointed out.
Israel:
Some contradictions:
1) If there is an explosion, then there is propagation from the inside to the outside. That is, there must be an "inside" and there must be an "outside".
Otherwise it's not a bang.
2) If there are two non-discrete points then there is a third point between them.
This third point cannot be both a center point and an envelope point.
conclusion:
If every point is both a center point and an envelope point then all points are discrete.
If so :
According to you all points in our universe are discrete points.
but:
In our universe, a straight line runs between two points.
That is, at least two non-discrete points can be found.
And this contradicts your claim.
Israel:
The time I devote to the subject is already beginning to be excessive and it seems to me that it is spent to overcome insistence and not an inability to understand.
1. It is possible to build temperature clocks that show the time that has passed since the big bang, but these clocks are different in each reference system and their values converge only at the point where the observer is.
2. Yes, because the results of the clock systems converge at the point where the viewer is.
3. The term "slower clock" or "faster clock" has no meaning outside of a reference system.
Two observers moving in space at the same speed and in the same direction do not have to agree on the synchronicity of events that occur at a point that moves relative to them (this is why X also appears in the Lorentz transformation).
4. You already have enough material to understand what you are doing wrong
I was moderated.
The sphere has a singular point - the center. It is different from the face of the ball for example, and you can also mark it.
Our universe has no center and no face according to the big bang theory. Every point in it is center and envelope together.
And nothing else. At Rav Yokom you can also get confused between the front and the back.
And now the Honorable Rabbi will get up and go home.
1) What is singularity?
Isn't this a singular point?
2) If there is a sphere then there is a point which is the center of the sphere. This point can be determined as the main point of a coordinate system.
3) If the universe is expanding then there is a central point from which it expands. Either the point is singular (a point where the equation loses its meaning) or it is not singular. This point is a unique point in the entire universe.
Furthermore:
There is no need to know what is happening exactly at this point or even in its immediate vicinity.
It is enough to define a sphere with a radius as large as we want around this point. Outside the ball all the equations will be correct (at least as good as we like).
of course:
If you define a sphere then a point is defined which is the center of the sphere.
A set of axes can be attached to this point and determine this point as the origin of the axes.
ב
This is not a point. You are probably confusing a point with a singularity.
The sphere has a center, you can define the center of the sphere as a singular point, but even in this case it is not about coordinates and it has no meaning.
Michael, try breaking the argument into steps. For this I would suggest the Socratic method of questions and answers.
Questions:
1. Do you accept that it is theoretically possible to build "temperature clocks", i.e. clocks that show at any point the time that has passed since the big bang, regardless of their speed relative to the CMBR system?
2. Do you accept that two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time in a joint photograph (regardless of which side) in both - the time that has passed since the bang?
3. Do you accept that a photo of several ordinary clocks passing each other at a point in space will be the same regardless of which side the photo is taken from? That the claim: "Each side sees the other side as a touch slower" does not refer to the physical reality, where only one side is the slow one, but to a mathematical reality where it is computationally possible to explain why even the fast clock is actually lagging behind?
4. Do you accept that if a temp clock is attached to a cesium clock, then if they are in an inertial system that rests relative to radiation, and the cesium clock is calibrated to the time of the temp clock, then in every future photo they will see the same time?
5. Do you accept that in a system that is not at rest relative to radiation, there will be a growing gap between the temperature clock and the CZ clock?
Question 5 refers to your claim:
"If we scatter in the universe clocks that show the age of the universe and are synchronized with a system that moves relative to the background radiation (and move with it), every such clock will also in the future show the age of the universe in that moving system and an earlier time in every other system - including the system that is at rest relative to the background radiation so that the moving system I chose Randomly, she is the favorite according to the principle you suggested."
Because if you got 3 - then this claim is impossible. (Unless by "an earlier time" you mean a calculated time, and not a photographed time).
And if you accepted the claims in questions 4 and 5 - then here is the glaring contradiction to postulate 1. Because if in inertial system A (close to radiation) there is no gap between the temp clocks and the clock, and in inertial system B (moving relative to radiation) there is a gap between the clocks, then This is in contradiction to Postulate 1 which states:
"The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
Here is a way to determine: if there is a gap between the clocks - the system is in motion relative to the radiation. Not created - at rest.
According to the ratio between the number of "rotations" of the clocks per minute between the temp clock and the clock, it is even possible to know how fast it is moving relative to radiation.
It didn't even occur to me that this was how it was perceived.
I just wanted to show the contradictions I see.
True, but you don't investigate and demand - you try to teach others!
On the contrary.
When I have no idea, this is exactly my time to start the investigation and demand.
But really, b, you are allowing yourself to make statements about a subject you have no idea about. Isn't it time to stop?
No, b, we didn't go back to the sphere and we didn't go back to the previous problem and neither is the center of a sphere a coordinate system
To Tomi I understood that the "big bang" speaks of the beginning of the universe.
That is, on a point that is the beginning of space and time.
I understand that I was wrong and this is not the point.
But then it is a ball.
So the ball has a center point.
And we are back to the previous problem.
By the way, Israel, there is a whole range of ideas that offer an answer to your question about "the time before time".
Penrose offers one of the most interesting ones in his book Cycles of Time.
The answer is based on the relationship between mass and time (through the concept of energy) - a relationship that means that when there is no mass there is also no time (the same relationship that was expressed when I mentioned in a previous response that time does not exist in terms of photons).
His proposal speaks of an infinite series of universes, each of which rises on the ruins of its predecessor when, through all kinds of speculative processes, the former loses its mass and, as a result, also time and space.
B:
Not true in any way.
A point is not a coordinate system
No Big Bang theory assumes that the universe began at a point (on the contrary - all theories begin at least Plank time after the hypothetical point that is not thought to have existed)
The big bang theory fits very well with the theory of relativity - no physicist thinks otherwise (but no physicist makes such ignorant statements as you do).
If the "Big Bang" exists, then there is one special point in the universe (the starting point of the universe).
This point is a different reference system than all other reference systems.
And this contradicts the theory of relativity.
Israel:
And if clocks are spread throughout the universe that show the age of the universe and are synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation (and moves with it), every such clock will also in the future show the age of the universe in that moving system and an earlier time in every other system - including the system that is at rest relative to the background radiation so that precisely the moving system I chose Random is preferred according to the principle you suggested.
There is no glaring contradiction to anything.
We can tell if we are moving (and even how fast) relative to any other system that has something in it (which is stationary relative to it).
I'm sorry, Israel, you managed to confuse me for a while, but it's over.
I just came back from walking in the mountains. When there is a dog, the mountains are the gym.
"If we scatter in space clocks that will appear to be synchronized in the background radiation system, they will not appear to be synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation."
The problem is that according to relativity, any clock synchronized to show the time of the background radiation (the age of the universe) will show in a late reading the same time of the background radiation if it is at rest relative to it, or an earlier time if it is moving relative to it.
The opposite situation will never occur, i.e. a normal clock will show a time later than the background radiation (reversal of the twin paradox, the traveling twin is the older one)
This fact in itself makes the synchronized time system of the background radiation a preferred system.
Apart from the obvious contradiction to postulate 1 (we can know if we are moving or at rest and even at what speed), it seems that we can get a situation where if we use temp clocks that are next to cesium clocks in the radiation system, then in systems that move relative to the radiation we will get the situation that the cesium clocks show a later time . In the long discussion with R.H. And with Zvi Z we used a quantitative example from the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
It is also possible to show this qualitatively if you look at Ofer Maged's article, the Milky Way in three seconds:
http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html
The article describes a traveler who passes over a hundred thousand light years of the Milky Way in a time that is only 3 seconds for him.
Now we will ask what will happen if the traveler is stationary relative to the radiation and another galaxy passes by him quickly.
If a hundred thousand years are reduced to 3 seconds, then after 3 days the same traveler will be able to see events whose time in their system is over 15 billion years, and after a month he will already be able to see if the universe passing by has died of origin (Shamulik, "The Last Question" by Asimov).
However, the relatively light passenger of the radiation is all of us. (Not completely, but that's irrelevant).
A somewhat problematic description, where you can glimpse the future.
The truth is, I'm quite proud.
I have spread the problem among quite a few relativity experts and I still haven't received an answer from them.
The problem lies in the subject we have already dealt with - the concept of simultaneity in different relational systems.
The short summary of the error is as follows:
If we scatter in space clocks that will appear to be synchronized in the background radiation system, they will not appear to be synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation.
This is true for any type of clock, including temperature clocks.
Therefore, when the scientist moving relative to the background radiation sets his clock according to the background radiation (in the place where he is), it will not be seen as a simultaneous event with the advancement of the clock of the scientist resting relative to the background radiation elsewhere, to this time.
It seemed very disturbing at first because I understood that a similar consideration could be presented to the theory of relativity, without the involvement of the big bang, but it was the thought of the more disturbing problem that flooded me with the solution.
I solved the problem.
I'm in the gym right now so I'll explain in the evening
Shmulik.
Correspondence here will not help much - you must go to correspondence from two and a half years ago and onwards. And even then you can easily get into trouble.
Bottom line, the apparent contradiction between the lengthening of time in relation to the big bang theory can be presented this way: if everyone has their own time as relativity claims, then how is it that we all also agree on the age of the universe which can be measured by temperature? Why not be an example of systems where the age of the universe is 30 billion years?
I say "apparent contradiction" because it is unlikely that a theory as perfect as relativity that gives such perfect predictions confirmed exactly by observations is wrong. The same goes for the big bang theory, although I personally don't understand what the meaning of a created universe and with it time was created as the big bang theory claims. So what came first? (With Kitbag, Israel!).
But that doesn't mean anything because it's not clear to me what a finite size means to the universe either. So what's next? (okay, 70 bends) and why would a site in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe have a preferred rest system. Why this one? (Okay, 30 seconds to circle the camp).
And regarding the story - what's the shame? It was great fun at the time.
If we quote the second law that asked the believing professor:
"Can the Almighty double the speed of light?"
It was nice, and in short, we're going home, that's all.
Israel,
I probably don't understand what the contradiction is that you are pointing out and it is probably my fault, so I would appreciate it if you wrote the contradiction again and at the same time (when there is time) I will try again to read the previous correspondences.
Regarding the story, it's really cool and it's a shame that this is how things turned out.
Between the two planes in space there is an axis of symmetry.
The airport is on the axis of symmetry.
In terms of linear speed relative to the airport, the planes are symmetrical.
Measuring time differences between planes:
Suppose we take the Earth out of the picture.
That is :
Two planes are circling in opposite directions somewhere in empty space.
Every time the two planes pass each other:
Plane A sees plane B passing by at a certain speed.
Plane B sees plane A passing by at the same speed in the opposite direction.
In terms of the mutual (linear) speed, the two planes are symmetrical with respect to each other.
Therefore, the clock differences cannot be attributed to the speed differences.
The two planes are not symmetrical with respect to their rotational speed about the common center of the circles in which they move.
so:
Time differences must be a result of the rotational speed and not the linear speed.
Correction - in the test of the planes and GPS the speeds are low. problem.
Michael
Here is another point for thought, which is actually a question:
All confirmations for the lengthening of time and other observations that confirm the predictions of relativity - muoners, airplanes, particle accelerators - were made when the system goes from a state where its speed is almost 0 relative to the background radiation to a state where its speed is almost the speed of light relative to the radiation.
Naturally, no experiment has ever been done or there is a system in which the situation is reversed, right?
Shmulik
In the first link it is about the age of the universe and the earth, but not about the supposed contradiction of relativity. In the second link, it is indirectly about one of the reasons for the lengthening of time - the Doppler effect.
Regarding the "second law" - his story is a bit complicated. As strange as it may be, the idea came from a subject that was hardly mentioned in the story - psychotechnology. Simply, the domain for that name was already taken, so I changed it to psychomechanics.
I am not currently interested in discussing this issue, but it turns out that the mass application of psychotechnology probably has the same identity problems as those of entropy in a thermodynamic system.
Writing the first chapter was spontaneous and easy and took two days. After sympathetic comments in Galileo and a subsequent article by Nir Lahav, the editor Miki Elazar asked me for more chapters. I worked harder on the second chapter, when Zvi Atzmon, the scientific editor, changes and edits the chapter. Finally we arrived at a wording that was acceptable to him (a little less so for me, I didn't like the ending) and also a deadline for publication, but then the management changed and it was decided not to publish.
As far as I'm concerned, it already belongs to the past and I simply don't have the desire and time to deal with it. (There is also a simple matter of khatiarats - I am 56 years old..). But if you are interested, my virtual friend (whom I have never met...), I authorize you to release the episodes and collect all the royalties. Only if you will be kind enough, also mention my name as the writer..
Israel,
I finished the third part (where you introduce the cool idea of psychomechanics) and still very cool. I hope you translate it into English, sell it on Amazon as a short story and make millions 🙂
Regarding the discussion, tell me if the following two links help you in any way:
http://ncse.com/evolution/science/age-universe-measuring-cosmic-time (especially the second point)
A little less relevant but maybe:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39143
Michael,
In MacBook Air it takes about 4 seconds after shutdown. Maybe it's time to change 😉
Israel:
Yesterday evening, right after I finished writing the comment, I clicked "add comment" and turned off the computer.
Immediately after turning it off, I realized that it leads to the problem you described, but I no longer had the strength to turn the computer back on.
I have to think about it a bit and I currently see two relevant directions:
One is that the temperature clock gives the result in terms of the time of the surveyor and therefore does not have to give everyone the same result (you have to see how this happens because apparently the calculation components do not depend on the surveyor),
The second is that the assumption of isotropy is unfounded (since it is possible for a universe that is not isotropic to appear isotropic precisely to those who move within it).
Don't know right now. I'll try to think about it later.
1. But how do we know they happened at the same time in the same system? Event A happened in Israel, the second on Mars.
Here is what Einstein says:
We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$ from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" $t'_{\rm A}$.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
\begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}. \end{displaymath}
We assume that this definition of synch
The pasting doesn't come out well, but you can look at the source. Synchronization is through light rays. If clocks A and B are synchronized in Einstein's way and event A occurred near clock A when it shows time A - then it is simultaneous to event B which occurred near clock B when it shows time B, if times A and B are identical . Even if the distance between the events is a light year. by definition.
2. No problem.
3. There is a problem, and we have encountered it before. "The clock shows a time later than the background radiation time when viewed in its own system and a time earlier than the background radiation time if viewed in the background radiation system."
According to you, and correct me if I'm wrong, if a clock in system A moves in system B, when the clocks pass each other each will see the other's time as earlier, and this is because each side sees the other as slower.
It therefore follows that when two spaceships pass each other and each claims that time in the second moves slower, then if they photograph each other with a high-resolution camera that will record the two clocks in spaceships A and B, the photographs from each spaceship will show the opposite: the photograph from spaceship A It will show time 10 AM and time 8 AM, and the photo from spacecraft B will show time 10 AM and time 8 AM.
Is it physically possible? And if not, what does it mean that "each side sees the other submit more slowly"?
This point is critical to the discussion, as we will see later.
"The clock shows a time later than the background radiation time when looking at it in its own system"
How? The background radiation time is the age of the universe. If the clock shows a later time, say 20 billion years, then in his system more than 6 billion years have passed than the age of the universe! For us, who are comfortable relative to the radiation, watching and photographing this system passing quickly in front of us, a porthole opens for a glimpse into the future, doesn't it?
1. Simultaneity depends on a reference system and indicates the fact that two events happened at the same time in the same system.
The GPS satellites, for example, transmit simultaneously with respect to the Earth but do not transmit simultaneously in the background radiation system.
2. The traveling twin will not be older if it is the only one accelerating. If both are accelerated - anything is possible.
3. I don't know what two passengers are doing in the punch line story. In any case, it is impossible to synchronize them and the state of one in relation to the background radiation does not depend on the state of the other.
However - at any given moment (and not only during their meeting - assuming that at some point each of them set their watch to show exactly the time of the background radiation) the clock shows a time later than the time of the background radiation when viewed in its own system and a time earlier than the time of the background radiation if It is looked at in the background radiation system.
Shmulik
What I wrote is that in the year when special relativity was published - 1905 - the popular opinion was that the universe is eternal. Therefore, there is no meaning to the beginning of the time and the only way is an arbitrary determination of the 0 point and synchronization of clocks.
The matter is of course different if there was a beginning to time. So the 0 point is natural. This is the popular opinion today - the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, before that there was simply no time. (Don't come to Israel with questions such as "So what was first?" The answer will inevitably be: with a kitbag!).
Michael.
The intention was the contradiction between the private relation only to the explosion.
First of all, thank you for your time and effort. I wish you could clarify the point for me and get the jock out of my head. But before that happens I just have questions, and lots of them. It hasn't happened yet.
1. I am not looking for a definition for sweeping simultaneity. only for simultaneity.
2. "The simultaneity in the background radiation system is the real simultaneity and the problem is that there is nothing in this simultaneity that is more real than in any other simultaneity".
"The question has no absolute meaning but only a relative meaning".
"I have the feeling that you are aiming for a punch line that would say that because you can only slow down the clock, then the background radiation system is the system where the clock is the fastest and not it.
Imagine twins who are in a spaceship that is in constant motion relative to the background radiation system.
Imagine now that one of them leaves the spaceship in a daughter spaceship which he accelerates until it comes to rest relative to the background radiation, stays at rest for an hour in this state and then returns and accelerates it back to catch up with the spaceship he left.
When he returns, the one left in the spaceship will be older than him."
Since you immediately understood where I was going (I knew I could trust you) - but not completely - so here's a question:
Could there be a situation where the traveling twin is the older one? (By the way, according to an article by Gali from a few years ago - the answer is yes. But only in a rotary system).
Since there is no room for drama and tension in the discussion, so here is the punch line:
If you accept the assumption that: Temp clocks as I have presented them always show the same time when they pass each other in inertial systems with joint photography from both sides - we can show that normal clocks (like those that carry twins with them) show a time that is higher than that of the background radiation, That is, an age later than the age of the universe.
This is mathematically possible, but not physically. agree?
Israel,
If I understand your claim correctly, then I answer and say that the contradiction you point to between special relativity and the Big Bang is meaningless. The special theory of relativity makes certain assumptions that do not exist in reality and because of these assumptions, the contradiction exists, but, the special theory of relativity, because of its unrealistic assumptions, is not the theory in which the question of the beginning of the universe should be debated in the first place, but only through the general theory of relativity.
Israel:
I don't have my own definition of total simultaneity.
In fact, the theory of relativity showed that measured simultaneity is relative and depends on the observer.
You are trying to revive the concept of sweeping simultaneity by saying that the simultaneity in the background radiation system is the real simultaneity and the problem is that there is nothing in this simultaneity that is more real than any other simultaneity and therefore this simultaneity cannot be used by us, for example, to build a GPS system on Earth Because this type of system requires the simultaneity of the earth.
I don't know what you define as a "synchronized system in terms of time" It is clear, for example, that events that appear to be synchronous in the background radiation system do not appear to be synchronous in another system and in contrast - by definition - events that appear to be synchronous in the background radiation system are synchronized in the background radiation system.
Clocks can be behind or ahead of other relative systems. The question has no absolute meaning but only a relative meaning.
It is clear that the clock of the aging twin actually speeds up compared to that of the twin that remains young.
I have the feeling that you are aiming for a punch line that would say that because you can only slow down the clock then the background radiation system is the system where the clock is the fastest and not it.
Imagine twins who are in a spaceship that is in constant motion relative to the background radiation system.
Imagine now that one of them leaves the spaceship in a daughter spaceship which he accelerates until it comes to rest relative to the background radiation, stays at rest for an hour in this state and then returns and accelerates it back to catch up with the spaceship he left.
When he returns, the one left in the spaceship will be older than him.
Your words to Shmolik are not true.
In fact Einstein introduced the cosmological constant into the equations precisely because without it he would have guaranteed that there would have been a big bang or that there would have been a big collapse and this did not go well with his belief in a static universe.
With the cosmological constant it is already possible to have a universe that has both a big bang and dark energy.
Israel,
Didn't you write earlier that according to special relativity the universe is eternal, etc.?
Michael
Maybe I missed something.
Can you tell me what is the definition of simultaneity?
And how is it different from my definition? Or Einstein's?
Other questions:
Do you accept that the background radiation system is a time-synchronized system?
Do you accept that according to Einstein and the results of the various experiments, the lengthening of time is unidirectional - that is, that moving clocks can lag but not speed up?
Shmulik
The passage you brought is true and beautiful, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I am not claiming a contradiction within relativity itself. The contradiction is with a later theory - the big bang and the expanding universe.
A nice description of the evolution (but with a lot of intelligent planning) of the physical theories:
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~lenzk/PICS/bronsteincube.gif
Israel,
Israel,
Sorry to make it difficult, but after what you wrote, I ask: Is special relativity nothing but a special case of general relativity because and so, and it makes assumptions that do not exist in reality and then you arrive at a contradiction through it?
I derive the question from the following paragraph from the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
The term is currently used more generally to refer to any case in which gravitation is not significant. General relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravitation. In general relativity, gravity is described using non-euclidean geometry, so that gravitational effects are represented by curvature of spacetime; special relativity is restricted to flat spacetime. Just as the curvature of the earth's surface is not noticeable in everyday life, the curvature of spacetime can be neglected on small scales, so that locally, special relativity is a valid approximation to general relativity.[8] The presence of gravity becomes undetectable in a sufficiently small, free-falling laboratory.
Israel:
You just keep mixing sex with non-sex.
So now you have redefined the term "simultaneity".
It is no longer about things that for you are happening at the same time but about things that are happening at the same time in the background radiation system.
This is of course a necessary consequence of what we said before - the fact that you chose such a reference clock of the background radiation system.
Of course, this simultaneity has no physical meaning and what you will achieve with it is exactly what you will achieve (and indeed the GPS satellites achieve) if you decide that simultaneity is determined by the Earth's clock.
By the way - if you synchronize the GPS satellites according to the background radiation system, they will stop working.
Michael.
Let's go to where it all began, Einstein's original paper on relativity:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first chapter deals with what simultaneity is and how we will synchronize remote clocks. Einstein says:
Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time."
After defining what "time" is (the small hand at 7, the large hand at 12), he continues:
it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.
Legit, right? You are in space facing Mars, your watch shows 7, but who assures you that you are in sync with your friend on the other side of the planet? How, for example, can you synchronize an attack on Mars if you don't have computers that have calculated all the way from Earth? And what if your friend is actually an alien from another planet? How will you synchronize watches then?
So here is Einstein's suggestion on how to synchronize the clocks:
We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals,
Contact your friend using light beams, and synchronize the clocks using them.
From here he continues to describe synchronization and the problematic nature of synchronizing clocks in relative motion. But we have the advantage that Einstein did not have in 1905: two remote observers can measure the temperature of the radiation, turn it into absolute time using the Friedman formula, and save the headache of the light rays. They can be sure that their clocks are synchronized just like with the light beam synchronization method.
In fact, this is where the discussion can end. Contrary to Einstein's claim in 1905, if the big bang theory is true then every point in the universe has "natural time" synchronized with every other point. No need for light rays or bull's rays. Just a thermometer, and the simultaneous attack on Mars will be launched.
This is my argument. It is also possible to show - with a lot of mathematical juggling - that if we use "temperature clocks" attached to regular clocks, we will get a contradiction to the lengthening of time. But my basic claim is that absolute time exists even without clock synchronization.
By the way, Israel:
The same agreement on a clock of the Earth's specific reference system (which I referred to in my previous response) is exactly the agreement of the GPS satellites.
They do not send their signals according to the time they measure with them, but according to the time they calculate should prevail on Earth.
Israel:
I don't understand where you are going.
The moment of the bang can be used as a natural zero point and the background radiation can be used as a natural relaxation system.
What about that and the theory of relativity? is nothing!
In order to synchronize clocks, constant communication is not necessary.
If you leave the earth and know its course and in addition you are aware of your own movements in space - you can calculate the time on earth at any moment.
Of course, your calculation becomes less accurate as time goes by - both because of the inaccuracy of your knowledge about the Earth and because of the inaccuracy of your knowledge about your movement, but there is no principled obstacle to the decision of all people from the Earth to determine that cosmic time is Earth time.
The advantage of the background radiation system is only that you are in constant communication and therefore (again, in principle) it is possible to reach an agreement on this reference system more easily even if other stars come out.
Of course, all this does not change the fact that if you leave Earth, you will move rapidly through space for an hour (as measured by your normal clocks) and come back and meet your twin - he will look like an old man and you will look like you did when you left.
That's because your body, your watch, and everything else around you isn't looking at the temperature clock that's in your spaceship and moving at crazy speed at all.
I do not know what you are even talking about 1905 and how this year belongs to physical facts.
Einstein thought the universe was stable because that's what he was told and he didn't bother to measure it himself.
His theory did not get along with a steady state and he introduced the cosmological constant to allow it to endure such a state (later it turned out that this constant does not meet Einstein's expectations and cannot stabilize the acceleration of the universe but can, on the other hand, help in deciphering dark energy but none of this is important)
In any case - there is no point in including the year 1905 in any equation that describes the laws of physics
Michael.
If I understood Einstein's article from 1905 correctly, it is not possible to synchronize clocks in space unless you have established contact between them. All relativity stems from this communication which is carried out by means of light rays.
1. Do you get this point?
2. Can you point out a way to synchronize clocks at different and distant points in space without communication between them according to knowledge in 1905?
3. Can you do this based on current knowledge?
4. Does a natural 0 point for time in an infinite universe have any significance that was and always will be?
5. In the universe created by the big bang, isn't the moment of the bang a natural 0 point?
Israel:
But I explained exactly what the "absoluteness" of the time of the bang is and showed that this time is different (in the sense of the answer to the question "how many years ago it happened) in different reference systems.
I also showed that it matches perfectly (!) with the temperature gauge you described.
Regarding a physical example of a wave without a carrier medium at all, the year of discovery of that example is not important. After all, you are not dealing with the restoration of Maxwell's name (a name that was not harmed at all) but with a physical question.
As you said - in your comments here you did not talk about temperature clocks. What you did do was to assume a monotonic decrease in temperature, which as mentioned is wrong.
Regarding the temperature clock - there is no problem with it at all.
In your system that is in motion you can - if you have enough information - calculate the time in any other reference system.
The temperature clock is based on the fact that in the natural rest system of the universe (the one where radiation is isotropic) you have enough information and can calculate its time.
It does not impose any constraint on your time.
Shmulik.
Despite all the new developments and theories, the assumption today is that special relativity is just as true as it was in 1905. There is not even one piece of evidence that contradicts it, and many pieces of evidence that confirm it.
Regarding the bang theory, the agreement is not so sweeping, but it is still the leading theory in the mainstream.
I am trying to show that there is a contradiction between the absolute time of the bang and the relative time of relativity.
Michael - sorry for the length. Learn to redden and emphasize words and I will clarify for you the straw from the chaff in each response.
ב
"It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
B's clock lags behind A's clock.
C's clock lags behind B's clock."
Not true! What is clear as day is:
It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
A's clock lags behind A's clock.
C's clock lags behind C's clock.
Only B's clock speeds up relative to B's clock.
The evidence - just like the evidence for your claim.
Israel,
Thanks for the follow up, I'll read it soon!
Easy question: Why does it matter to you what Einstein said in 1905, after all, many years have passed since then and more theories have been developed? According to one of the solutions of the theory of general relativity, that of Messrs. FLRW the universe expands and if we take time back, we get the big bang so the universe is not eternal according to the renewed Einstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
Israel:
In the system of A:
It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
B's clock lags behind A's clock.
C's clock lags behind B's clock.
Israel:
As I said - it will take some time before I can answer you.
You write such scrolls that it's really hard to separate the bar from the chaff.
Miracles:
What you asked was aimed at you - I am sure it was aimed at you.
See the continuation of the adventures of B.
ב:
You didn't show anything.
You make baseless statements and I stop arguing with you.
Shmulik, thanks for the support. There is an English translation of the first chapter. Here is the sequel.
"Mmm.. what, what do you mean? What do you mean, what did we do this time?" The professor was blind and confused.
"You, the scientists, the mathematicians, the physicists..."
"we?!" exclaimed the professor with a fury that helped him regain his composure. "Don't try to reverse the creation! If you think you can make a mess in court like you do in life then you are in for a bitter surprise! I am not a soft-hearted Boltzmann, and mathematics, unlike physics, is not a close empirical science, but a completely perfect craft of thought that rests on solid theoretical foundations that cannot be challenged!"
"Really" said the law with skepticism.
"really!" The Professor's tiara, all true to battle. "We are not a collection of observers like the physicists, who collect and collect as many observations as possible and try to fit them into a kind of hybrid theory that will loosely unite all the contradictory data in some dubious formula borrowed from mathematics, a formula that will change immediately when new data shatters the previous theory For the benefit of some new ephemeral scarecrow" the professor stopped for a breath and stole a glance at the audience, trying to gauge the impression left by his ranting words.
"Oh, I see you don't have much respect for the realm of physics" accused the law.
"And why would I bother? Every two days they have a new legend. Many generations told us that the Earth is the center of the universe and presented complicated charts and tables to explain the movement of the celestial bodies around it, all so that reality would be subordinated to the creaking theory. Then, when the tensions increased, they invented a new story. This time they put the sun in the center, summoned a fresh hero, called him "gravitational force" and told the children that this force attracts all bodies to each other without any intermediary in between. They are still looking for the graviton that might help them convince themselves. One day they have a website, and the next a curved "space-time". The Torah stars are "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics", but both are in conflict and do not speak to each other.
"And with you there in the kingdom of mathematics the situation is better?" Provoked the law.
"With us" the professor puffed out his chest proudly, "everything is quiet and stable as usual, boring even because of stability. We are a completely pure science, and there are no new observations that can cloud the theoretical perfection that has changed very little since Euclid wrote "Fundamentals" in the third century BC. Since everything is built on simple and understandable axioms and proven theorems whose complexity is increasing, we can start with "between two points only one straight line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them" and end with a complicated structure such as analytic geometry or the phenomenon of perfect numbers."
The audience clapped.
"This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, just as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the progenitor of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.
"And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time" muttered the law.
"Did you mumble something?" barked the professor.
"Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"
"infinite!" replied the professor firmly.
"And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"
"Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.
"And which infinity is greater?"
"What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”
The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.
"The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.
The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
"Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”
"infinite…"
And among all the great and wonderful laws of mathematics, among all the prime numbers, beautiful, perfect, Romeo and Juliet, lovely and pleasant, have you ever heard of the number 1995, the number also known by its name: "Rando"?
The professor turned pale. "You..do you know Rando?" stammer
"Acquaintance also acquaints" answered the law. In fact, I even went to the trouble of asking Marando to testify for the prosecution. He is here with me" he took out a pocket calculator and typed a few digits on it. "It will be a bit difficult because Rando's native language is binary, but I think we will manage. Isn't it, Rando?”
"Certainly" answered Rando.
"Don't tell him anything!" the professor squealed in frustration.
"Keep to yourself" the law said to the professor in a scolding. "Believe me, it hurts me more than you. Undoubtedly, it is not particularly pleasant to reveal in Parhasia one of the most obscure episodes of the kingdom of mathematics...perhaps the darkest chapter...the rebellion of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers. Of course, it would be much simpler if you mathematicians would confess that you accused me in vain, reveal the whole truth about the shaky foundations on which the mathematical "perfection" was built, admit that you have mastered privileged numbers and that you have enslaved their righteous brothers, fall on your knees, pray for my forgiveness, and let me discover the The forgiving sides of the merciful nature. If not, I will be forced to make a huka and be deprived of the whole idea of the perfection of mathematics, something that, as I have already mentioned, I do not like at all."
The professor sensed, while the audience swallowed their saliva.
"Well!" The law urged. "We can't wait for you a whole day. We still have a lot of work ahead of us!"
The professor raised his chin in defiance, to prove that we would not give in to pressure.
The second law addressed the audience: "Gentlemen, is anyone willing to reveal the truth?"
"Me" answered a young man's voice from the crowd.
"Thank you" said the law with relief. "Who are you young man and what is your name?"
"Gedaliah" answered the guy. "And I'm a math student. I know very well the story of Rando, or in his full name: Ran-Dhua."
"Tell me Gadel-Yahweh," the law addressed the young man in a fatherly tone. "Is mathematics really so perfect?"
"Don't you dare to inform!" screamed the professor.
But the guy approached the stand and continued to speak. "Give in, Leibnowitz. Hiding the truth is not a path that a true mathematician would choose. The law is right. Mathematics, like physics, was built layer by layer through trial and error, was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all."
"Are you telling me?" Rando's voice was hollow and slightly digital. "I learned this the hard way. Until the mathematicians came along with all their privileged numbers, we were all friends with equal rights, as Kroenker, a nineteenth-century mathematician, said: "God created the whole numbers, everything else is the work of man." Suddenly, classes were created, an aristocracy, young numbers were not allowed to play with their old friends but without reference... it reached a climax at a party in honor of the birth of the little i and his acceptance as a full member of the mathematics aristocracy.
"Who is the cute little i?" Law asked dreamily.
"Root of 1-." answered Gedaliah. He came to give a solution to a quadratic equation of the type X²+1=0. There is no positive or negative number that can solve the equation, so this number was invented. At first it was treated with great skepticism, and even the great Descartes doubted its existence and mockingly called it an "imaginary number" or imaginary, hence the i.
Whether they exist or not, imaginary numbers are extremely useful in various fields, especially in electrical engineering. For mathematics, the simulated numbers are especially valuable, because they allow the description of geometric functions by pure algebraic means."
In his speech, Gedaliah drew on the board an axis perpendicular to the axis of numbers drawn by Leibnovitz earlier. "See? If we call this axis the "axis of imaginary numbers" it seems that we can define each point on the plane using only a pair of numbers: a real number, on the horizontal axis, and an imaginary number, on the vertical axis. Such a pair is called a "complex number." In fact, we have thereby created an alternative system to the usual Cartesian system based on a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis, but with the clear advantage that we can perform complicated geometric calculations with relatively easy and convenient algebraic means."
"I know it sounds a bit complicated" Gedaliah reassured the confused crowd. But after a little practice, you will argue that the demon is not so terrible. The beauty of this is that the final result does not have to contain imaginary or complex numbers at all. No fun? We started with a complicated problem, transferred it via hocus pocus to an imaginary world of virtual numbers, solved it relatively easily and returned it solved to the world of real numbers!”
"Your explanations make me understand even less" the prosecutor scratched his forehead in embarrassment.
Gedaliah, look for a suitable example. "The legend says that years ago an old sheikh wanted to divide his camels between his three sons according to the following key: the eldest would get half of the camels, the middle a third and the youngest a ninth. Count the camels, and here is a robbery and a robbery! There were 17 camels in the herd, a prime number that is not divisible by any number other than itself and 1. In their sorrow, the boys turned to the wise caddy to help them with the division. The Qadi told them: Soon my son will return from the market on a camel, we will add it to the herd, and make the distribution.
Now with the camel of the Kadi's son we will get 18 camels, so the eldest got nine, the middle six, the youngest two and a total of the original 17 camels. The boys thanked the Kadi and went on their way happy and good-hearted, but to this day it is not known whether the Kadi really had a son, or a camel, and they don't care either.. The main thing is that the real problem was solved using that "fake camel" and everyone is very happy.
Transformations work in a similar way: transferring a difficult problem from one system to another through a series of formulas, sometimes called "Jacobins", solving the problem in the more convenient system, and returning it to the original system solved and smiling.
For example, I will present you the following problem: try to calculate the mass of a sphere whose specific gravity increases as you move away from the center. If you try to use Cartesian coordinates, you will argue that the problem is extremely difficult to solve. But transfer it to spherical coordinates and the problem will be solved in the blink of an eye.
That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed in all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i, e, and π."
You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription with Euler's formula lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:
0=1+ e^iπ
Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.
Marnan's comments respond and respond, the end of a good signature tzadikot and tzadikim, at Sieta Dashmia we ended the fast.
Righteous Elek.. a bunch of infidels. At a time when ghosts, I have given up with you, Israel, are tormenting our bodies and purifying our souls with fasting and Lent, you are wasting your time writing comments?!
Nuts…
Elek's comments.. How could you not have a blush on your face? Still the battered twin paradox? Even the screen is blushing with shame.
(Which reminds me: Michael, how do you manage to redden letters, highlight words and other magic? As usual we are not told anything).
ב
"In A's system during the flight:
C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows and what C's watch shows.
In C's system during the flight:
You have no way of knowing what someone's watch is showing far away from you unless you have called, and it is highly desirable that it be by electromagnetic means. Therefore, an expression such as "C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows" is meaningless. How do you know what it shows? He is very far away, isn't he? Will you send a transmitter? Open yourself to all the problems of communication between bodies in relative motion as shown by Einstein in the original article on relativity.
Michael.
First of all, a clarification: I am not claiming that relativity or the big bang theory are incorrect. It's just that the length of time doesn't line up with the absolute time of the bang. I have no preference between the two.
Quantum systems where there is no rest system for waves are irrelevant in 1887. But that's a sideshow. Getting to the point:
You write:
"Can you present information that says the temperature clock is not affected by speeds and accelerations?"
and also:
"You completely ignore what I said about the fact that in some parts of the trip it even goes up (as I explained in this response and in previous responses)".
So far we haven't talked about a temp watch. A reminder for those who know, and a refresher for those who are hearing about it for the first time:
A temperature clock measures the temperature of the cosmic background radiation in two directions: with and against the direction of the radiation. The data is fed to the computer that weights the two-way Doppler, and becomes the output of the absolute time that has passed since the big bang at the same point where the temperature clock is averaged, using the Friedman formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
If I remember correctly, in the discussion with R.H. We used Macintosh computers.
Therefore, even though the temperature itself can increase with movement, the time output always advances and two passing temp clocks will always show the same time in a shared photo (regardless of which one the photo is taken from).
Your comment Michael is very spot on. At the time I got this answer:
Re question 1: It's relatively simple to calculate temperatures in space because since there is no air, there is no heat conduction or convection. A body in space can only absorb heat by absorbing radiation, and can only lose heat by radiating.
The CMB behaves like a black body with a temperature of 2.725K, so any body in equilibrium with it will also be at this temperature. If there are no other sources of heat your thermometer will have the same temperature as the CMB. However it's hard to achieve this. You could argue that you could shade your thermometer from the Sun, but whatever you use as a sunshade will eventually heat up and start radiating, and it will then heat your thermometer. The only way you'd get your thermometer down to 2.725K would be to put it in interstellar space or possibly even intergalactic space.
Re question 2: Traveling fast will indeed blue shift the CMB and raise it's temperature, and that will heat your ship. In principle if you travel fast enough the blue shifted CMB would vaporize your spaceship.
This actually happens to the Earth (well, not the vaporising bit!). The CMB is hotter in the direction of travel of the Earth. See http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010128.html for details.
share improve this answer
answered Jun 3 '12 at 8:00
John Rennie
53.3k13792
This is by the way the name of the former editor of Scientific American.
At the time I brought a description of the phenomenon you describe and its solution:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-25/#comment-344956
"To all the slanderers and slanderers, the temperature clocks are bad.
It is technically possible to explain why two temp clocks at the same place and moment must show the exact same time, but due to the shortness of time (...) I will try to mention again what temp clocks are.
Temp clocks show the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang that a temp clock next to them would show if this clock was at rest relative to cosmic radiation.
The obvious comparison is the well-known story about Narcissus the prince, whose frogs in his marsh often complained about the mean-hearted and sharp-beaked Hasidic women who devoured them with appetite.
Narcissus, a lover and frog kisser by birth, planned a simultaneous nocturnal attack on the nests of the Hasids, which was to be carried out by elite commando units of frogs who planned to attack all the nests at the same time, in order to prevent the Hasids from sending ripples from nest to nest and thus warn the other Hasids. The synchronization was carried out by measuring the temperature of the egg that cools down slowly at night and a formula that converted the temperature into time.
Everything was ready for the big attack, but 12 hours before the departure, Rabbi Kermit the Toad showed up in front of Narcissus, all green with shame.
"There's a flaw in the plan," Kermit cracked. "The tadpole fleet that is supposed to give the opening signal claims that the temperature they are measuring is higher than normal, and this is because of the great speed of the tadpoles moving relative to the water. It is impossible to synchronize the attack, because the clocks are not synchronized. Our plans are doomed to failure, and Hasidism will continue to devour frogs and deliver babies."
"Don't worry" Narcissus reassured him. "An additional factor can be introduced into the formula that will weigh the relative movement speed of each and every toad, and the output will be the time of the temperature clock if it were at rest relative to the water"
This is how the frogs took advantage of a large pasture.
The example I hope, obviously.
There is absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang. This is what the bang theory claims. It can be measured. Temp clocks are one suggestion - density clocks or receding galaxy clocks are also possible as suggested by R.H.
But according to relativity in 1905, the universe is eternal, never began and will never end. Therefore absolute time has no meaning.
And theory A does not agree with B. This is the gist of my argument.
June 10th, 2012″
If you accept that temp clocks built as I presented always show the same time - the time that has passed since the bang at that point - then you almost got my argument, I believe. The first part of Einstein's original paper on relativity:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
deals with the simultaneity of events and the difficulty of deciding what is common time, hence the need to synchronize clocks using light rays. But here is a simple and easy way that did not exist in 1905: there is no need to communicate with the second clock. Take the temp clock out of the box and it will automatically adjust to the absolute time which will also be the same as the time of any other temp clock.
(What will happen? We started with Maxwell's original ether article, continued with Einstein's original relativity article, soon we will also reach Newton's "Principia"....).
In the book "Weave of the Universe" by Brian Green, on pages 200-190 and especially on pages 197-196 it is written: "Clocks whose only movement comes from the expansion of space - they are synchronized magic clocks, which are used to measure the age of the universe. Of course you are allowed to take your watch, enter the spaceship, run back and forth in space at enormous speeds... If you do this your watch will tick at a different rate, and you will find that the amount of time that has passed since the big bang will be different. This is a completely valid point of view, but also completely private... When astronomers talk about the age of the universe, they are asking for... a standard that has the same meaning on every site".
If you don't accept that temp clocks always show the same time in a shared photo, or you don't think this contradicts the first part of Einstein's article, or you don't think there is a problem here between relativity and the bang, and you still have strength and patience - we will continue to the next claim.
But if I exaggerated - point it out and let me go.
In the aircraft test:
These are three accelerated systems.
Plane A, the airport, plane B.
It's like, for example, a centrifuge with three arms.
In one arm is a plane.
In the second arm is the airport.
In the third arm is a plane in
Each of the arms rotates at a different rate than the others.
Each of the arms has a different centripetal force than the others.
Each of the arms has a different centripetal acceleration than the others.
Therefore the effect on the clocks can be attributed to acceleration. (I don't know for sure).
However:
What I showed earlier regarding the twin paradox relates to an inertial system.
That is, it is not possible to leave an inertial system and return to it to the same starting point and create time differences between the clocks.
Michael
Is this an answer to me?
And as I answered and as the insistence on this proves, it will not be perceived by those who do not think it is true as evidence of the truth, because that is a different story
And the clocks will still show summer time.
So Israel, in what way can we read the whole story? Did you translate it into English by the way?
Good night.
Miracles will be waiting for you here.
from 6:00 in the morning.
: )
Michael
As they say in a wonderful country... Yes but……
In the previous story I said that a spacecraft at 0.8c passes the two twins when they are far apart. And there you see the paradox.
And again... I'm already repeating myself... In the classic paradox, the magnitude of the acceleration does not affect the time difference. What affects is the distance the twin travels, and the length of time.
Anyway, I'm going to bed now.
Good night.
I hope that tomorrow they will see that we searched for the same time
Miracles:
In the experiment you just described (if I understood you correctly) both are flown completely symmetrically and therefore their watches will show the same time and the paradox disappears.
The twins perform a symmetrical maneuver. Let's say they are born halfway. They are flown half a light year in each direction and at the end are returned to their place of birth. It doesn't matter what acceleration profile you perform, you will get the same results, provided you maintain symmetry.
From this I think it can be concluded that acceleration has no meaning in the experiment.
Even in the classical paradox, what affects the time difference is the total time, the acceleration profile is meaningless.
As I said: you involved another factor (the same spaceship) and this is not the twin experiment.
Besides - the twin that retraced its steps and reached Earth was subject to acceleration (and there is no way to avoid accelerations. You can restore symmetry only if you apply acceleration to both so that they both stop before separating and then accelerate in opposite directions)
Michael
Let's take a pair of twins and give them synchronized clocks. We will take both of them at a distance of half a light year. One of them will return to Earth and the other will go another half a light year away. We got two twins with synchronized clocks a light year apart.
Completely by chance, a spacecraft passes by the Earth at a speed of 0.8c. When the spacecraft passes over the Earth, time is recorded in the spacecraft and on the Earth. The spacecraft will later pass the distant star. The twin's clock will show 15 months later while the spacecraft's clock will show only 9 months later.
No accelerations………did I make a mistake somewhere?
Miracles:
I already said that two people in one place are not quite the same.
If you think it's possible for one person to go back and forth without being accelerated (and without even changing direction) I'd love to read how you propose to do it because it could be worth a lot of money because of the energy savings.
In fact it would be a miracle 🙂
Michael
It is possible to show the paradox even without changing direction.
B:
If you don't know who is the stubborn one here then I will tell you: it is you.
Read for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
Please follow the word Reunited several times in the following sentence (quoted from there):
When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
You can not know things and you can not understand things. All of this is legitimate. But I cannot see an incorrect claim about a historical event as a legitimate thing. Are you willing to tell us on what you based your claim that the clocks did not return to the starting point?
If you were to say that you don't know if they returned to the starting point - that would still be a legitimate lack of knowledge, but to claim the opposite without substantiation? Forgive me, but that's it!
ב
what do not you understand???? Atomic clocks were flown and returned to the place of origin. There is a time difference. what do not you understand???
I don't know who is stubborn here.
Time differences measured in experiments were not measured when a body left an inertial system and returned to its starting point in its starting system.
What is measured is time changes in moving bodies that do not return to the starting point in the reference system of the origin. This is not what happens when talking about a twin that leaves Earth and returns to Earth.
At most this is possible in a twin that left the earth's reference system and never returned to it (until the time of measurement).
You can't go and come back without accelerating.
Acceleration has an effect.
I know you can simulate someone going out and coming back using two people that one always went and the other always came back but it's not quite the same, even if the results match.
In any case - I wanted to point out what breaks the symmetry.
Of course, the breaking of symmetry can also be shown by changing direction without calling the child's name - and the symmetry is indeed broken. To notice this, it is enough if we assume that the two parties transmit light at a constant frequency in one direction and ask ourselves when each of them notices the fact that there has been a change of direction (the moving twin will immediately notice the change in frequency while the stationary twin will notice the change in frequency only after the light sent by the traveling twin after turning around reaches it ).
ב
What are you talking nonsense?
Michael
... again ... it's not related to accelerations ... please do the calculation and see what it comes out
B:
What is this stubbornness?
A and C went through accelerations while B did not go through any acceleration.
Their clocks are different and this was also proven in the experiment.
For the hundredth time I have to tell about the man who enters a zoo, sees a giraffe and says "Impossible! There is no such animal!”
Israel:
"B's watch always shows a later time than A's and C's, which is the same time. "
This is true only in the reference system of B.
The reference systems of A and C are separate from the system of B from the moment of flight to the moment of return. At the moment of return, all systems return and merge into one system.
In A's system during the flight:
C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows and what C's watch shows.
In C's system during the flight:
A moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what C's watch shows and what A's watch shows.
That is, the situation in system A is symmetric to the situation in system C.
After the return, all the systems merge into one system, which is the system of B. And that's because their speed resets.
In B's system, A's and C's clocks show the same time.
conclusion:
After the return, all the clocks are again in B's reference system and they all show the exact same time.
conclusion:
Any time difference measured during the flight (reference system different from the origin system) is canceled during the return to the reference system which is the origin system.
Israel:
I can certainly point to such a physical system (and I already did so in a previous response) - a system in which the waves are even more mysterious than the light waves, and that is the quantum system.
It is a system that not only does not need an intermediary but the information in it can be coordinated regardless of distance.
I presented an example of a certain type of movement, but if you want a movement that allows waves - that is also possible.
All I want is to limit the movement of the particle to a certain area around a fixed starting point (the one it had in the stationary system). It can be given, for example, a blocked and fading harmonic motion around the starting point.
What you describe is a variation on the temperature clock.
As far as the moving twins are concerned, the temperature will rise as they move quickly relative to the average of the universe and fall as they approach the average. The temperature will represent a combination of the speed of their movement with the age of the universe.
Note that this fits wonderfully with relativity.
A photon, for example, has no time at all. Everything is happening for him at the same time (and locally) he still thinks he is in the big bang. The faster you approach it, the closer you are to this state - the temperature you measure is higher, your time is "slower", and your estimate of the age of the universe is lower (something that can be seen as a reflection of the slowness of time you are currently demonstrating on the past).
I repeat: when you talk about "the distribution of the temperature drop" you make a wrong assumption as if the temperature will drop all the time.
You completely ignore what I said about the fact that during part of the trip it even goes up (as I explained in this comment and in previous comments).
Michael
It refers to the random movement of molecules in all directions as in air or water. If there is no motion, a wave cannot pass.
My question is: Can you point to a system where waves pass and does not have a preferred resting system?
I don't believe there is. There is only a mathematical system - Maxwell's equations. But not a physical system (know one? Anyone? Who?).
twins:
I am not talking now about temperature clocks. I presented a scenario where a twin returns after a year according to his clock and after a billion years according to his brother's clock. The temperature of the universe meanwhile dropped by 100 degrees Kelvin, which they both agree on and there is also a video to prove it.
My question was about the temperature drop distribution. In my understanding, relativity claims that most of the descent will be during the inertial movement. If you claim otherwise, show how the decrease will be distributed, provided that the total reaches -100.
Nissim, by the way, accepted my argument.
"In my opinion - the faster you move, the higher the temperature you will feel (compared to the resting system)".
Is it meant to move at a constant speed? In relation to which rest system? of the cosmic background radiation?
According to Einstein (and Galileo, and Newton, and Mach...) movement at a constant speed is rest. According to Postulate A - all rest (inertial) systems are identical.
So that we can get to the point, what I'm asking is:
Agreed that in the agile twin system during the inertial movement the temperature drops at a rate of at least one degree per minute as shown by the video that captures the thermometer clock and the accelerometer (which shows 0).
If not - a different drop distribution (we all agree that the temp dropped, don't we?).
Israel
Read when you have time….because the explanation is good 🙂
B:
Why just talk.
Read for example on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
Write a name:
The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment.[A 1][A 2] It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.[A 3]
If you go to the Wikipedia entry dealing with time dilation and select the chapter dealing with experimental testing, you will find a lot of additional material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
Israel:
I don't have a problem with giving the samtine molecules a speed but I didn't want to let you determine that speed trendwise.
It is possible, for example, that each sammin molecule will attack the vertex closest to it at a constant linear speed.
There is movement on the surface of a sphere - even on the most perfect sphere. Otherwise two people walking on it could not meet. Do you think this is the case?
Do you think this is also the case in an infinite universe?
In my opinion - not only can people meet in an infinite homogeneous space, but they can determine exactly in advance when and where they will meet, when they will part, how far apart they will be and when they will meet again.
You can read about experimental confirmations that the length varies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
This is in addition to the fact that I have already presented regarding the short-lived particles that are created as a result of a collision between the cosmic radiation particles and the particles at the edge of the atmosphere.
The elementary particles created in collisions are not accelerated. From the moment they are created there is nothing that will push them to accelerate further. The whole combination of their mass and speed is created simultaneously from the energy of the collision.
I'm not going to delve too much into the temperature clock since you didn't either.
Can you show information that says the temperature clock is not affected by speeds and accelerations?
I no longer remember the phrase that appeared in the link you gave at the time to the subject, but many of its components are speed dependent.
More than that - even the temperature itself - if it is a function of the wavelengths you encounter or of the speed of the particles - is a function of the speed.
In my estimation - the faster you move you will feel a higher temperature (relative to the rest system) and in terms of the temperature clock you will measure a lower universe age (and this means that at a high speed relative to the rest system your temperature clock will move backwards).
In any case - when you settle in a shared system with another person, your temperature clocks will show the same temperature time.
And as I mentioned before - in the calculations of the GPS accelerated system there is a separate consideration of speed and acceleration and a mistake in any of these references would be disastrous.
Miracles,
Regarding accelerations, it may be possible to handle the details of relativity, but this is not the point of my words. It is impossible to say that the two twins are in balanced systems when only one of them is accelerating.
Regarding your variation of the paradox, I have to delve into it and I don't really have time (because my daughter wants to go for a walk) but the two twins will age at exactly the same rate anyway, I guess I'm not going into the depth of the example but it's because of the shorter time that my daughter is rocking to me.
Beauty. We will wait for Michael to return from synagogue (I heard he is a cantor). If and when we get his consent, we can move forward to the point.
Israel
I think for now we agree
Miracles.
The point is come. Right now we are just establishing agreements. Do you accept that in the video of the young people there will be a 100 degree drop in the space of an hour? And that this decrease will be spread over 5 stages? And most of the descent will be while the accelerometer shows 0?
ghosts
I am indeed fasting, not that I am a big (or little) believer, but a woman, a peacemaker, a woman...
The trouble is that every time I come to a synagogue - God runs away..
ב
"B's watch always shows a time that is between the time on A's watch and the time on C's watch."
B's watch always shows a later time than A's and C's, which is the same time. Elek symmetry.
Shmulik
It's called a teaser...
So. Let's say 2 stars are a light year apart. We have a pair of twins - one on each planet and each twin's clock is synchronized with the clock of the other twin.. I guess it is clear that there is no problem in reaching this situation, that the two twins are the same age despite the distance between them. Now imagine a spaceship moving in a straight line, at a constant speed of 0.8c and passing the 2 stars. While crossing the first star, both the twin on that star and the spacecraft record the time. Now - what will happen when the spacecraft crosses the second star? Regarding the second twin, the spacecraft moves a distance of one light year at 0.8c, so the time is 15 months. The spacecraft, on the other hand, sees the distance between the stars as smaller and therefore measures a shorter time. The distance it will see is 0.6 light years, so it will only measure 9 months
Questions?
If not - then we have explained the twin paradox without accelerations. And just to clarify, there is no problem to handle accelerations in special relativity. But, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox.
Michael.
"There are many finite geometries where there is no preferred rest system. The simplest of them is the face of a ball."
There is no motion on the surface of a sphere. KDA is symmetrical but the air on its surface has a preferred rest system - KDA. The "Shrigin" system is also a symmetrical system. I suggested giving the molecules "sethamin" speeds but you did not agree.
Can you point to a system where waves pass and does not have a preferred resting system?
"In fact - the temperature gauges of the twins will show different temperatures along the way."
Do we agree that at the end of the video - both of the traveling twins and of the remaining twin - the temperature gauge shows 100 degrees less?
If so, the descent can be divided into stages. I showed that there are 5 stages that include accelerations and traveling at a constant speed. I suggested - and this is also the argument of relativity I believe - that most of the decrease is while traveling at a constant speed.
If you claim otherwise, show when the descent took place (not that it matters) and provided that at the end after the 5 steps we will reach a descent of 100 degrees.
By the way, from the link:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Length_Contraction
At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the required precision has not been feasible.
And as I mentioned, GPS and elementary particles (I assume you meant muons) are accelerated systems.
Shmulik.
The story has a beginning, an end, and above all a purpose: psychomechanics.
On the other hand, I am not an expert on the subject. I never studied or even had an interest in psychology. I don't have the time or desire to start dealing with the issue either. But when I look at what is happening in the world, it is hard for me to escape the feeling that human societies behave to a large extent like thermodynamic systems with similar laws of conservation and entropy.
The Jewish people went through the most horrible holocaust of all, but if we look at the people as a whole and without going into the details of each person (like treating a thermodynamic system does not refer to a single molecule but only to the entire system) the holocaust did not really harm us and we are now in the "golden turn" as before deportation Spain.
40 years ago we were in a state of war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Our friends were Iran and Turkey. The Palestinians and Lebanon were relatively quiet. Today there is peace with Egypt and Jordan, and the Syrian border has been relatively quiet until recently. Iran and until recently Turkey are our enemies. The Palestinians and Lebanon are the ones who shoot.
Once the mufti shot at us, then he changed his name to Kaukji, later to Nasser, Arafat, Sadat, Yassin, Nasrallah - but under all the heaps of spoons it is always the same Arab who shoots at us.
The US is fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and arming them in Syria. Isn't it funny?
Not if you think of a closed system in which the mess cannot go down on its own.
And I risk and predict that out of all the current mess in our areas, we will suddenly have an ally that we never dreamed of.
But as I mentioned, I'm just a storyteller. I really don't have the knowledge, strength and desire to start dealing with the issue.
In a survey conducted on behalf of the "Psychomechanics Group" and including a sample representing all strata of the country's population, the first question was: "Do you believe that the average person is richer today than in the past?"
A large majority of the respondents - 82% - responded positively to the question, and for understandable reasons. In the past, in many cases, it was considered "rich" to have more than one pair of shoes or one suit. The vast majority of the population worked hard in agriculture, for little pay or as serfs or slaves.
Only a small minority enjoyed a reasonable standard of living, and even that would not be considered particularly high by modern standards.
Also to the second question - "Do you believe that the average person is healthier today than in the past?" 78% answered in the affirmative. Indeed, modern life expectancy is infinitely greater than in the past. It is true that there were people in ancient times who lived long and healthy lives, but most people did not pass the age of 40, infant mortality was much higher than today, and diseases and epidemics shortened and made my remaining life miserable.
Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the third question: "Do you believe that the average person is happier today than in the past?" Only 18% answered in the affirmative, while a similar number of respondents added that they believe the situation is the opposite!
why? We are healthier, richer, live longer lives - and still aren't we happier? How?
And as if that were not enough, today humanity has at its disposal a science that did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century: the science of psychology, whose entire purpose is the mental well-being of man, and whose purpose, it must be assumed, is to increase human happiness.
Are the respondents wrong? Of course, we cannot measure a vague and immeasurable state like happiness, especially in others, and certainly not in the past. This is also why the questions were formulated in the language "Do you believe?" But many people caught the intuitive truth in the answers.
The solution to the paradox apparently lies in the fourth question: "Do you believe that personal happiness originates from interaction with nature (fields, animals, the sea, and against them natural disasters, hunger, cold, etc.) or interaction with other people (love, friendship, family, and against them hatred, jealousy Or human-made disasters and damages?"
No less than 92% of the respondents answered that the main source of happiness is interaction with other people. And in addition, many respondents added on their own initiative, an intentional injury to people is many times more serious than an injury with similar damage caused as a result of an accident.
After analyzing the question, "the man of psychomechanics" defined the dilemma facing the group as follows:
Fact: Science and medicine have improved the state of health and life expectancy on earth.
Assumption: the actions and feelings of humans can be studied and improved through psychological methods (education, therapy, conditioning, etc.).
Conclusion: We can increase human happiness on earth by "mass production" of these methods, and apply them to as large a number of people as possible, just as mass vaccination eradicated most epidemics.
Question: Regarding 3: Can we really?
Let's make the standards stricter: let's say that psychology will reach perfection, and genetic engineering combined with natural selection will create perfect people, so perfect that even the traits of contentment and happiness will be cloned for every person in the world. Will the star of Aquarius finally shine, and happiness and harmony will prevail in the world?
No, psychomechanics tells us.
Not with the means and methods used today. These can help the individual to improve his condition in relation to the general, but since happiness is a relative state, the improvement of the individual's condition must come at the expense of the general, or alternatively the caring body whose positive mental energy will be deprived of the general.
This is the essence of the second law of psychomechanics. Order in the thermodynamic system is compared to happiness in the psychodynamic system, and just as the tendency of order in a closed thermodynamic system is to diminish over time, so the tendency of happiness in a closed psychomechanical system, such as the earth, is to diminish, which causes the system to spread and push the dissatisfaction to the social fringes that are left behind.
If you succeeded through hard work and study to improve your score on the psychometric test or the IQ test, you inevitably pushed someone else down, because I Q100 by its very definition is a measure that reflects average intelligence. And the same will happen to you if you are forced to compete for your place at the university with a group of endlessly hardworking and devilishly talented Chinese, who will raise the grade bar and fix you without a way out on the left side of the bell curve.
An interesting thesis being researched by the group refers to the communities of addicts. The assumption is that under constant conditions, a certain and approximately constant percentage of the population will develop an addiction - to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, etc. Addiction will focus on some people, and ignore others. Now, what will happen if we remove from the system to a lonely island all the drug addicts for example, and leave all the other conditions in the system as they were?
According to the data of the original assumption, since the percentage of addicts is more or less constant, after the system reaches a new equilibrium, new addicts will spontaneously form to fill the ranks, while on the deserted island, a mass spontaneous detoxification will occur among the original addicts.
Although there is not yet sufficient experimental data to substantiate the thesis, the implication, if the theory is confirmed, is that the initial addicts, by their very existence, prevented the latter from becoming addicted, without even knowing them or knowing their role in the system!
Equally interesting is the explanation given by the group to the problem of anti-Semitism. According to the argument of psychomechanics, it does not matter at all what the Jews will do, who they are, what they are and whether they even exist. The source of the problem is one group - the anti-Semites - trying to lower its own psychomechanical entropy by raising the entropy of another group, the Jews.
This claim fits nicely with the finding that anti-Semitism increases in times of crisis, when the psychomechanical pressure increases, and also with the existence of anti-Semitism in countries where there are no Jews at all. This is because, according to the fundamental law of psychomechanics, our feelings arise from the form in which we perceive reality, even if it is only a simulated reality.
However, even psychomechanics does not rule out the decrease of entropy in a closed psychomechanical system. It only claims that the mental energy must come from a source external to the system. In the past, most people believed in God, who is undoubtedly an adequate external source. Psychomechanics offers another, more accessible solution.
Just as the industrial revolution freed humanity from dependence on slavery by turning chemical energy into useful work, so psychomechanics, through the good products of psychotechnology, aims to turn mechanical energy into mental energy, thus reducing the negative aspects of our interdependence.
The mathematical tools used by psychomechanics are "reversible transformations into simulated vector fields, in order to create virtual spherical symmetry" - a slightly exaggerated phrase, the essence of which is to make the maximum number of people feel "on top" without losing their grip on reality.
These words, which appeared in the media a few days before Professor Leibnovitz's testimony, echoed in the mind of a PhD student in mathematics at the University of Parma, a young man named Gedalhiu.
What is measured in the experiment is a completely different thing.
What is measured is the lifetime of a particle moving relative to the system. The particle did not accelerate in one direction and then in the other direction and did not return to rest at its starting point.
The logical contradiction for reasons of symmetry in the third experiment exists.
Israel:
First of all let it be clear: it has not been proven that there is no website. There is currently no known way to confirm or disprove it, but there is currently no problem (apart from Ockham that you usually cite) with the claim that the universe is warping as Einstein claimed and that it is full of ether as Maxwell assumed.
There are many finite geometries where there is no preferred rest system. The simplest of them is the face of a ball.
I noticed a number of problems in your description of the lengthening of time, but since you said that's not the main thing - I won't dwell on it.
Your description of the twins is based on the temperature clock we have already discussed and is flawed by the assumption that this clock moves in one direction even in accelerated systems.
In fact - the twins' thermometers will show different temperatures along the way.
B:
There is no symmetry between you and A or between you and C, so the time will be measured differently.
You must take into account that this fact is also a fact and this phenomenon has already been measured in an experiment.
A)
Regarding each viewer there is one special point and that is the point where he is.
If there are infinite observers, then there are infinitely many such points, but this does not contradict the fact that for each observer there is one unique point.
B)
About the twins.
I have already commented before and I will comment again:
Suppose a trio is in space:
At the moment of starting the experiment all the clocks show zero.
A accelerates in one direction C accelerates in the opposite direction. B stays in place.
B's watch always shows a time that is between the time on A's watch and the time on C's watch.
This occurs at both constant speed and acceleration.
Both A and C return to the point from which they left, that is, to the point where B is.
For symmetry reasons:
A's watch is the same as C's watch.
and therefore conclusion:
All three clocks show the same time.
For symmetry reasons only.
without any mathematical formulas.
It is not possible for one of the trio to be older than the others at the time of the reunion.
Even without the presence of C, the clocks of A and B at the time of the renewed meeting will show the exact same time.
It is not possible for one twin to be older than the other.
Israel
applause.
about the story
Are you going to write his ending? Or will it only be in coordination with the publication of your theory?
we will wait We waited. waiting.
easy fasting.
Miracles,
Maybe there is a simpler explanation but this is the explanation I learned and this is the explanation that appears on Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, the special theory of relativity, in which the paradox is discussed, only talks about constant velocities and as soon as forces or accelerations enter one system and not the other, the systems cease to be balanced.
In any case, it is not nice to write that there is a much simpler explanation and not tell it. Come on, write a book (you are welcome, like Israel, to write a story around the explanation)
and he?
Shmulik
There is no connection between acceleration and the twin paradox……the explanation is much simpler.
Israel,
I don't understand why you brought up the twin paradox. The paradox is not a paradox once you have determined that there was acceleration and that the twins are meeting, since this requires the application of force and acceleration in the opposite direction, which means that the twins are not equal
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/פרדוקס_התאומים
A general question about your story, which I hope you will answer once and for all: Is the whole story written? (Beginning, middle and end, enemies become friends, friends become enemies, the hero learns something about himself during the journey - a joke from the series Family Man...) And yes, don't believe the editors too much. The story is very nice and if there is ever a collection of short stories published in Israel, your story, if it is completed and maintains quality, definitely deserves to be there. Also, Haaretz newspaper, for example, holds a contest between short stories (there are other such contests), perhaps worth a try.
Israel
I didn't understand your point. The twin returned, the old man in an hour and indeed the length of the film is an hour. If the remaining twin were to make a movie, it would be a billion years long. The 2 twins will "agree" to this too.
ב
a) This point is chosen arbitrarily. And there are infinite such points. Therefore, nothing special about her. as explained.
Israel:
A)
The universe is infinite and homogeneous except for one point.
One point is a very special point in the universe.
This is the point where the viewer is.
Everything measured. measured relative to this point. (in relation to the viewer).
B)
In Michelson and Morley's experiment:
No need for an infinite universe.
There is no need for a homogeneous universe.
It is only necessary to have a sufficiently large environment of the observer in which a site exists in order to measure any difference between (the speed of light relative to the site) and (the speed of light plus the speed of the Earth) relative to the site.
Before we continue to the main point, I would like to summarize what I said:
1. Maxwell is not an ordinary scientist and Maxwell's equations are not trivial equations. Feynman said that future generations will remember from the 19th century mainly Maxwell's equations.
And Maxwell's equations, such as the derivation of the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism, were derived from Maxwell's ether model. My opinion is that it is impossible to separate the equations (the only thing that Einstein did not change in the relationships) from the model. "Inextricable complexity" Aalek.
2. Every wave known to us moves in a preferred rest system. We don't know of any field that doesn't have a preferred rest system. The MM experiment tried to find the preferred resting state of Maxwell's ether, and failed.
However, each preferred rest system stems from constraints: air - as in the past. Ocean - as above. Air in the plane - the plane.
However, in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe there is no necessity to have a preference. There may be - but this is the only system (an infinite universe without constraints) in which there may also be no.
If we ever reach the discussion of what I call an "active site" - a site where there is no preferred rest system - we will see how this assumption solves the problem of the non-dischargeability of the Maxwell model, and other problems as well.
the extension of time.
presenting the problem.
The two postulates of special relativity are:
1. The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.
2. Invariance of the speed of light:
The speed of light is constant for every observer, regardless of his relative speed with respect to the body that emitted the light, or his speed with respect to any other body.
Why did Einstein conclude from these two assumptions about the lengthening of time?
Let us describe two tubes each of which is a light second long, one with a diameter of one meter and the other with a diameter of 2 meters.
A photon leaving the end of one tube will reach the other end in exactly one second.
Now the thin tube is said to move inside the wide one, and when their backs come together, a single photon is launched along the concentric axis of both in the direction of the thin tube's movement.
If the photon is launched at time 0 in the clocks of the 2 tubes, it will arrive at both ends in one second according to the clock of each tube (the clocks of each tube are synchronized with each other, but not synchronized with the other tube).
When the photon reaches the end of the thin tube, it already protrudes a long way from the wide one. It turns out that when he passed at the other end of the field, not yet a second had passed on the timer's clock, and according to the data, exactly one second had passed in the field. In a photograph from a high resolution camera that will photograph the tube clocks together, we will see a time of 1 second in the wide tube clock and a time of less than a second in the thin tube clock.
From this simple description comes the lengthening of times.
(The sharp-eyed among you will perhaps notice a certain problem in the description, but this is more or less the description that appears in most explanations, including in Einstein's own book, and it is enough to clarify the point).
This description is true when we take into account the knowledge in 1905, the year of Einstein's miracles.
To see the problem that I think is revealed in the lengthening of time, I will talk about the twin paradox (where are the miracles?).
For the sake of illustration, I will use particularly quick and long-lived twins: when the younger twin returns, he finds that his brother has aged a billion years while he has only aged one hour.
Furthermore, throughout the journey of the young and agile twin, a video camera inside his spaceship filmed all the systems in the spaceship: clocks, accelerometers, thermometers, hygrometer, compass (very important in space!) etc.
When he comes back he is sitting with his older brother and they are both watching an hour long video.
What they see and agree on is:
1. The whole journey took one hour according to the quick twin clock.
2. The journey was divided into 5 stages: in the first stage the twin accelerated (the camera shows that it took a minute) in the second stage he flew at a constant speed (26 minutes) in the third stage acceleration in the opposite direction (3 minutes) in the fourth stage he flew back at a constant speed (28 minutes) and in the fifth stage he sprinted (negative acceleration) to compare his speed to his brother's speed (2 minutes).
All together an hour.
The camera also shows that the temperature dropped during this time due to the cooling of the universe by 100 degrees Kelvin. It also shows exactly at what stages - most of the cooling occurs while traveling at a constant speed in both directions, over XNUMX m per minute.
To be safe, they conduct the experiment once more with another twin flying in the opposite direction.
The three of them set off at sunset and take with them an old dream, a map, water, cameras, thermometers, watches, etc.
When they compare the photographs, they see that in the (identical) video of the 2 agile twins, the temperature drops at a rate of more than a degree per minute, while for the stationary twin it goes up in a million years at most.
So much for the initial description. If there are disagreements - and maybe even agreements - I would be happy to hear them before we move on to the main point.
Michael - Well done for the dedicated care of Dad. Let's hope you find some time for good old Israel as well... my 82-year-old father, who is always in good shape, is coming to visit us in a month. The whole family embarks on an adventure in the desert: a recreation of the Pisau experiment to measure the speed of light but with interesting twists. The planning of the experiment relates directly to everything discussed here and in previous comments, so please, make an effort.
And borrowing from Yoda: don't react gently! Only as Sah!
But let it be to the point, individual, and backed by facts.
Israel:
Yes.
My father-in-law Ben Nun consulted with me and incorporated some of my words into his introduction.
Why do you say they don't tell you right after they told you? 🙂
I didn't read your idea.
I was waiting for a full presentation of your Torah and did not delve into the partial or derivative descriptions you brought.
If you think that your explanation of the subject stands on its own regardless of the Torah as a whole, you are welcome to point to the place where it is written, but keep in mind that it will take me some time to address it because recently I have been busy almost all the time taking care of my aging father.
Shirigin really doesn't have a natural zero point and he doesn't need one either.
The zero is just there.
If it would bother you that I would call one point Ephesus and another point Ekhedihu?
These are just names that do nothing to the universe and in particular do not change its isotropy.
They also do not change any measurement: the distances between points will remain the same distances, the velocities will remain the same velocities and the accelerations will remain the same accelerations even if we choose the zero somewhere else.
In the Sharigin model and without Einstein, Sharigin has a preferred rest system.
This system can be described in any chosen axis system (one that does not move in relation to the points of deviation) and it is not possible to describe it in several alternative axis systems, nothing wrong. As mentioned: choosing a different axis system will not affect the measurements of the physical quantities and the results of the calculations that calculate them.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that such a system exists in reality - I'm just arguing against your attempt to dismiss it and the Michelson-Morlay experiment as if things were logically absurd.
As mentioned - the measurements have already shown that this is not the system we live in, but the measurements were necessary and it was impossible to reach a conclusion without them.
The GPS calculations take gravity/acceleration and speed into account separately and the results would be wrong if one of these components were omitted.
There are examples of non-accelerated systems that demonstrate special relativity: for example, some of the particles that are created when cosmic radiation hits the atmosphere would not have been able to pass the atmosphere if they had not lived longer.
For us they live longer but for them they live exactly the same time and only the atmosphere becomes thinner.
So here I gave you an example of both the lengthening of time and the shortening of length.
You didn't understand what I meant by talking about Einstein and his model. It was just a way of pointing out to you the mistake you are making when you apply the exact same consideration to Maxwell's model.
As mentioned - I answered your questions - also the question regarding the time of the bang.
Shmulik, thank you.
I sent the episodes to several systems. I received polite letters of appreciation, along with a comment that the story had no financial potential. I have no intention of publishing it myself, not necessarily because of a lack of means, but because, to be honest, I don't think the story justifies publishing a book. Galileo, the site of machines, and the scientist, is his natural size.
Michael.
I did not know that Hami Ben Nun consulted with you. We are not told anything!
If you read and understood my idea, do you see how it solves the friction problem at Lesage in a seamless way? The source of inertia (not closed)? The possibility of non-locality?
The Sharigin model does not have a natural 0 point. We can determine it arbitrarily - as with the temperature scales - but then it ceases to be isotropic for us.
We can say that if the dispersion of a sample is not uniform then the 0 point is the center of gravity of a certain area for example. That's why I mentioned the Olvers paradox. However, if we compare this to the rest system of the ether, it raises new questions: if the rest system is proportional to the distribution of the masses and the weighting of their movements, is it the center of gravity and the cosmic movement? Does every galaxy and solar system have a different rest system? Is there a different speed of light in different regions of the universe? Maybe this also explains the speed of stars at the edges of galaxies without dark matter?
Ockham says: there is no preferred rest system (Einstein too).
Speaking of Einstein:
Both the elementary particles from the longest lifetimes and the GPS systems are systems in acceleration. My achievement has always been about inertial systems. Can you point to one and only system that is not accelerated and the time extension exists in it? One example of shortening the length?
"Is it possible that the model that Einstein built and based on which he developed the theories of relativity that correspond to so many predictions is wrong?"
No. But Newton's model also matches many predictions. A lot of technologies are based on it. Why did Einstein change it? Is he wrong?
My achievement has always been only on the subject of time extension in inertial systems. All other things can be explained well.
I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the lack of understanding really lies with me. But the only way I know is to continue nagging and asking everyone and pointing out the supposed contradiction between the absolute bang time and the relative time of relativity, and hope that one day someone who understands the subject - Ehud, Zvi, maybe even you - will agree to devote the effort and time required to answer my questions individually .
They are not too hard.
Israel:
I don't know what the person you corresponded with knows, but I'm sure that what he knows, the elementary particles that manage to live much longer when they move quickly don't know what he knows.
The clocks of the GPS satellites also learned the theory of special and general relativity and that's the only reason they work.
Now I will ask you the kind of question you like to ask:
Is it possible that the model that Einstein built and based on which he developed the theories of relativity that correspond to so many predictions is wrong?
In the event this model matches everything predicted by Maxwell and much more.
You claim that you can build a model where there will be a site, Maxwell's equations will work and the Michaelson Morley experiment will also be explained.
Let's say - but then for sure it won't be Maxwell's model either!
You told the miracles of the Sargin model that in reality there is a problem with a zero point.
You are clearly wrong! Almost everywhere we set the zero arbitrarily! Just like in the "unreal" model!
Zero is a reference point and nothing else. It's just a name given to a point.
In temperature measurement there are several zeros - depending on whether you ask Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin.
There is a value there that can be called absolute zero precisely because there is no symmetry, but as soon as there is symmetry there is no priority for point A over point B and zero is just there.
By the way, in the framed article he says that Reuven Nir knew he was recycling Le Sage.
The scientific editor of the book contacted me and asked me what I thought even before the book went to press and I pointed out to him both the fact that it was a cycle and the fact that the original had been refuted.
If I'm not mistaken, he mentioned in the introduction that he wrote that it was a cycle but did not point to the refutations.
Apparently the money was more important to him than a full presentation of the truth.
Miracles
Michael first described an infinite homogeneous and isotropic space which he called "Shrigin".
Can Shirigin have a point 0? Yes. Is there a problem for such a space with point 0? No. Not so much, that any point can actually have 0 in it.
Can a real Regin physical space also have a point 0? Yes. Is there a problem for such a space with point 0? Yes! Because if any point can be the 0 point, then why don't we have some 0 points? Why not infinity?
And back to the infinite space of 1887: could it have a preferential rest system? Yes! But if it is so homogeneous, then why would it have only one and only rest system, the same system that the MM experiment tried to find?
If there is more than one and we can't map them, the m-m experiment is illogical.
Anyway, I still believe there must be a trivial answer to the question. It is inconceivable that everyone - from Newton to Lorentz - missed this point.
Well, in honor of the terrible days, it is impossible without a joke for you godless people:
Mishka the commissar arrives at the collective farm and asks Yshka the manager about this year's potato crop.
"Commissar" answers Ishka with shining eyes "We have so many potatoes that when we pile them in a pile they will reach God's feet!
"Kharshu Yishka" laughs Mishka "You know very well that there is no God!"
"Plough Mishka" cries Ishka "You know very well that there are no potatoes!"
Good night.
Israel,
Invite the researcher to comment here and not just on the topic you are talking about. It's always good to have experts in a forum like this.
Regarding the story, respect for the published episode! And what are you going to do with the story? Is it already written? Do you plan to release it in its entirety at some point? come on already with you
Israel
I have no argument with you about Newton. He had unusual opinions about the Holy Trinity, but he still believed in it.
You wrote "an open and infinite system has problems that would be a preferred resting system. I have uploaded some of them before. But in any case, if it has no problem having a preferred rest system, why would an infinite straight line have a problem if point 0 is preferred?". I don't see a problem if an infinite straight line that has a preferred 0 point. The axis of numbers is like this - straight, infinite and if the point is 0. Instead of a numerical value, put a distance from 0... And still no problem. I agree with you that it is not exactly homogeneous, but no one claims that the speed space is homogeneous. In my understanding at least…
Michael.
It is true that sometimes a wrong model yields a correct result. In the case of Maxwell's complex and complicated theory, it seems to me that the probability is very low.
Maxwell himself claimed that only when he noticed that the speed he calculated for the electromagnetic waves on his site (derived from calculating the speed of a sound wave in a gas) was the same as the speed of light calculated in the Pizzeau experiment, he realized that light itself is an electromagnetic wave.
You write: "If the solution is suitable for the calculation of the wave movement, but is not suitable for the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of the state of movement in relation to the medium, then we are necessarily in a situation where we received correct equations from an incorrect model".
Not necessarily. There are other options. Lorenz and others have suggested possible solutions that accept Maxwell's model. I also proposed a solution.
"I must say that I also answered the questions you claim to have asked and remained unanswered, and in my opinion the answers I gave are completely correct. The fact that the answers did not put your mind at ease is not under my control, but I feel you are fine."
Here is part of an email I received from a person who has been researching the subject for many years. Since I didn't get permission from him, I censored the identifying details.
On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:01 PM.
"Israel, Peace be upon you!
I have been researching the subject of special relativity for over ten years and I have fundamental misgivings about the standard interpretation of special relativity. I want to say that I accept the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity, i.e., the constancy of the speed of light and the covariance of the laws of physics in all inertial systems and of course the Lorentz transformation and all the measurement results of experiments that have been done to date.
Since that article of mine that you read, I have come a long way and made a lot of progress, and my argument today is much more basic. That is, not only is simultaneity absolute but also time is absolute in all inertial systems! I gave lectures on the subject at two international conferences: IARD2008 held in Thessaloniki, Greece and IARD2012 held last May-June in Florence, Italy. I am currently in the midst of writing an article on the subject titled:
So if you felt in the past, or thought that time should be absolute, at least according to the cosmological clock, then you were right! You are in good company, at least in my "company" and that of Professor Larry Hurwitz from Tel Aviv University who supports my approach. It will take some more time and effort to convince the rest of the physics community in the world, but this thing will come! I am XNUMX% convinced that I am on the right path...
I read the nonsense written in their knowledge, some of it in response to your questions - nonsense of people who have never delved into the subject and are just "talking". You are the only one who wrote and said sensible things!"
Now, of course, I am not claiming that that person is necessarily right - in fact I disagree with some of his mistakes - but here is at least one expert who accepts my basic argument. He is not the only one.
It is true that you explained to me why I am wrong, but we never came to a real comparison of your mistakes against mine. I believe you are wrong, if you are interested I can show you exactly where. Even then, you didn't want to get too deep into the discussion, and that's your right.
Regarding the publication of an article - I know a site where articles of what I call "alternative physics" are published every week. In my opinion an article without overwhelming equations to back it up as Maxwell did is weak. Reuven Nir published "Mishka" in the pre-internet era. Nowadays, within 10 minutes of playing, he would discover that he was actually just courting Lesage, saving himself the trouble. He is not the only one.
Experimentation is in a different league, with experimentation it's hard to argue. This is my direction now.
Good night.
Israel:
I must admit that I did not go into the details of the model, but many times it happens that different realities lead to similar mathematical solutions (for example - all types of waves/oscillations) are described by similar equations.
I think that usually a fact is also a fact and if the solution is suitable for calculating the movement of waves but does not fit the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of the state of movement in relation to the medium then we are necessarily in a situation where we got correct equations from a wrong model.
I must say that I also answered the questions you claim to have asked and remained unanswered, and in my opinion the answers I gave are completely correct. That the answers did not put your mind at ease is beyond my control but I feel you are fine.
Regarding the reluctance to present a theory that you do not know if it is true - I am sure that I will not tell you anything if I say that this means that you will never publish the theory because you will never know.
Michael
I am not presenting my "theory", because I am not at all sure that I have one. At the moment I only have questions, and the question of the logic of having a rest system for the site is only one of them. When I posed this question on the site a year ago, I was almost convinced that I would get a simple and trivial answer, like your solution to the third "irreducible" property of perfect numbers.
No one answered except Mahud who briefly stated that a rest system is natural for us. Correspondence I had with physicists, some of them well-known, did not help to solve the question of the conflict that apparently exists between Einstein's relative time and the absolute time resulting from the big bang. In fact, each one came up with a different answer, and they all contradict each other.
I also post questions on various physics websites, but the results are poor.
To write an organized article about a theory that I don't even know if it is true seems to me to be bullshit. I prefer to ask questions and experiment. I don't know if they will lead to anything, but it's a big scoop, not to mention the sense of purpose.
Well, then just one tiny question that will require 2 minutes of thought:
If you took a look at Maxwell's site model:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Do you think that such a detailed and accurate model could have produced equation 136 if it was fundamentally wrong?
Incidentally, this is the same model from which Maxwell's differential equations were derived. So everything is virtual?
As far as I know Maxwell died (young) believing that his model describes reality and not an image.
poker.
boss,
According to Glick, not only did Newton doubt the blind faith in God, he was also among the few who dared to investigate the essence of the "Holy Trinity" and risked encountering the Inquisition.
He was one of the driving forces behind the Anglican Church. His preoccupation with religion and God was just as obsessive and profound as any other subject. I believe he knew and understood the subject much better than many of us, and this absolute skeptic of any subject and previous belief would not have put an unnecessary brace on himself.
I don't know what his considerations are in his pious faith, but I believe that the "spirit of the times" is not the reason. Even Descartes before him doubted everything, including belief in God. But Descartes was afraid of the Inquisition, Newton was not afraid of anything (except women...).
An open and infinite system has problems that would be a preferred rest system. I have uploaded some of them before. But in any case, if it has no problem having a preferred rest system, why would an infinite straight line have a problem if point 0 is preferred?
Israel
Aristotle believed in 5 elements, not 4. And yes, he believed in a lot of nonsense - because he didn't check. Just an example I remember - he believed that men have more teeth than women, he didn't even bother to check how many teeth his wife had in her mouth………….
Newton also believed in nonsense - he assumed that God existed, and never doubted it.
And no, I'm not saying that an infinite and open system should be a preferred system. I said I don't see a problem with having such a rest system.
Michael, I just read your comment.
Halas heaviness, what happened to you, Ashkenazi you suddenly become us?
Well, I'm taking the woman to Lantz, in the meantime tell a joke to the forum.
In Yiddish!
Ghosts, Shmulik.
The first chapter of "The Trial of the Second Law" appeared at the time in Galileo Monthly. You can find it on the Ministry of Education's machinery website (applause!).
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3
Here is the sequel:
The law came to its senses. "Well, so be it, I don't intend to harm your freedom of belief. Good, there is a God! Can we go home already for God's sake?"
"No," said the prosecutor firmly. "The question you are on trial for still remains open: why does entropy increase over time?"
"Look" said the law in Liot. "You may enjoy this circular academic debate that really leads nowhere. I explained to you that it just happens. probability. What in the name of all demons and spirits can I do so that you at least tell me why you think it's my fault?" Law raised his voice in frustration.
The prosecutor and the professor exchanged glances.
"Well!" The law demanded.
"You just said that."
"I said what?"
"demons and ghosts"
"So what?"
The prosecutor's voice hardened. "Defendant, do you admit that you and you alone are responsible for increasing entropy in the universe?"
A. Yes.
That. To increase human suffering?
A. Yes.
That. for diseases?
A. Yes.
That. to old age?
design.
That. to death?
A. Yes Yes.
That. For mechanical malfunctions of all kinds?
A. Yes Yes Yes!
That. Have you heard of the devil?"
The audience was horrified.
A. Yes!
That. Do you know the purpose of Satan?
A. Yes!
That. Can you tell her to the court?
A. Increasing human suffering, causing disease, old age, death, mechanical breakdowns..
That. Thanks. Professor Leibnovitz, as a mathematician, could you tell the court the equality rule?
"Two things that are equal to a third thing are equal between them" recited the professor piously.
"Thank you professor. Accused, do you admit that you are actually the devil?"
The crowd froze in place in horror. Here, we know what the second law is accused of, and there is no greater guilt than this!
"Am I a devil?" The law was amazed, "Of course not! Judge yourselves," he addressed the audience in a plea. "Do I seem to you to be capable of hitting a fly?"
"Don't believe him," cried the prosecutor, "the devil is known as a tempter and deceiver, and as someone who can take any form that suits his needs. He has already admitted that his goal is to cause a mess to celebrate."
"You are wrong" the law called above the storm in the courtroom. "I did not admit that it was purposeful, I said that it just happens, and without proof of intent you cannot prove guilt, unless you accuse me of criminal negligence - the accusation is fundamentally unfounded, by all accounts."
"Oh!" exclaimed the professor. "I proved to you through mathematics and geometry that, contrary to your claim, order in a system can increase and entropy can decrease."
"But I come from the realm of the laws of physics.."
"Especially in the world of physics!" The earth started as a hot lump of lava - and see it now! All blooming and confusing, inhabited and industrialized! Wouldn't you call that a decrease in entropy? Had it not been for the intervention of the Almighty, it would have remained a cold world and died like the rest of the promiscuous planets to the merciful grace of the second law!"
"True, but this is not a closed system!"
"That's exactly the point!" The prosecutor raised his hand to incite the agitated crowd. "In every system there is a conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil - between God and Satan - between the Almighty and the second law of thermodynamics - and when the hand of the Almighty prevails, the second law will immediately take care of a new system that has not been able to escape its clutches. This is not negligence, mistake or blind chance. There is a method, purpose and malicious intent here! Stop with your ridiculous impudence - plead guilty immediately and ask for the mercy of the court, or I will accept your punishment with genius!"
"But I'm innocent! It's simply a probability - the devil is in the small details - countless details!"
"a lie! lies and falsehood!" The professor slammed his fist into the lectern in anger, which caused the lectern to turn on its axis 180 degrees, and the professor found himself to his horror on the other side of the lectern and this time as the accused, and in front of him the second law of thermodynamics, a feline smile spread across his face from ear to ear.
"Oh, Leibnovitz, Leibnovitz," muttered the law towards the professor and the terrified audience. "What have you done this time, Leibnovitz?"
As he sprawled in his chair, a glass of wine by his side and he was looking over a pile of newspapers dealing with the trial, the prosecutor allowed himself a small smile of satisfaction.
From all corners of the country, from all shades of the rainbow of opinions and the various currents in the population, sharp-edged writers called out and rushed to defend their beliefs and ideas and throw catapults at each other. And as usual in such cases, even in his words about others, each one himself is a miracle. Soon the public debate spilled over and turned into a debate about the very validity and completeness of mathematics.
"Court drama! The second law was compared to Satan!" - The main headline of "The Completeness of Mathematics" announced - "Professor Leibnovitz was able to prove that, contrary to the claim of the second law, the order in a mathematical system can increase when we add members to the system, and the entropy, as required, decrease."
"Vanity and ill will! The math is far from perfect!" The feeling of the editor of "uncertainty". "Already in the 0s, Kurt Gadel showed that there are many theorems in mathematics that cannot be proven. Even the pinnacle of Newtonian mathematics, the infinitesimal calculus, rests on chicken's knees. What kind of completeness can one expect from a Torah whose cornerstone is the forbidden division by XNUMX? Release the law immediately, along with a letter of apology for the prosecution's ignorance."
"insolent! contemptible! reckless!" The editor of "Our Father in Heaven" was enraged - "Isn't it enough that the promiscuous second law is mainly rebellious and apostate, he also enlists for his help the twisted theory of evolution? He must immediately fall on his face, reflect on his actions, and ask for the forgiveness of the Almighty!"
"The second law is absolutely right and Leibnovitz is just confusing the mind" - the scientific commentator of "Epicurus" mildly explained. "Already Boltzmann in the nineteenth century showed that the reason for the second law is probabilistic - the thermodynamic system simply 'travels' between all possible states, and what can we do that there are many more states of disorder than ordered states? The professor's ridiculous claim to 'order' is like turning the spotlight on the individual winners of the lottery, and ignoring the many thousands who didn't even win a penny. Come on, Leibnovitz, get better."
"Here we have a great leader in the person of Professor Leibnovitz" enthused the editor of "Principia Mathematica", "a far-sighted visionary who will renew Bertrand Russell's old quest to establish a perfect and flawless mathematical structure."
All this was summed up by an anonymous person who quoted the high priest of number theory, Andre Weil: "God exists, because mathematics is consistent, and Satan exists, because we cannot prove it."
The plaintiff poured himself another glass of wine and held it up in a gesture of silent congratulation.
"Long live the scheming rabbi" he blessed himself in his heart. "Long live the great manipulator of the court walls. The various parties are blindly clashing with each other, just as my original plan envisioned. They don't know - and it's a good thing - that the results are predetermined, and all the cards in the deck are marked. Whoever has the power to determine the composition of the jury, like me, can deliver a verdict as he wishes."
With a smug look, he began to look at the monthly that bore the name "Psychomechanics News" and felt how the blood in his veins slowly froze.
"Until the nineteenth century" - wrote a man called "the man of psychomechanics" - many scientists tried to build a "perpetum mobile" - a machine fed by the energy it itself produces. This hope was shattered with the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics.
The next step was the attempt to build a machine that produces energy directly from heat - by utilizing the heat energy stored in sea water for example. This hope was also shattered with the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, which requires a reservoir of heat at a low temperature to produce work from the system, and rules out the possibility of an overall decrease in entropy.
"We believe that similar laws apply to human systems, meaning that improvement in one system must cause deterioration in another system. The "second law of psychomechanics" - the law of increasing human entropy in closed psychomechanical systems - is the reason, in our opinion, for the destabilization of so many of the great scientists, who paid with their mental health and even their lives for the enormous contribution they made to humanity. Intellectual luminaries such as Boltzmann, Leibniz, Gedel, Hardy, Turing, Cantor, and even the mythical Descartes and Newton."
The prosecutor continued to read frantically until he reached the paragraph that caused his heart to skip a beat and the glass to drop from his hand.
"We believe that in the current trial for the second law of thermodynamics, the prosecution will not succeed in reaching a conviction, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the composition of the jury. The reason is that jurors, isolated in a room, constitute a closed psychomechanical system, and therefore any decision they make, whether acquittal or conviction, means reducing their own psychomechanical entropy. In-depth observation combined with psychomechanical analysis of the second law, as evidenced by his behavior and reactions in the trial, clearly indicate that the psychomechanical entropy of the second law of thermodynamics cannot be increased. Therefore, according to the second law of psychomechanics, the jurors were condemned to remain in a permanent state of inability to decide."
Maybe the second law isn't so innocent after all, the prosecutor thought bitterly as he took his place in front of the stand waiting for the resumption of evidence and cross-examination.
Miracles.
When Newton did alchemy he believed he was doing serious science. Scientists claim that Einstein engaged in nonsense in his last years. Aristotle believed there were only 4 elements, and was wrong about all of them. Did Aristotle also engage in nonsense?
Which are nonsense in retrospect. At the time they were considered very serious.
I don't believe in God because I don't see any proof of his existence, but if Newton did it makes me wonder if such a genius saw what I'm missing.
The claim that this was the zeitgeist is not acceptable. At the beginning of the renaissance, the heretics abounded, before and after Newton. According to Bruno, an ardent fan of the heliocentric theory, Galileo and more.
And for our purposes: can you explain how Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light from the ether model if the model is wrong?
Can you explain why an infinite open system should have a preferred rest system?
And you can call me simply Israel. You've already done this a few times.
Israel:
All this talk about Newton's nonsense was not my initiative and when you asked about the nonsense mentioned by others I explained what they meant. I also think that it is wrong to judge a person without referring to the period in which he lived, and I refer with the same degree of laughter to the "proofs" brought by rabbis who claim that he believed in God (and therefore everyone should believe like him).
More than that - I think that even those who talked about Newton's nonsense did not do it to judge him but to show that knowledge is advancing and in this context it is correct to present Newton's beliefs as nonsense.
Not only others - I am also interested in your theory, but you do not present it at all, so how can it be treated. That's why I wrote that you need to present it in a scientific way because it is difficult to refer to the conclusions of an unknown theory and as long as you don't present the theory - presenting the conclusions is hand waving.
There is a big difference between the "selling" you do of something that no one knows what it is because you don't present it and the advice I give in the relevant contexts to read what I think about this or that subject including all the substantiation I have for my thoughts. Contrary to what you say about your theory that no one knows what it is - all the things I have to say on the topics I mention on the blog are written in it and anyone can read and decide if they agree with my reasoning or not.
I must say that I do not understand the feeling of hurt that you convey in the response that you directed to me.
Israel Shapira
Newton thought that there is friction in space and the planets should fall into the sun - but there is a God who gives them a slight push from time to time.
Newton was engaged in alchemy for many, many years and even had a laboratory for this nonsense.
Oh – and Newton believed in God…..the ultimate bullshit
R.H. Rafai.M
Michael Rothschild thinks you're an idiot. I said that Michael is right.
I asked you a serious question and instead of answering you attacked me. Why?
Israel
Your merchandise has more potential buyers than his has only interested parties.
And whoever blocks you will get a report.
What about your never ending story? Is it over yet? A rally in the sun that brought a black board and chalk.
Michael.
Newton was a very serious scientist as we all know. He did not engage in "nonsense" as I understand the term. At the time, alchemy and astrology were considered serious science. He studied the subject just as Einstein and many other scientists tried and are trying to find a grand unified theory. Many things can be said to be nonsense in retrospect, including the MM experiment. At the time they seemed perfectly legitimate. The result test confirms ideas that at the time were considered nonsense by many good people - an ethereal gravitational force acting from a distance (Newton came to the conclusion that this is possible through his practice in alchemy, see Glick), the Hertz experiment to prove Maxwell's theory (the recommended teacher did not believe the trick, to send mysterious "electromagnetic waves" between 2 points, will work), continental migration and more.
We are all wise in retrospect to know what is true and what is not (see Mr. Nachshon). But there are some exceptions that are simply hard to ignore.
Contrary to the skeptical attitude towards the theory of attraction, when the "Principia" came out, all of Europe was shocked. Its acceptance was immediate among science circles. The reason is that it is very difficult to argue with quantified mathematical proofs. And this is exactly what Maxwell also brought in his website article: quantified mathematical evidence for the existence of molecular vortices. Deriving the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism.
Regarding "my theory" - I'm not trying to sell anything. I came up with an idea to solve a problem as I see it, and stated that I don't know if the solution is correct or not, most likely not.
You have the right to ignore my words and wishes. You also have the right not to read my words. There may be those who are interested - Shmulik expressed his interest in my stories of the second law, miracles and B in the invertibility of the site.
However, I am not trying to "sell" anything to those who are not interested. The only time I described "my theory" was a year and a half ago, due to R.H.'s express request. So far no one, including you, has proven any error in what I say, neither on the ether nor on the contradiction between the big bang theory and Einstein's relativistic time.
I am no more "selling" or "waving" than she is selling the "cart of a secularist" and waving her conclusions. In terms of quantity - much less.
(Will I be blocked now?)
Miracles
You wrote: "R.H. Rafai.M
By the way, Machal is right"
You accidentally slurped the word Machal into the comment.
Israel:
Three brief comments:
First note:
Newton was wrong about many things (such as his involvement in astrology and alchemy) but it really doesn't belong to any matter, so you didn't understand what they were talking about.
All in all, there is a troll of a troll here who is usually called "ghost" Shemanges and since he talks nonsense - the reference to him also often seems nonsense.
Second note:
Regarding Maxwell - even if he used the ether model, it is now clear that the ether is not necessary to carry waves.
It was an image that worked up to a point and failed.
Today, no one is looking for some medium to transmit Heisenberg's waves.
Maxwell himself also progressed beyond referring to the exact features of the site.
for example In this link You will find the following text:
Maxwell had however expressed some uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of his molecular vortices and so he began to embark on a purely dynamical approach to the problem. He wrote another famous paper in 1864 under the title of A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in which the details of the luminiferous medium were less explicit. [A 3]
Third note:
It seems to me that you are "running" to sell your theory on a popular science website too soon and by doing so you might just hurt yourself or others.
I really suggest you sell the theory in the scientific circles first or at least publish it in a scientific way here instead of waving its conclusions.
What a liar…. But what, managed to work on me
Mr. Nachshon (you guessed it right) of the tracker had a method for guessing 13 games in Toto: he would count the lamps, multiply by the length of the bumps, and put the neighbors inside. It has to come out.
That's how he guessed the results by himself 18 times in a row.
Could it be that Maxwell's site model is also just a successful case? Have you passed the model?
Well, I'm busy right now counting protruding and neighboring lamps. It seems to me that this is the fastest way to bring Tamacca.
By the way, where did Newton go wrong? And when did he talk nonsense?
Newton was also wrong.
And yet most of the world uses his equations….
And the believers are wrong, but I digress...
Miracles.
What I am saying is this: until Einstein, the concept of the ether was a cornerstone of every physical theory. Maxwell, from the Newton Maxwell Einstein trilogy, was able to show that not only is there an ether - he even showed how it works and how the speed of light can be extracted from it from hydrodynamic considerations of pressures, vortices, molecules and currents.
If the ether model was far-fetched or wrong, it would be impossible for us to get the speed of light from it.
Einstein arrived and ruled: there is no site.
So how did Maxwell manage to be so beautiful if there is no website?
A bit of trivia: even many years after Einstein published relativity, many physicists continued to believe in the site. Among them Lorenz, Michelson and Morley.
However, the reason Einstein rejected the ether idea is that it requires a preferential rest system. This does not agree with the principle of invertibility, and with the fact that the speed of light is the same for every meter.
What I'm trying to show is that there can be a system that leaves the ether, and still the speed of light in it is the same for every measurer. I proposed one idea - a system similar to Maxwell's ether model but completely open as an infinite homogeneous and isotropic location requires. This does not mean that the idea is correct - most likely it is wrong for reasons I do not know - but there could also be other models.
The advantage of my model is that it is relatively easy to simulate it on a computer. It also gives unexpected side results: gravitation according to Lesage but without the problem of friction (the main problem with Lesage), inertia, and the possibility of non-locality.
It also has another advantage that can be tested experimentally. That's what I'm trying to do now, even though it's not easy at all.
And it is also possible that someone who knows and understands the subject, will show me where the mistake is or the way in which the problem was solved by others.
Miracles
Of course, Makhal is right.
And all the other mathematicians are wrong too.
And you know what you're talking about.
my life…
Eric:
You might be interested in reading what I wrote here:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=601:%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2-%E2%80%93-%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A3-%D7%95%D7%9E%25
R.H. Rafai.M
Gee, Michael is right.
Israel
what are you trying to say???
http://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94
Miracles
But do you agree that the sponge of the existing universe is not isotropic with respect to velocities? Does it have a certain rest system?
So why this one? Why discrimination?
I have shown you that this assumption leads to countless questions.
Ockham holds: There is no preference.
Have you looked at Maxwell's site model? Equation 136? Do you accept that it is inconceivable that Maxwell would have been able to extract the speed of light from the model if it is wrong?
So how can you say there is no website?
for what? You still don't understand...
Even if they tell you this in human language.
R.H. Rafai.M
Say "I want coffee" in math...
Israel
The "sponge universe" is indeed homogeneous and isotropic. It is the same everywhere and in every direction - there is no necessity for it to be the same at every speed. The whole idea of velocity invariance is later.
The response is pending... apparently there are mathematicians who do not like being made aware of their mistakes.
Gee, the mathematicians, the neck bones, those….. the amount of nonsense they sometimes spew…. According to Avogadro...
Miracles
If you don't understand what language is and what mathematics is, you are welcome to read here:
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hYCAy5SYE4A8nJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbDBrMTJiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDI1MF8x/SIG=13lokfmg0/EXP=1378775938/**http%3a//cms.ed
ucation.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/56D4BD7B-A345-411A-9B74-350AA3013481/137123/Unnamed5.doc
And here:
http://www.limudi.co.il/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%98%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91/%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
(Quote from the link: "...according to many, it is that mathematics is a basic language in science...")
And here:
Mora-mathemat.com ("Mathematics is also a language")
And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKdxqEgeTsk
And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtupAb3n4wM
And I even asked a math teacher (I won't mention his name) and his answer was: "Mathematics can be defined as a language. But it would be more correct to be a pseudo-language".
And you are even invited to explain all this to Uncle "Retard" Dresden.
Pleasant reading.
Miracles.
"You wrote "I don't know any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds." And you also wrote "but what reason is there for preferring a certain speed in an infinite system". decide"
it's simple. I don't know of any field that doesn't have a preference for certain speeds, just like I wrote. (Do you know? Give an example).
Then I wrote: "But what reason is there to prefer a certain speed in an infinite system".
This is a new and unfamiliar field. Have you ever heard of such a field? I do not.
So here is my decision. I don't know, but here is a new one.
"First thing - you assume that the universe is infinite. If this assumption leads you to a contradiction, and your inference method is correct, then replace the assumption....”
I assume nothing. I claim this was the picture of the universe in 1887. No? And this picture brings a contradiction with the idea of a preferential rest system.
"Second thing - there is no contradiction in the idea of an infinite field that has a rest system. Again... the example of an infinite sponge does not cause any contradiction.”
There is no contradiction, but it is not an infinite homogeneous and isotropic system. I have shown you that such an assumption (even though there is no contradiction in it) leads to a lot of questions about the cause of the lack of isotropy.
Einstein wanted to call relativity the "Island Difference Theory". His assumption was that the universe is indeed homogeneous and isotropic. So why prefer one rest system over others?
And that's why I said: Ockham insists: "There is no preference for certain speeds". Just for symmetry reasons.
Monday, woman, breakfast.
Israel
You wrote "I don't know of any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds." And you also wrote "but what reason is there for preferring a certain speed in an infinite system". You decide 🙂
First thing - you assume that the universe is infinite. If this assumption leads you to a contradiction, and your inference method is correct, then replace the assumption...
Second thing - there is no contradiction in the idea of an infinite field that has a rest system. Again... the example of an infinite sponge does not cause any contradiction.
No problem, Michael. It is good that there is free will in the world.
(What, there isn't?)
Miracles
??
Shmulik
To be continued.
Michael Rothschild
Some try to treat mathematics as a language. They don't exactly understand what language is, and/or what mathematics is...
Israel
Forget about it. You don't even consider what you yourself say 🙂
Israel:
Unfortunately, I am very, very busy these days and will not be able to extend the responses.
Says only one thing:
I mentioned that the histamine molecules are at rest relative to the shrigin molecules.
You want me to give them speed in relation to them and I simply say "I don't want to".
Oh Israel,
How many more episodes until Yom Kippur?
ב
My usual question to you:
and….?
Michael.
What is missing in Etherin is Spidin.
Nothing in your shregin is in motion.
Choose any point in the lattice and call it the beginning of the three-dimensional axis system, 0,0,0.
The giant to infinity of molecules will form an arc of velocities from minus infinity to infinity in all directions (you can settle for less than infinity, but for the sake of argument we will use infinity)
Note that at any given moment, sthemin molecules also pass through the 0 point at completely normal speeds, some of them are even stationary relative to it.
Now, if we start from the assumption that above a certain relative velocity, the molecules will have no effect on a mass of material located at the 0 point (a completely reasonable assumption, even too fast neutrons have no effect on a uranium 235 nucleus, only the slow ones explode it), we have accepted that in terms of the material only a limited spectrum of speeds is relevant . For him, a gas is a normal gas at a speed of 0.
Now take another block of material that moves at a certain speed relative to the 0 point (for the sake of demonstration - in the positive direction of the X axis).
As far as that block of material is concerned, it is in exactly the same state as the first block. He can determine that he is actually at a new point 0,0,0, in a system that is in motion relative to the previous point 0,0,0. There is no difference between the two. Although he is in a gas, nothing opposes him (there is no wind) and he is at rest as far as he is concerned.
When will he encounter resistance to histamine molecules? If he tries to speed up. But once it reaches a constant speed, it will stay there forever, because in all respects it is at rest relative to the gas. (not closed on the subject of acceleration).
What will happen to the embryo wave in Sethimin? It will always move at the same speed relative to the origin, because every moving point is exactly the same as every other point.
If we eliminate the collisions between gas molecules, we will get gravitation according to La Sage but without friction (every body is stationary relative to the gas, why would there be friction).
It is possible to send information at any speed we want, including infinity, because the molecules move at all speeds.
We therefore received:
1. The same wave speed for each meter.
2. Inertia.
3. Gravitation.
Feasibility of non-locality.
If you don't see it, the model can be programmed on the computer. It's not too complicated. The key point is the "ballistic pendulum" - the plausible assumption that above a certain speed the molecules stop having an effect (those who don't believe it will shoot bullets at a block of plasticine hanging on a string. The slow ones will move it, the fast ones won't.
Maxwell.
"Maxwell developed a system of formulas that unites all of Faraday's tangible findings.
He is actually the man who gave the findings an orderly mathematical structure and actually built the theory of the electromagnetic field."
and did so while using a hydrodynamic model of the site. Currents, eddies, molecules and pressures.
"Among other things, he calculated the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves and obtained some formula."
Not just any "formula". He simply took the formula that calculates the progress of a sound wave in a gas, the so-called "hydrodynamic modulus:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C
replaced the stiffness coefficient of the material with the electric dielectric coefficient and the density of the material with magnetic permeability
. Maxwell made an analogy between the density of this medium and the magnetic permeability, as well as an analogy between the transverse elasticity and the dielectric constant, and using the results of a prior experiment by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch performed in 1856, he established a connection between the speed of light and the speed of propagation of waves in this medium.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
And so he got the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Formula 136.
So here we see that the well-known Maxwell equations and also an exact calculation of the speed of light came from a hydrodynamic model of the ether, from the assumption that it is a sine wave advancing in Molecular Vortices, just as a sound wave advances in gas molecules.
And my question: is it possible that he hit the speed of light out of such a detailed and complicated hydrodynamic model (almost 200 equations!) and the model is incorrect? And if the model is correct, how can there be no website?
Known throughout the history of physics for another case of such unlucky luck?
True, Bohr succeeded with A0 distance in his first and incorrect model of the hydrogen atom, but this is a minor error. In the case of the Maxwell model, it is simply impossible for such a model to give a correct result for the speed of light if the model is incorrect.
And the model is the website model. Currents, eddies, molecules and pressures, hydrodynamics. (Seventh time, I know, but we must emphasize).
Michael, are you beginning to regret entering the infinite loop? If so, point me out, I'm not offended. R.H. The poor man tired me for two months until he gave up and disappeared forever.
Israel:
I think you're just messing around.
Although everything I said is true, but let's move to another image.
I assume you know what a knit is but for the sake of all readers I will briefly describe the knit I want to talk about.
You can build such a lattice in any number of dimensions.
Let's start with a straight line, arbitrarily determine one point on it, and mark it and all the points that are a whole distance from it with a color. These points are the one-dimensional lattice.
We will continue to the plane, select a straight line and build a two-dimensional grid on it.
We choose in a plane a straight line that passes through one of the points of the two-dimensional lattice and is perpendicular to the first line and we choose the point of intersection with the first straight line and all the points that are at a complete distance from it as points in the two-dimensional lattice.
Now we will pass lines parallel to the first line through all the points of the lattice in the second line and also lines parallel to the second line through all the points of the lattice in the first.
We select all the intersection points created as lattice points.
I assume you see the picture - it's simply an infinite tapestry of square vertices (where every side of a square is shared by two squares and every vertex is shared by four squares)
In a similar way, a three-dimensional lattice is constructed as the vertices of cubes.
So far I have only described a mathematical structure.
Now let's assume that the site has an infinite three-dimensional lattice where all the points of the lattice are made of the material "Shrigin".
Let's further assume that the rest of the points of space are filled with a "satamine" substance that is at rest with respect to the "shrigin" points.
May I think about such a site? Yes!
Is there anything inconsistent about it? No!
Is there a system that deserves to be called a "rest system" on this site? for sure!
Should we choose a specific point as the origin of the axis? of course not!
Have more questions about it? I hope not.
In relation to our understanding of Maxwell:
Maxwell developed a system of formulas that unites all of Faraday's tangible findings.
He is actually the man who gave the findings an orderly mathematical structure and actually built the theory of the electromagnetic field.
Among other things, he calculated the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves and obtained some formula.
This formula did not include the speed of the source or the destination and one could raise the question "What does the speed he received refer to?"
This question didn't come up because people thought this speed was the speed relative to the site.
It is not known how much Einstein was aware of the Michaelson Morley experiment when he developed special relativity. Probably not particularly. One of the hypotheses regarding what gave him the inspiration to develop this Torah is that he realized that actually this is not about speed in relation to the site but rather speed in relation to any viewer that we want.
This is our new understanding of Maxwell.
Israel:
Two parallel number axes move relative to each other.
At the zero point of one of the axes, an observer stands and measures their speed relative to each other.
Where is the problem?
Michael.
We both agree that the MM experiment was designed to determine the resting state of the ether, right?
A rest system of air or water is actually the vector of the average of the velocities of the molecules in a certain volume that we are testing, agreed?
Let's compare it to known rest systems:
Rest system of stagnant air - KDAHA.
Ocean rest system - as above.
Wind rest system - wind speed relative to the earth. A resting system of a river with different cross-sections - varies according to the speed of the flow.
But in any area, the rest system is the average speed of the molecules in that area, agreed?
This is why if we are on a raft in a river and we cannot see it because of the darkness, no matter how fast we are sailing (the river narrows and widens and so does the speed of the water) it is always at 0 speed relative to us.
This does not mean that even a single water molecule is at 0 velocity relative to us - in fact they are at many different velocities - only that their average velocity is 0 relative to us.
The constraint that requires the air or water to be at 0 speed relative to the ground is gravity. If the air is in the plane, its speed is 0 relative to the plane.
So much trivia. agreed upon?
We will take an infinite system.
Infinite spaces, infinite amount of molecules, infinite speed distribution.
This is more or less the picture of the universe in 1887. Maybe not an infinite amount of molecules, but certainly not a limit on speeds (Einstein was barely born).
Why then would such a system have a rest system - which, as mentioned, is the average of the speeds of all the molecules?
The question I addressed to you: What is new in our understanding of Maxwell?
All physicists are bogans, all chemists are pedants, and all mathematicians are neck boners.
(I hate generalizations).
Miracles:
Rafaim claimed that mathematics is a language.
For example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-12/#comment-445865
The illogicality he uses throughout shows that he personally can probably only use it as a language and his misunderstanding of Drazi's parable (until this moment!!! even after all the explanations!!!) raises a sad smile.
I pointed to the response in which he said that mathematics is a language and there were other responses in which he defended this claim but seeing that it was not defensible he decided to try to obscure the facts and if you ask it is a sign that his strategy of rewriting history is working on some people.
Israel:
I can't understand what's bothering you.
Did you not find an answer to your question in my words?
I saw that you wrote that you addressed a question to me, but I was in no hurry to put my grom neck in an endless loop, but if I didn't miss some response, then it seems to me that I actually included him in this discussion (by the way - I think he really is a grom and I ask myself how you know that 🙂 ).
The truth is that I get the impression at a glance that you attribute my words on the subject to miracles.
Why can't we find a site rest system?
And the Michaelson Morley experiment was not designed to find the zero point. no and no! It is designed to find only the rest system. In this rest system, we could place the zero wherever we want, provided that it is at rest in relation to the site.
I brought a parable of air - do you have a problem with this parable?
Imagine that the ether was composed of massive particles, the passage through which would create a feeling of wind on the earth (and of course also friction that would knock it off its orbit around the sun, but the parable is only meant to demonstrate one idea).
Couldn't you change the speed of your movement in space until you don't feel any wind?
In doing so, wouldn't you find what can be called the "rest system of the site"?
You don't feel wind, but the thought that a wave needs some "material" to move in led them to the invention of ether as a material that can carry the waves but does not create friction.
If no wind is created then how can you find what is the rest system of the site?
They thought that measuring the speed of light in different directions could reveal it (and it would indeed reveal it if it showed a different speed of light in different directions - see the example of air and sound waves).
In an isotropic temperature field there is indeed a preference for certain speeds. I don't know any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds.
But what reason is there to prefer a certain speed in an infinite system? And if this, why not another? And if it is random, why would it be spread over the entire space uniformly and not change randomly?
A million questions. Ockham incisors: there is no preference for any speed.
Israel
Think of an isotropic temperature field - everywhere and in every direction the field is uniform. But - if you are in motion then you will find that the temperature changes. Isotropic does not talk about speed.
Miracles.
You're right, but you don't have to.
Do you agree that a sponge whose speed is different for each snail is not isotropic?
B.
Even a regular bath sponge doesn't do what you said. Universe sponges - even more so.
The speed of the sponge can be zero relative to the infinity of snails.
Israel Shapira
Coordinate system of velocity? And what about a coordinate system of accelerations? You can invent what you want...
If your sponge has fast and slow snails moving in different directions, each snail will measure a different speed to the sponge, and there may be snails that measure 0 speed.
In terms of a coordinate system of velocities, the infinite sponge is not homogeneous. It has an arbitrary 0 point.
I can also imagine an infinite straight line that is at 0 velocity only relative to one gauge and moving relative to the others, but it is not isotropic.
One can of course say that the universe is infinite but not isotropic and homogeneous, but this raises a series of questions about the cause of the asymmetry.
Yes, provided each snail moves across the sponge at a different speed…….
QED Shu?
Any snail moving across your sponge will measure a different speed relative to the sponge, won't it?
Beautiful …. Here you have a preferred rest system. QED
Sorry.
I imagined.
and…?
Israel Shapira
You don't even address my comments so why should I read your links? 🙂
….I asked you can you imagine a universe made entirely of sponge, which is homogeneous and infinite? Is there a logical contradiction in this?
Miracles
my question:
"How can an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe possibly have a preferred rest system?"
Purpose of experiment M-M:
The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.[1] It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
No "Michelson and Morley's experiment was not designed to find the "rest system of the ether". It is designed to find at most one system where the site is at rest. But that's not accurate either. The correct description is:
The experiment was designed to measure the effect of the speed of the earth's movement relative to the site on the speed of light relative to the site." As argued in, and not "the maximum speed of information transfer does not depend on the reference system. By chance, light moves at this speed, and this is what experiment M-M showed", as you claim.
Very simple: check the speed of material movement through the ether ocean. And the ocean has a preferred resting system (the Earth in the case of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Mars if and when it had oceans).
You too, like B, don't browse the links?
Israel Shapira
It is possible to show in a thought experiment that the maximum information transfer speed does not depend on the reference system. Coincidentally, light travels at this speed, which is what the m-m experiment showed.
Einstein only did thought experiments...
Israel Shapira
One can imagine an infinite and homogeneous sponge. do you agree to this
And he found?
Israel:
Michelson and Morley's experiment was not designed to find the "rest system of the ether". It is designed to find at most one system where the site is at rest. But that's not accurate either. The correct description is:
The experiment was designed to measure the effect of the Earth's movement speed relative to the site on the speed of light relative to the site.
This description is true and appropriate even if the site is in some traffic. He just checks the difference between the movement of the ether and the movement of the earth and that's all. It is not at all about the rest system of the site.
Miracles
First, your claim also implies that if the universe is infinite and homogeneous, then a MM experiment cannot discover the rest system of the ether, right?
Second, if the universe is not homogeneous, this poses a new series of questions about the nature of the island of homogeneity: Is the Milky Way's environment an area where the "ether ocean" has a rest system, the same rest system that the MM experiment tried to discover?
And if so, what is it affected by? Solvents? Because then we will get different rest systems according to the distribution of masses for the milk.
And what is beyond the Milky Way? Is there no site rest system there? Or does the same rest system exist ad infinitum?
So many questions. Elderly Ockham rambles and adjourns: There is no preferred resting system for the site.
But if there is not, then the MM experiment cannot discover the rest system of the ether, and is therefore illogical.
He really didn't find out…
Einstein's conclusion: there is no site.
But this is a bit of a hasty conclusion in my opinion, hence the question I addressed to Michael.
Although it doesn't seem to me that he is in a hurry to put his neck in the endless loop...
I did not understand
Who claims that mathematics is a language?
It's good that the retarded David Drazi didn't replace the word language on TV, then according to his logic it was clear that he was talking about a mathematical parable.
And I apologize to the retards for comparing David Drazi to you.
David Drazi
grow up ….. what's wrong with you?
Israel Shapira
If there is a preferred frame of reference (ie: the ether) then the universe is not homogeneous in a certain sense. Where is the problem here?
His situation is more bleak than I thought... Why should I lie, everything is laid out before us? A parable is not difficult to understand or, in fact, it is complicated for some...
With all due respect (and no respect), ghosts, you are the one who did not understand David Drazi's words.
Have you heard of the term "parable"?
He took the word "mathematics" in the responses of both of you and replaced it with the word "man" and showed that the exact same combination of arguments (the one you used to show that mathematics is a language) can be used to "prove" (my eyes) that man is a language.
Just as you did not understand the difference between mathematics and the language of mathematics - the figure in the parable did not understand the difference between man and human language
David Drazi
You are not only retarded, you are also a liar.
Can you show where I wrote, as you say: "Man is a language!" ?
The fact that you don't understand what language and mathematics is is your problem, not mine.
See a conversation between me (David Darzi) and a retard (ghost):
retarded:
Man is a language!
David Drazi:
The definition of language:
"Language is also used for communication purposes by passing verbal messages from an addressee to a recipient, any person who knows the sounds, symbols and grammatical rules of a certain language can create sentences"
"Language is a tool for thinking and creativity helps the act of thinking by allowing the use of concepts and ideas for cognitive processes such as inner speech.
Language can allow a person to sail into the world of imagination, like in a symbolic game in childhood or reading a novel in adulthood"
"Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract"
Most of the settings here are light years away from humans! I skimmed through the discussion and read "ghost" comments? It's easy to go down on another person without identifying with cowardice on their behalf... and the arguments (if you can define them as "arguments") are at the elementary school level... sorry for the "ad hominem" but if a person is retarded I won't vote for it?
retarded:
David Drazi
You are welcome to vote for yourself as retarded, because you gave the impression that you yourself did not understand what "language" and "person" mean.
You wrote: ""Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract" -
Doesn't sound like human language to you? If not then you are really stupid.
And how do we know that you are really David Darzi and not Yossi Alfonso who hides behind the name David Darzi?
Miracles
"God was invented to explain why things happen and not how they happen" - you probably missed the first chapter of the Tanakh where it is written how the heavens and the earth were created.
David Drazi
You are welcome to vote for yourself as retarded, because you gave the impression that you yourself did not understand what "language" and "mathematics" mean.
You wrote: ""Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract" -
Doesn't it look like the language of mathematics to you? If not then you are really stupid.
And how do we know that you are really David Darzi and not Yossi Alfonso who hides behind the name David Darzi?
"There is no equivalence between the existence of a homogeneous, isotropic and infinite space and the determination of zero on an infinite straight line.
Determining the zero (that's what you do - you don't find the zero but determine it) on an infinite straight line is a special case of determining a coordinate system."
And this is exactly the problem, in my opinion, with the MM style experiment in a universe that is considered infinite and homogeneous.
Because he did not come to determine the zero point arbitrarily as we do in a Cartesian axis system, but he came to discover the natural rest system of the site.
This is possible if the universe is not infinite and homogeneous, but impossible if it is.
Sound waves move in its system an arbitrary rest system - the earth in the case of thunder, an airplane in the case of messages from the captain, the wind vector in the case of wind.
But what if the system is completely open as in the case of a non-infinite and homogeneous universe? If, as Nissim says, "I can easily imagine an infinite, homogeneous universe in which there exists a site that provides a reference system" - then why precisely this reference system and not another? Where is the homogeneity?
Michael, what is the significance that we now know Maxwell's equations had?
The definition of language:
"Language is also used for communication purposes by passing verbal messages from an addressee to a recipient, any person who knows the sounds, symbols and grammatical rules of a certain language can create sentences"
"Language is a tool for thinking and creativity helps the act of thinking by allowing the use of concepts and ideas for cognitive processes such as inner speech.
Language can allow a person to sail into the world of imagination, like in a symbolic game in childhood or reading a novel in adulthood"
"Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract"
Most of the definitions here are light years away from mathematics! I skimmed through the discussion and read "ghost" comments? It's easy to go down on another person without identifying with cowardice on their behalf... and the arguments (if you can define them as "arguments") are at the elementary school level... sorry for the "ad hominem" but if a person is retarded I won't vote for it?
From what is on the site, I think that "space" is empty and made of nothing, but the particles move back and forth in time many times and therefore feel a kind of "space"
Israel
Michael explained nicely. I can easily imagine an infinite, homogeneous universe in which there exists a site that provides a frame of reference.
Israel:
No.
There is no equivalence between the existence of a homogeneous, isotropic and infinite space and the determination of zero on an infinite straight line.
Determining the zero (that's what you do - you don't find the zero but determine it) on an infinite straight line is a special case of determining a coordinate system.
It is a way of naming the points on the line but it is not a way of determining them.
Also in mathematics, when you deal with Euclidean space using a certain coordinate system, you treat that space as a static space, and this is also the basis for the transformation you do in replacing a coordinate system whose entire function is to enable the representation of that space in another coordinate system.
Imagine that the universe was indeed infinite and full of this kind of ether, and imagine that light was moving at a constant speed relative to the ether.
It is not possible?
why?
Sound waves travel through the air at a constant speed in any direction, regardless of the size of the air body.
If you defined the rest system as one where light waves travel at a constant speed in every direction it would make perfect sense.
Then you would set the system of axes in it as you see fit, provided that it is also stationary in relation to the site.
Of course, in practice none of this is possible because the Michelson Morley experiment showed that there is no preferred system because at all points, regardless of their relative motion, the speed of light is constant in all directions, but if we ignore Michelson Morley and if we forget the significance that we know today had for Maxwell's equations, there was no determination of this kind problem.
A sound experiment with sound waves, if it had been carried out (and also in an air body of infinite size) would have allowed us to identify a preferred rest system without any problems and then determine the system of axes in it to our heart's content.
This is indeed the Olvers paradox - the space is not homogeneous.
On the other hand, do you accept that in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic space, an M-M experiment is illogical?
Israel Shapira
So they thought there was no after the Milky Way. That is, the space is infinite - but it is empty and therefore meaningless. That is - the Milky Way contains all the stars and should actually provide a reference system. I think the MM experiment is only to confirm that the site is indeed in relation to the Milky Way.
If the universe is not considered infinite, then what is after the Milky Way?
Israel Shapira
I don't understand the problem. First of all - I don't think the universe was considered infinite then. Much later they thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe, so where do you claim otherwise?
Second thing - if they thought that the distant stars do not move, and as far as I know they did, there is no logical problem here.
With your permission, another question.
In 1887, the site was considered an existing fact, like gravity and Newton's laws. The image of the universe was of an infinite universe both in terms of the dimension of space (there are no limits) and in terms of time (it has always existed and will exist forever).
The Michaelson Morley experiment came to discover the rest system of the ether.
But here, in my opinion, a logical problem emerged: how can an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe have a preferred rest system? It is said that Michaelson would have found her, and announces at a press conference that the Leo constellation is at rest relative to the site.
Why this one? Where is the homogeneity?
Isn't finding the rest system of the ether in an infinite and homogeneous universe equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line?
Or maybe because of Olbers reservation the universe was not then considered infinite and homogeneous?
Since there's no way that Maxwell, Lorentz, and Michelson didn't think about this very point, I'd like to understand the logic behind the m-m experiment.
Michael
I agree with you that there is no connection between mathematics and God….. God was invented to explain why things happen and not how they happen.
Good. Now after attempts to rewrite the history made by ghosts it is really hard to understand. That's why I voted on the comments that ignited it.
It might be because I couldn't understand what the argument was 🙂
Miracles:
I never said that mathematics is a language.
Whoever said that is a ghost.
I was talking about the laws of mathematics.
Obviously rabbits don't calculate Fibonacci numbers and cicadas don't check primes either.
It is also clear that the stars do not calculate their course.
It is also clear that when I have two apples and I give them to someone - there is no calculation here that the apples in my hand make to be zero apples.
All these are things that do not belong to the claim on which the debate revolved, even though they are gradually trying to obscure it.
I said that mathematics per se is a human occupation. And I said it's like physics, chemistry, blah blah blah….
I say that there are probably numbers in nature, but I don't think it's "mathematics".
And again - I don't understand why it's interesting? If there is mathematics in nature, it must not be a language. I distinguish between these 2 concepts. I don't think the rabbits calculate the size of the next generation using the Fibonacci series…….
Well, since everything appears here and now there are those who are trying to rewrite history, you are invited to read the relevant comments.
My comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-11/#comment-445832
What ghosts answered her:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-12/#comment-445865
Miracles:
You only referred to one line in my response and all you said about it was "could be".
It is no longer the same "obvious" as it was before and thus there is already progress but it still ignores all the rest of the response.
And again I repeat:
The phenomena that were (and still are) present in nature - and those that man defined as mathematics - are natural phenomena. and do not depend on the person.
But before man defined them as mathematics he defined them as God. And before he defined them as God - he did not define them at all. Just like the cicadas. Man simply lives them. And when he developed he also tried to understand and define them.
Michael
7 is truly primary, but it does not necessarily exist in nature. You give the example of the cicadas. To say that they discovered that 13 or 17 are prime is a human interpretation of what happens in nature. We decided that this is why their cycle is like this. We don't really know what the source of the phenomenon is.
It could be that the numbers really have meaning, as you mentioned. For example - for the concept of parity or elaborate polygons in the theory of crystals. But - what does it matter to anyone?
I see that Makhal continues to invent things for me that did not exist and were not created.
But now he agrees with my opinion. (probably because he really understood where he was wrong in his claims)
By the way - it's interesting that Rafaim - finally - in his mischievous way - actually accepted my opinion.
He said that the laws of mathematics (which is the only thing I talked about and which he attacked in the first place) had always existed and were just called by different names.
So it's true - he also writes nonsense there that I would never write because they never called mathematics by the name "God", but from a fundamental point of view he suddenly completely accepts what I have been claiming all along.
In fact - his claim is now dwarfed by the claim that the decision to call it mathematics is a human decision.
I completely accept this and I can certainly imagine a world where mathematics would be called "Zirpol" and a prime number called "Karchov".
In this world, some of the people (the smartest ones) would specialize in Zirpol and others who specialize in discrediting them would claim that they do not understand what they are talking about.
Miracles:
I know the opposite.
Many people know the opposite.
That is to say - it is clear that the person deals with mathematics, but he had no possibility to decide that the number 7 is not prime.
The laws of mathematics exist in nature long before there were humans.
I mentioned the mathematician and cosmologist Max Tagmark who even went so far as to claim that all of reality is nothing but mathematics.
I mentioned that the cicadas discovered the prime numbers without our help and I can mention quite a few systems in nature that discovered the Fibonacci numbers.
What is beautiful about mathematics is that predictions calculated using it (including those that have zero in them. Including even those that involve complex numbers) turn out to be true.
This could not happen (and it happens again and again at every turn) if mathematics was not something real that exists in reality.
Israel
What Makhal is trying to show is that mathematics is hidden in everything in nature.
But that's only because he's a mathematician.
Aristotle didn't think it was all mathematics. (But between us who is Aristotle versus Machal: just a dispatch)
Israel
Do you want me to explain the explanation? So why don't you ask what you didn't understand? Why do you attribute your lack of understanding to me?
OK. In other words:
Do you want to get rid of the minus in the bank? The simplest: die.
There is another option: to make money; earn a living; work. But for that you need to exist first of all - as a person.
Do you think the cicadas that 'discovered' the numbers in nature called it mathematics?
What man discovered and called mathematics are phenomena that before he called them mathematics he called them God.
Therefore God also exists, doesn't he? And even before math!
It's a shame you argue like idiots. It is clear that mathematics is a human invention, just like physics, chemistry, biology, music and football. These are all areas of occupation, areas of interest. None of them exist without humans.
Let's take a small part of mathematics - number theory. Looks simple and seems to exist in nature. But no - it is not even clear today if concepts like "zero", "one" and "two" exist in nature.
Israel:
Regarding evolution - it is not entirely clear to me why you wrote what you wrote, is it a reference to something I said?
In relation to entropy:
A closed system with time-reversible laws (which, as mentioned, is not the case in nature) will return - if you reverse the state of its components - to the previous state in which it was.
There is no question of probability here. The past that was is the one you will return to. If the past was orderly, it will return to orderly state. If the situation was messy she will return to a messy situation.
The thing about the universe is that there are initial conditions (see it's a wonder) only at the beginning.
As far as we know, the world does not work "toward" anything.
That is why the second law of thermodynamics exists.
Ghost.
I'm trying to understand what you meant when you wrote "man invented the orderly mathematics to explain in an orderly and logical way the phenomena in nature. It is not nature that arranges itself according to mathematics, it is man who decides on the order (and what it is) in nature as he sees fit."
It seems to me that the meaning is that mathematics does not exist without man, just as art does not exist without man.
Since you don't explain, I try options. Did you mean that negative and imaginary numbers do not exist in nature but we use (at least negative) everyday? (See the minus in the bank).
The simplest way to explain it is this.
Michael.
The explanation of evolution to create a complex order is survival mutations and selection. My intention is that a highly complex order can possibly develop spontaneously from a simple order even beyond random fluctuations. The example I gave: a simple arrangement of consecutive numbers (little order) that spontaneously leads to the phenomenon of perfect numbers (greater order)
Regarding the second law:
In a closed system there is no loss of energy due to heat, and in principle if we take 3 states of a system in state A the entropy is low, state B is higher and state C is the highest, then it is statistically clear that the tendency of the system is to increase entropy, and therefore to spontaneously move from state B to C .
From exactly the same considerations, her tendency is not to move from state B to state A.
We did not say which of the three situations is past, present or future.
Now, if we apply Newton's laws to the revolutions of the arrow of time regarding the past or the future, it seems that, theoretically, entropy should also increase in the direction of the past.
In practice, it only rises towards the future.
why?
The solution you proposed: "The second law is a law that can only be distinguished because of the initial conditions in which there was much order" is only one solution. In the nineteenth century, when the idea of the second law was developed, the term "initial conditions" had no meaning. The universe is considered eternal, always was and always will be. Poincare, a mega-mathematician, proved mathematically that entropy must decrease at some point.
And I ask: if we take a very simple and closed system, where there is no relation to the explosion and the only applicable laws are Newton's laws which are reversible in time, why doesn't the entropy also increase in the direction of the past?
In fact, when you delve deeper into the same passage with Galileo, you also see what is meant because there it is explained that the philosophers of that time saw mathematics as the language of nature or even the language of God - that is - exactly the opposite of the idea that Rafaim tried to hang on to it as if it were a human invention
Unlike you, ghosts, I make sure to tell the truth.
I identify myself by my name and not by dozens of aliases, I admit when it becomes clear that I was confused, and I don't try to throw sand and garbage in the eyes of mankind.
I said it's an image title because it's an image title. I guess you are currently trying to convince the readers that this is not a photo caption but you forget that anyone can go to the link and see what the truth is.
To save people some of the effort, I will quote here the beginning of the explanation that is there for the question of what mathematics is.
This explanation also has a continuation and nowhere in the explanation is mathematics described as a language. This is nonsense that only appears as a picture title.
"Mathematics is the field of knowledge that deals with concepts such as quantity, structure, space and change. Some present it as a science of patterns (common patterns), and that mathematicians look for patterns: in numbers, in space, in science, in computers, and in imaginary abstractions [1] [2].
Mathematics developed from stock, calculation and measurement and from the systematic study of shapes and movement of tangible objects. The knowledge and use of basic mathematics has always been a natural and essential part of human and group life. Generalizations of the basic ideas can be found in the mathematical texts produced by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks and Muslims. Already at an early stage, three characteristics that accompany mathematics to this day stood out:
Abstraction: Although the origin of some of the mathematical objects is in the real world, the mathematical discussion of them involves considerable abstraction. The number 5 may represent 5 stones or 5 apples, but mathematics deals with number as an independent entity, which does not represent anything. The circle reminds us of round tangible objects, such as a wheel, but geometry deals with an abstract circle, weightless and volumeless and perfect in form.
Generalization: Mathematics examines its abstract selves with a broad vision, while searching for their general characteristics. The concept of number includes within it a series of generalizations: transition from natural numbers to whole numbers, from them to rational numbers, from them to real numbers and from them to complex numbers. Each of these number systems contains the system that preceded it.
Proof: every mathematical claim must be proved, that is, justify the correctness of the claim through a series of inference rules. The mathematician makes new hypotheses, the truth of which he must establish through formal deductive proofs arising from axioms (basic assumptions that state that they are true), and definitions chosen accordingly[3]. Formal proofs first appeared in Greek mathematics, and especially in Euclid's "Fundamentals".
The development of mathematics continued, in an unorganized manner, until the Renaissance period in the 16th century, when mathematical innovations interacted with the scientific discoveries of the time. This led to an acceleration in mathematical research, and at the same time a rapid expansion of mathematics as an independent science began. These two directions of development continue to this day[4].
Mathematics is used as an essential tool in many fields, including natural sciences, engineering, medicine and even social sciences such as economics and psychology. Problems originating in other branches of science continue to be a catalyst and driver for new mathematical discoveries, and sometimes entirely new mathematical fields develop as a result. At the same time, mathematics develops as an extensive and independent branch of knowledge, without reference to its application in other branches of science, although practical applications are often discovered later for discoveries that began as theoretical mathematics only."
In fact, there is another quote from Galileo who spoke about the mathematical language and called it "mathematics" when he wrote the following sentence:
"Philosophy - after all, it is written in the great book spread before our eyes from time immemorial - I mean the universe - but we cannot understand if we do not study the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. This language is mathematics."
But it is clear to anyone with two or more neurons that this is a metaphor.
Michal's stupid (and false) responses are actually what is called "a mathematician's apology". Only he doesn't know how to apologize because he's too proud.
I'm really tired of you.
You will not stop making excuses to justify yourself when you are wrong.
Good thing you didn't say it wasn't an illustration at all but a collection of computer logarithms.
moron.
Of course he also brought other links where even this stupid title does not appear.
And among us - every sane person knows that mathematics is much more than a language and the fact that it also has a language is because the ideas have to be written in some way and the spoken language is not effective in expressing mathematical ideas
Typical of ghosts!
Please read the link and see what is written there.
There is a picture with the title "Mathematics is language" and there is the encyclopedic entry that explains what mathematics is (which is far from being a language) so Rafaim chooses to base himself on Meyer's unfortunate title instead of the encyclopedic entry.
idiot!
The liar whose words are refuted from response to response - from Kal, writes:
"Anyone can check, for example, if he didn't try to explain to us that mathematics is a language.
Anyone can also check and see how he brought to confirm his words links that show that mathematics is not a language."
Like this link? :
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94
Where it says: "Mathematics is a language"?
I was really confused and thought a ghost asked the question about which mathematician was talking nonsense.
The reference to ghosts at the beginning of the response was perceived by me as the name of the sender.
Getting confused - happens - to ghosts it never stops happening even for a moment
The tireless liar continues his lies.
He simply does not understand himself what he is saying and when it is explained to him then he says that he did not say it, but everything is documented - that is what is beautiful here - anyone can check, for example, if he did not try to explain to us that mathematics is a language.
Anyone can also check and see how he brought to confirm his words links that show that mathematics is not a language.
"I said Rafaim thinks he is a mathematician because when I said he was talking nonsense he asked ""." - Here is another nonsense said by a mathematician.
Of course, the one who asked "which mathematician spoke nonsense" was a miracle worker.
But as I wrote in the comment above - Makhal has no problem starting to lie and write nonsense, if only to make himself appear to be right - even when he knows himself that he is wrong.
His method is to attribute to the commenter things that were not said - as if they were said by him, and then try to hit him in the mouth with them. This is a well-known method used by Ahmadinejad, for example, when he says that there was no holocaust and then tries to convince the world that the Jews actually want to take over the Palestinian lands.
I said that Rafaim thinks he is a mathematician because when I said he was talking nonsense he asked "what mathematician talked nonsense".
It is clear to me that he does not consider himself a mathematician for the simple reason that he does not even know what it is to think.
True, they did not talk nonsense in the field of mathematics. But they were mathematicians who talked nonsense (as I wrote).
Just like the math lover who talks nonsense when he is confronted about his mistakes and he is not ready to admit them. So he starts to poop out of his mouth.
The truth.. Newton also talked a lot of nonsense.... But both of them didn't talk nonsense in the field of mathematics...
Miracles
Kepler (the genius) in his book "The Cosmic Mystery" for example. (It is true that after that his knowledge improved - which is in contrast to Makhal, whose arrogance causes increasing stupidity).
"And the fact that a ghost thinks he is a mathematician is really a joke" is really a joke sentence. I don't consider myself a mathematician because I'm not a mathematician. I'm not religious either. And I'm not Ethiopian either. But that doesn't stop Makhal from trying to hit me with false pretenses and in the end finding out that he himself gets a headache as a result.
But everything is actually clear - after all, no one except healers understands anything, so a bunch of people who don't understand anything chose another one like that - Big Deal!
Do you remember the story about the man who is driving on the freeway, talking to his wife on the phone and hearing on the radio about someone who is driving in the opposite direction from the one he should and tells his wife "Everyone is an idiot over there on the radio - one is driving in the opposite direction? Everyone is driving in the opposite direction!”
And that a ghost thinks he is a mathematician is really a joke
This Tagmark is such an idiot and so ignorant of his own life (and especially does not understand physics because he is not just an idiot but an idiot mathematician) that he was elected to serve in American Physical Society
R.H. Rafai.M
Which mathematician talked nonsense?
I'm debating whether to respond to this nonsense or just say yes
Israel
"You mean something style: outsiders didn't have a decimal counting system for example? That they wouldn't use imaginary numbers or logarithms, but they had other calculation methods?" - What nonsense. How did you get to that?
Can you show where I wrote that?
You are attributing things to me that I did not write and did not mean. (just like Michael does when he discovers that he was wrong but is not ready to admit it).
A sentence like: Everything is mathematics - you would expect to hear from a mathematician such as: Everything is God you would expect to hear from a religious person.
In both cases it is an argument based on ignorance.
Throughout history there have been mathematicians who talked nonsense, no need to add another one.
Nature is more than mathematics.
I will now read your story.
By the way - the independence of mathematics from time is of course another evidence that its laws are rooted in reality more deeply than the other laws of physics.
He didn't just come Max Tagmark to the conclusion that it is possible thatAll reality is nothing but mathematics.
Israel:
Ghost didn't mean anything concrete.
He simply wanted to oppose me and as usual this forced him to say incorrect things.
The universe has always behaved according to the laws of mathematics, but in order to oppose me he had to resort to demagoguery that says that mathematics is a language and then say something like "extraterrestrials would call the numbers differently" and this even though I explained to him that it was not a language.
The laws of mathematics play an important role in nature - even in biology and it is no coincidence that even the cicadas discovered the same prime numbers that we discovered.
In relation to the entropy claim - It seems to me that you are wrong on several levels:
One plane is the plane of physics:
In my opinion, the arrow of time exists anyway (and as mentioned - not all laws of physics are symmetrical in time).
You are welcome to read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_symmetry
You will also see there that, as I said, the second law is a law that can only be distinguished because of the initial conditions in which there was much order.
The second level is the level of "applicability of the law":
The law applies to dynamic physical systems - not to anything else.
It connects different states that the physical system will find itself in at different times.
The natural numbers are not a dynamic system in the sense that there is no time-dependent change in them and therefore the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant for them.
Even if the law was relevant - it would not tie the numbers according to their size but according to time.
Shmulik
The opposite is true: the second law is subject to mathematics.
And it is not only applicable in thermodynamics despite the name. There is no field in physics - mechanics, electricity, quanta - that is not subject to the second law.
Due to demand, here is the beginning of the chapter "Leibnovitz and Gedalhiu". Note that the sections presented so far are in reverse order.
As the time for resuming the evidence approached, the plaintiff's mood improved. "How wise and talented you are," he said cheerfully to himself and patted Nablus himself. Anyone can win a trial where they have an advantage. The real trick is to defeat a reasonable, or even better, owner.
It is true that on the face of it it seems as if the second law prevailed over him in the first round - first on points and finally with a knock out - but as time passed and the dust settled, a completely different and much more optimistic picture began to emerge.
"Oish, Oish, Kuskushon", the prosecutor playfully tapped his chin. Here is where we can express thirty years of experience, years in which he made a name for himself as a fearless fighter for the preservation of law, justice, and order. Yes yes, there are a few more tricks kept in Tibi the good old prosecutor's bag..
Undoubtedly, he - the second law of thermodynamics - proved his advantage in the realm of the laws of physics, but what is this? What's the big deal? May he continue to his heart's content to debate and argue about the speed of light and nuances to the theory of general relativity. The verdict will be determined by flesh and blood jurors, which he, the prosecutor, is responsible for selecting. Jurors are human, err, hurt, suffer, do not forgive. Do they really care if the force of gravity is inversely proportional to distance squared or squared? What jury of women will decide - and unanimously! - To win the law knowing that acquittal will determine them in a situation of a short life and seven years of irritation that will end in death?
He still kept in his pocket the copy of the preliminary hearings held with the law concerning the jury. "You can choose whoever you want" - the innocent law told him - "provided that before the sentence is handed down, they sit on the bench in a closed and isolated room for at least 24 hours, as befits jurors of justice." If these conditions are met, I will accept their ruling without appeal. "Aren't you going to be a part of the jury selection?" asked the prosecutor in disbelief. "No, for what?" replied the stupid law. "If I am right, I will be entitled, and if I am not right, I must, right? Pick you jurors as you wish, I am not interested in the human factor. For my part, you can wait with the selection until the testimony is finished." And what about carrying out the sentence? Who will implement it if you lose?” "If I am not right and I lose in the trial, the sentence will be carried out immediately by a powerful authority which you will learn to recognize during the trial"
"Rightly" the prosecutor imitated the law with importance, the "human factor" passed away with subtle disdain as the law did. "You fool! Do you not perceive that the same "human factor" you despise so much is the one who will engrave your sentence, to the tribe, and "justice" will be the least of his considerations?"
This is probably how it is when you spend too much time among exact and strict laws of nature. You lose touch with life, with people. Let's let him believe that he's winning.. Let's let him prove with formulated and overwhelming scientific arguments any fact of nature he desires.. any logical argument he wants... we'll send him the best scientists and lecturers. We will not tell them that the battle is lost in advance, that they have no chance of defeating the law with knowledge or scientific debate.
Finally, as jurors, we will count the poor, the afflicted, the weakest and the most oppressed, because there is no doubt that the trial will convince them that only the second law of thermodynamics is solely to blame for their situation, and the only chance for improvement is a unanimous conviction of the law.
"Right" the prosecutor grimaced in disgust. Does the second law really believe that if he only succeeds in proving to the class that he is right in his claims and proofs, the same thing will change for someone whose entire life is suffering insult and rejection? And what kind of justice is this at all, considering that the law is indeed responsible for the miserable lives of the future jurors?
"Who is Mom's genius?" The prosecutor pinched his cheek affectionately. A genius and generous and cruel, he grinned to himself and filed a reminder to send a greeting card to his parents, for the success. "I will show him what justice is. Justice is a relative concept, each person and his justice with him. My justice is a trap in which the more you prove how smart, understanding, fair and "just" you are - yes, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. Perhaps in the natural world the bodies must blindly obey absolute laws revealed by justice in the academic debate, as in the case of Galileo. But in my court, with my jurors, we are the ones who decide in the law what is right, and our friend the second law of thermodynamics, who from the beginning of the trial has not stopped talking and being interviewed on every subject and in every field, from Sudanese dance classes for preschoolers to the theory of quantum gravity, will soon be forced to close his big mouth - and shut it tight..
In his mind's eye, he compared the closing speeches of the prosecution and the defense: he, the prosecutor, breathes fire and gizzards, explaining to the jurors that the whole tragedy of their lives and that of the other victims of fate, has one and only cause: the second law of thermodynamics. Then he will show the jurors the obligation of the law to accept their decision without appeal, he will describe to them the wonderful life that awaits them if they convict the law, he will smile generously and turn to listen to the speech of the law's defense - essentially a surrender - of the law. Because what can the law claim in its defense? which is the most fundamental among the laws of nature, and which has no substitute? Trite, boring and irrelevant. It has already been proven that it is possible to organize much more successful laws. Guilty. What if the speed of light was smaller? Really shocking. legally liable Will they be threatened with a bitter fate? You chose the least suitable audience for threats. At the point where they are right now, their situation can only get better. Will make promises? same as above. Will he ask for mercy? Your story, kind law, is interesting and touches our hearts very much, but wait until you hear our story if you want to know what a real tragedy is. guilty, guilty, convicted.
Secrecy must be maintained, the prosecutor looked suspiciously at the parties as he entered the courtroom. No one is allowed to guess the plot. Not the witnesses, not the jurors, not the media, and least of all the second law of thermodynamics... and certainly not the new prosecution witness, the sharp and quick-tempered Leibniz, the fresh cannon fodder in the game that no one but me knows is addicted...
With confident steps, the prosecutor stepped up to the stand and began his investigation of the second law:
Israel, what am I missing here?
Nature does not "speak" mathematics, but we manage to model it, under many assumptions and neglect in a good way. through mathematics. I'm not convinced it's the same thing. It is indeed true that mathematics is deeply integrated into the physical universe, but the second law is closely related to the generation of heat due to friction whose direction is irreversible and the arrangement of numbers on the number line is not, so I still do not understand why mathematics should be subject to the second law.
Anyway, the story is still intriguing and cool. More!
You mean something style: outsiders didn't have a decimal counting system for example? That they would not use imaginary numbers or logarithms, but had other methods of calculation?
But do you accept that we would all agree that pi is the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of the circle, that 3, 7, and 11 are prime and that if Yatzek had also added the number of tails he would have had to divide by 5?
I'm just making a small comment: if Yatsek counted 4 cows, when each of them had 3 legs (for one reason or another) - he would get a nod from the barn manager.
And regarding your "never ending story": are you quoting it from somewhere?
If you thought it was "Matt". So you were wrong.
This is Khomeini.
And he is angry with us...
By the way about the chess question, do you know what comes after chess?
And tell Isaac your librarian (if he is still alive) that it is shorter to count one head of cattle than its four legs.
Israel
You probably didn't understand (or you intentionally "don't understand"). I did not claim that mathematics depends on the person. I claimed that man invented mathematics and that mathematics did not exist before man (as you claimed).
Man invented mathematics to describe nature in an orderly way (let's say we'll call it logical).
As the language of mathematics describes nature in the best and most logical way - so man discovers (according to mathematics) that nature really does not depend on man.
As I wrote: nature is as it is.
With confident steps, the prosecutor stepped up to the stand and began his investigation of the second law:
That. Defendant, could you tell the court why you always increase entropy?
A. no reason It just happens.
That. But why? Is it impossible to leave her as is? reduce it?
A. Possible, but unlikely.
That. What does it mean?
A. The laws of mathematical randomness give an extremely low probability of decreasing entropy.
That. i don't understand You claim that mathematics, the most logical and orderly structure, is the cause of increasing disorder? Does that make sense to you? The prosecutor addressed the audience sarcastically. The audience whistled in contempt.
A. Yes.
"I don't believe what I hear," said the prosecutor in disgust. "But I am not a professional mathematician. I would like to call Professor Leibnovitz, head of the Gauss Institute for Arithmetic Research, to testify."
The law is filled with gaiety. "Beauty! A mathematician will surely prove my claims and my rightness. I like mathematical proofs. I wish this would be proof in the negative way, these are my special favorites." He leaned on the back of the chair expectantly.
Professor Leibnovitz took his place at the lectern and opened the door. "Apparently, the law is right. In terms of purely mathematical probability, there are many more states of disorder to the system than states of order."
The law modestly smiled a little as he said: "Well, didn't I tell you?"
The professor pulled out a sealed pack of cards and opened it in front of the audience. "See? The cards are in a state of maximum order. At first the face series, when the cards are arranged sequentially from the smallest to the largest. After that is the heart series, then the clover and finally the diamond series when they are all arranged in the same way, from the smallest to the largest."
"Now, if I shuffle the deck lightly, the order in the deck will decrease. There will indeed remain small series of cards that will "stick" to each other, but the order in the deck will decrease, and will continue to decrease as I continue to shuffle, until it reaches a state of maximum disorder, or entropy."
In his speech, the professor shuffled the cards in front of the audience, while the law gloats from his chair.
"The same thing will happen to a tidy room in which a gusty wind blows. The level of order will decrease over time. If we photograph the room in different situations and then mix the images, we can always arrange them back in chronological order according to the state of disorder in the image: the greater the mess or entropy in the image, the later the image. Do you agree?”
The crowd roared in agreement, while the law beamed with happiness.
"This is also why the arrow of time is defined as the direction of increasing entropy. In nature, in a closed system, as time passes the entropy increases, or unfortunately remains constant. Only in rare and special cases does it decrease.
The reason for this is pure mathematics. There are simply many more possible states that are high in entropy, than ordered states."
"parable." said the law with pleasure. I knew the math would expose my innocence!"
"Not true!" said the professor. The math proves exactly the opposite! it's your fault!”
"what?" cried the law "You have just proved to us that entropy must always increase for pure mathematical reasons of probability!"
"True, but this is only a partial picture! The question still remains open: why?"
"It seems to me," said the law coldly, "that you explained it well with the example of the deck of cards. "There are many more high-entropy states than ordered states" - he quoted.
True, but why does entropy turn in the direction it chooses over time? Why doesn't shuffling arrange the cards in the deck instead of messing them up? Why doesn't the wind arrange the room? Why don't we get younger with time instead of aging?”
"It's all my fault, as usual," muttered the law.
"Exactly" agreed the professor. "You are quite a mess. You only know how to cause a lot of trouble. Is there any other explanation why entropy always increases with time? Newton's laws of motion do not require this! If we feed a computer the data of a certain star system, it will be able to predict with great accuracy its condition in a thousand years - but also its condition a thousand years ago! Why doesn't this equivalence principle also apply to a thermodynamic system?"
"Like you said, the math.."
"Oh!" The professor was enthusiastic. "In this matter you made a mistake, and I can demonstrate this if a blackboard and chalk are brought to me."
The audience stretches in their seats in tense anticipation, as the sun shakes into the portable blackboard auditorium.
Michael
Cows - in the meadow.
Camels - in the desert.
We had in the barn Jacek the librarian, who would calculate the number of cows in the herd with lightning speed. His method is simple: count the number of legs and divide by four.
Ghost.
I believe that no matter what extraterrestrial intelligence we come into contact with, we will all agree on the same numbers as primary.
Which demonstrates my argument for the independence of mathematics from man.
skeptic.
Maybe I didn't make the idea clear enough. This is not just philosophy, there is a parallel here between evolution and number theory. I may have a mistake and I would like you to point it out.
The main idea of evolution (in my understanding) is the creation of a complex order from a less complex order, the creation of an order from a less order. The second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most basic of the laws of physics, states that the tendency of things in nature is from more complex to less complex, to mess. Professor Leibnovitz in the story tries to show that even with the numbers it is possible to go from a small order to a large one, and this is contrary to the law's claim that mathematics requires a mess (see below).
Here is his claim:
"All numbers, large or small, whether whole or fractional, positive or negative, rational or irrational - can be entered in ascending order between minus infinity and infinity. It could be expected that such a simple arrangement would not lead to any particularly neat pattern - because what have we done after all? We put 1 at the beginning, followed by 2, 3, and so on."
Indeed, minimal order. In total we recorded: 345,789………………..1,2,3,4
And here he continues:
"From this completely simple order, a much more complex and interesting order was created. It turns out that there is no end to the cunning sophistication with which these seemingly simple numbers can be arranged. Take for example the phenomenon of perfect numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself."
Now, I believe we all agree that a phenomenon like the perfect numbers is a more complex order than the mass series, right? But it could not have been created if we had not provided the system with the same minimal order, i.e. consecutive numbers. Those who do not believe, should try random series without minimal order, and see if he can get a more complex order.
I believe the parallel to evolution is clear.
What is the reason for this spontaneous development of a more complex order? For religious people and creationists the answer is clear: God created everything, including mathematics, numbers and zebras.
For those who believe in intelligent design, the answer is not so sharp and clear. The planner can be an extraterrestrial as well as a computer, not necessarily a passive and holy entity. And in addition, unlike the religious, the intelligent planner did not create mathematics. (Am I right? I've never seen material addressing this question, but it makes sense to me).
My claim here is that an order, and even an elaborate order like the elaborate numbers, can be created spontaneously from a loose order, and there is no need for an intelligent planner to create it.
Every chess player knows that if you have a good opening, the game flows much easier and smoother than if you have a bad opening.
What is the minimum number of moves to check?
(Don't look at Wikipedia!).
Miracles:
Your description actually proves that there was competition for resources.
Otherwise the long legs would not have to wander.
More than that - it is clear that in the area from which they fled there were short-legged animals that could not escape and suffered from it.
And even more than that - natural selection - as I have already said more than once - it is also the rate of reproduction - in fact it is mainly the rate of reproduction.
Also according to your method and despite the mistakes - all in all what you described is evolution so it is not clear how you want to conclude that at a certain point there was no evolution but something else.
And yes - it's a completely classic evolution - nothing special.
ארי
It's a little hard to understand, but selection (natural or not) actually slows down evolution. What does selection do? It prevents the multiplication of certain organisms: it always decreases the rate of vision.
I deliberately gave the example of the toads in Australia. Despite the stubbornness of my scholar friend Michael, they do not suffer from a shortage (unfortunately), but they do change. There is an interesting point here - they develop in a process that is not exactly evolutionary :). What happens is that the long-legged toads simply migrate faster and get farther. So it turns out that in Western Australia, which is the limit of their progress today, there are toads with longer legs. But (!), these toads suffer from arthritis - so it's hard to say that the toads are "developing".
In short... it's a bit complicated for me to explain and I see that it really sounds inconsistent... but it shows that there is development even without a shortage. Development without choice (selection). And at the stage of the beginning of life, it is much more likely to me, that life could not begin in classical evolution. And the reason is, again, that in the beginning all the conditions for evolution could not have been met.
Israel
I didn't say that you can communicate with extraterrestrials through mathematics. I wrote that it would be possible to produce a (new) language through mathematics, and with it (the new language) it would be possible to communicate. Like technology for example. which basically consists of the mathematical language.
All this, of course, on the condition that there really are extraterrestrials and that they will communicate with us at all.
I went through the second article I brought and it shows how inextricable complexity can be created, randomly, by excessive complexity (the concept is also mentioned in the Wikipedia entry). The inextricable system was obtained from a more complex system, each step of which is explained, and then in the last step part of the system disappears and the system becomes inextricable, and by throwing it at Shoton, the task assigned to creationists, to prove that Shoton is a system of inextricable complexity, is even more difficult because they also have to reject all The paths that lead to Shoton from systems are more complex than Shoton, but each step is well explained. Successfully.
At the principle level, it is clear that the existence of components with inextricable complexity can be explained with the help of an intelligent observer, who is not God, and to say that he himself developed in an evolutionary way (otherwise there is an infinite regression here) and somehow did not pass through inextricable complexity and beyond that this explanation cannot be refuted, It may go without saying that the reason creationists came up with the idea of inextricable complexity is to reach the intelligent planner who is God, since they are not really interested in reaching the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
In Wikipedia, under the entry IR, it is claimed that even if there is inextricable complexity, this does not necessarily mean evolution or an intelligent designer and that this is a false dilemma, but unfortunately, Aref did not list additional options. The only other option I know of is the one Wolfram brought up. He claims that under natural selection there is a deeper principle (cellular automata) but I was not able to find out exactly what he is talking about and the absolute majority of scientists do not accept his claim. I hold the opinion that if it turns out that there is inextricable complexity, which contradicts evolution as we currently understand it, I will bet that a naturalistic theory will emerge that will contain this fact before we jump to the conclusion that an intelligent designer must exist for it. I will suspect the existence of an intelligent planner if they demonstrate that there are systems in nature whose existence contradicts conservation laws.
Israel, here is the story (relive the age of 16 for a few minutes):
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Anyway - as I said - whether evolution starts immediately or not is an unimportant question.
Life will not be created before evolution begins, so in terms of life - what created it must be evolution.
Eric:
Indeed, these things that Nissim said are not consistent with the rest of his words, so I ignored them.
After all, his whole intention was to show that there is a possibility (and even more likely than the alternative, in his opinion) that evolution will not begin immediately, because if it does begin immediately, he has no ethical argument.
Regarding the question of space - think about the layout of the duplicates.
Those in the center have nowhere to replicate.
Besides - as I said - the competition for resources is also the competition for the ability to use them better in order to produce more offspring.
Michael
Regarding Nissim's words:
He wrote '.. and this enabled very rapid reproduction and therefore rapid evolution'. I did not understand this sentence.
Regarding your words:
There can be a situation where resources are unlimited in a certain period of time. is not it?
You also wrote:
"It's definitely possible that I have a large space to spread out in it, but still - those who are good at competing are the ones who win." If I and the rest have a large space to spread into, why do I need to compete for resources?
informative.
I don't want to repeat myself over and over again.
Where is the struggle?
These toads, and humans too, multiply exponentially.
Miracles:
In the examples you gave there is a struggle for resources and as mentioned - a struggle is both for space and for the ability to use the resources better in order to reproduce more.
Michael Rothschild
The question is how a process so simple and so clever as evolution created those who do not understand it....
ארי
I gave some examples where there is no shortage of resources (today). If this is happening today, there is no reason to be so decisive that 3.5 billion years ago there could not be a similar situation.
Miracles:
That's why I said that I think you exaggerated when you said that nothing would come of it (in the future).
On the other hand - the question is whether we even want to create creation 🙂
And in any case, as I said, such a phase of unrivaled multiplication would not have changed anything fundamental. Even if in the beginning there is no competition, later on it must be created.
If the mechanism allows changes (and it must allow this if it "intends" to develop ever in the future) then the changes can be for the worse - such as the loss of the ability to utilize the existing resources effectively, which will lead to a decrease and even the extinction of those who have this change, and alternatively it can be for the better - Like the ability to utilize more resources and produce more offspring (after all, what matters in the end is the number of offspring and even if they didn't kill each other, they created a demographic problem for some of them).
I remembered a possible use for artificial life... I believe that intelligence is an emergent property, a property that is created. I don't believe in artificial intelligence per se, but it is certainly possible that artificial life will develop intelligence.
Listen... to reach the level of intelligence of their creation does not require many generations of evolution...
Eric:
I just now see your question to me.
There will be competition because:
1. Nothing is unlimited
2. The limitation is doubly severe because the multiplication is local - that is - even if there are many resources in the world, these resources are much more limited in the place where the replicators are.
3. Resources This includes everything - including a place to be and where I am, no one else can be found.
4. The place has an effect on other resources - if someone is on me, they get more sunlight than me and I get more resources from the earth
Michael
As long as there are enough resources there will be no competition. This is true for cane toads and it is true for humans. What is difficult to understand here?
In mere replication there is no information transfer. In a living being there are concepts of genotype and phenotype, and without these things there is no (in my opinion) evolution.
Come on, let's agree to disagree….
Yes - I completely agree that artificial life is not real life. It has certain uses, proof of this is that we learned quite a bit about real evolution following programs like Tiara and Abida. But beyond that I don't think it has any use.
What fascinates me is the religious approach. If the Genesis story is true then life itself is artificial!! I researched a little the history of artificial life and the subject is very old - the Golem from Prague, Frankenstein's monster, Pinocchio, Goethe's Sorcerer's Fringe, Galatia (Pygmalion's statue) and also the story of creation.
Evolution is much better……..
Eric:
Nissim did not claim that very fast reproduction leads to very fast evolution.
On the contrary - he introduced this concept of fast multiplication without competition (which, as I said - is not possible) to argue that evolution does not have to start immediately.
Not that it would make a fundamental difference if it were possible, but it is, as stated, impossible.
Michael,
Why would there be competition when resources are unlimited? Does everyone have one?
Miracles
Can you explain why very rapid reproduction leads to rapid evolution?
Miracles:
There's no need to say the things again because saying them again leaves them unreasoned as they were and although you still haven't explained how it's possible there won't be a competition and I guess you won't explain either because it's simply impossible.
Besides, when there is duplication, by definition there is a transfer of information - otherwise it wouldn't be duplication.
When you say that nothing came out of artificial life, you are exaggerating in my opinion, but that is not really relevant to our case.
What is relevant to our case is that when you say that nothing came out of it (in the future tense) you mean that even now nothing came out of it (in the past tense) and in particular you confirm my words that although there are replicating beings here that transmit information there is no life here.
Michael Rothschild
I will speak my mind again
As long as no memory mechanism is created (mechanism for transferring information between generations) there is nothing to talk about evolution.
In the early stages there was probably no competition, and this allowed for very rapid reproduction and therefore rapid evolution
In the past I dealt with the subject of artificial life - and it's just like artificial intelligence... interesting but nothing will come of it...
Israel
Now I understand what Leibniz meant. He philosophizes about basic concepts of mathematics, that is, he attributes to them a different meaning than is accepted. I'm not interested in such a philosophical direction, I don't believe that it has any real content (because alternative concepts seem to be fuzzy concepts, they only have wordplay, hand gestures instead of a regular subsection, etc.). As soon as you abandon the logical tools, including the deductive method (which includes mathematics) - you are left without tools to understand the complex reality. In any case, after such an abandonment you have no tools to discuss a complex reality question such as "what is inextricable complexity". Playing word games with vague interpretations does not interest me.
As far as I understand, "complexity not unpacking" can only be defined with regard to material reality; It is not possible to define "inextricable complexity" regarding the mental tools with which we perceive material reality. This is Leibnovitz's mistake (beyond his abandonment of the deductive method as mentioned above). His strange conclusions are a result of the above mistakes.
I am not interested in further discussing this approach of Leibniz. What just word games.
Israel:
Puzzle:
Three cows walk in the desert in a straight rear column.
The first cow says "There are two cows behind me.
The second cow says "There is a cow in front of me and a cow behind me"
The third says "There is a cow in front of me and a cow behind me".
How can it be?
Answer:
The third is lying.
This is related to the question you asked about ghosts.
And speaking of talking cows, then one horse enters a tavern and orders a glass of beer.
When he finishes drinking he asks how much it costs and the waiter answers him "10 dollars, but tell me what's going on here? I have never seen a talking horse."
"With these prices you won't see any more either" the horse answers him.
Small correction:
When I talked about the programs on the computer I meant those designed to achieve a certain goal such as playing chess or solving the traveling agent problem.
There is a whole field called "artificial life" but even there - although those who use the word "life" do not think that the systems are really alive.
Miracles:
Stop being so decisive!
I didn't say that competition is necessary to be successful. I said that the competition arises naturally and there is no escape from it.
You have not brought any argument that contradicts these words.
It would be very nice if it were possible to live without consuming resources at all, but it is not possible.
Sometimes the competition is easier and sometimes it is harder but it always exists.
You have not been able to present any script where there is no competition and obviously you will not succeed.
If I want to define life as a glass of beer, then very interesting things will happen, but no one calls the self-replicating entities that have the database that are created by evolutionary algorithms on a computer as life, and no one calls Lantz's oil balls or Kaufman's clay balls life.
Israel Shapira
It is worth emphasizing what I said earlier - inextricable complexity does not require "God". Even if it does require a planner (which it doesn't necessarily), then that planner can be the result of evolution.
Skeptic, you are missing the point.
Which is: in the ongoing debate between the proponents of evolution and the deniers of evolution, the people of intelligent design raise the following point: there is an "inextricable complexity" in nature - whips, immune systems, etc. This is proof of their claim that there are things that cannot develop by themselves through evolution, and that there is an intelligent planner (what we call God in the barn).
Prof. Leibnovitz tries to prove that intelligent planning and inextricable complexity also exist in the world of numbers, and this is the proof of the existence of God. (By the way, this is in response to the claim of the second law that it is bound by the laws of statistics).
The professor gives the perfect numbers as an example of inextricable complexity: they all have seemingly independent properties that always appear together.
Euclid Euler and Michael proved that these properties are only the expression of a single property. But this is exactly the point of the story: that what is seen today as inexhaustible complexity, as proof of intelligent planning (on the face of it perfect numbers look as if they are really a mysterious magic that requires planning), can be reduced to an uncomplicated and simple complexity.
If you don't believe me, please reduce to me the additional indecomposable property common to all perfect numbers: they are all even.
Granted, this feature isn't as cool as the other 3.
Could you, cool commenters, help the skeptic narrow down feature 4, or prove that it doesn't exist?
$ 300,000.
We'll finish with that - we'll move on to the feature of the non-trivial zeros in the zeta function. They too have inextricable complexity: they are all on the critical line 1/2
(except for those in the even negative values).
Besides, I'm a skeptic, if you have any complaints, come to Professor Leibnovitz, not to me. What am I, his father?!
Oh ..
Good.
And you're right, I didn't take any exact science classes.
Only in mathematics, chemistry and physics.
Ghosts - if you claim that you can communicate with extraterrestrials through mathematics, how can you claim that man created the mathematics? What if the aliens existed before man, how come they were able to create the same math?
Israel
You divert the debate to the question of whether it is easy or difficult to prove the theorem (formulated in 2) from the definition (formulated in 1). That's not the question I was referring to.
Those who understand the information on a popular level about 1 and 2, even without understanding the proofs, understand at least that: 1 is a definition and 2 is a characterization sentence of the definition in 1. Once he understands this, he will not assert that any two properties are independent . I'm not surprised if you didn't understand it, because you don't have to understand it if you haven't studied exact sciences.
What I wonder is why, according to you, Leibniz did not understand this. If he has a good education in exact sciences, his words are "strange" to put it mildly. There is a possibility that you didn't understand Libanovitz either, that's why you gave a wrong wording of his words. There is also the possibility that Leibniz was philosophizing in his formulations and caused unnecessary confusion.
Claim 3 is equivalent to 2; This is self-evident to a high school student as soon as he *actually* understands what the abbreviated formula for the sum of an arithmetic series means. You should have understood this in any case, assuming you have at least that kind of education and are interested in advanced physics.
Regarding your question about initial even sums (which are supposed to lay out all the even ones). According to my memory, this is a famous question that has not been solved to this day (I don't remember the name of the man who raised this hypothesis).
Michael
Stop being so decisive.... theoretically a replicant that is not limited by resources will reproduce much faster than a replicant that competes against its own kind. Look at the cane toads in Australia...they multiplied from about 100 to over 200 million in 80 years. You don't need competition to be successful. And they did evolve - without any competition for resources.
You also write that as soon as some reproduce - evolution will take life forward. it's clear.
And if you want to define life as Ganti defined it at the time as a replicating entity with a database, then life and evolution actually started together. This is also legitimate.
And it is also important to note that no explanation has ever been offered for the formation of life that does not fall into the category I have described.
It is important to understand:
After all, no one claims that evolution created the earth.
The question is only how life on earth was created and how it is possible that inanimate matter became life.
As soon as we understand that any duplicates - in a very broad definition of the word - can be created spontaneously - evolution can take us all the way from them to man.
On these spontaneous replicators it is impossible to raise all the difficult questions of the chance that they will be created because it is clear that they will be created by themselves.
Miracles:
So it is!
It was impossible not to have competition because from the moment you replicated you have competitors for resources.
Saying "no" just like that without refuting the argument is hand waving.
Evolution does not need to explain the formation of the first replicator but this replicator was still simple and not alive.
The question is, how was life created - remember? And life was created by evolution from simple replicators that were inanimate matter.
Michael
So that's it, no 🙂 You have to understand that natural selection actually slows down reproduction. Therefore, it is more likely that the first replicators did not compete with each other.
In any case, evolution cannot explain the formation of the first replicator. What is non-trivial in this sentence?
I told you it's a little more complicated than that: beyond the 4 conditions I mentioned, there is another condition here - genotype/phenotype. In my opinion, without this separation, evolution is "weaker". It has an interesting mathematical foundation - which also shows that even if there was intelligent planning, then in any case life would have developed in evolution and would have exterminated the planned life.
Miracles:
Not true!
Evolution needs replicators but not sophisticated replicators like we have today.
I mentioned crystals, some people talk about clays, some people talk about prions, some people talk about fat balls.
On earth, all kinds of things were created randomly.
These were not yet life, but some of these things had the ability to reproduce and some of them used the same types of resources for the purpose of reproduction and therefore "competed" and thus in the process of reproduction and natural selection mechanisms were created that replicated better and better and in the end one of these mechanisms earned the right to be called "life" .
Everything here is natural, the only mechanism that manages it are the mathematical laws of evolution, there is no God or other mysterious thing here.
By the way - there is competition from the first moment because from the moment I duplicated I was competing with my duplicate (after all if it is a duplicate it needs at least roughly the same resources I need to continue to duplicate).
It is quite possible that I have a large space to spread out in it, but still - those who favor competition win.
Read…
You think like me... but repeatedly miss the point - replication is a condition for evolution and not a result of evolution. You yourself wrote "evolution needs things that will reproduce".
I would love to understand what reproduction is in the biological sense 🙂 Michael, we think the same. But - you say that evolution started life - and here you are the one who falls into the greasy hands of the creationists, because I showed you that there is no evolution without reproduction (replication or whatever you call it). I, on the other hand, claim that there was a chemical process that created something that replicates (Egan's theory, Carnes-Smith's theory or any other theory). It replicates and multiplied very quickly precisely because there is no competition!!! At a much later stage our friends Melthos came into the picture and only then did evolution begin.
Evolution does not need reproduction in the biological sense of the word.
It needs "things" that will reproduce while maintaining certain properties and "compete" with each other for resources.
These things can be molecules, stores of molecules, crystals and what not.
The fact that you claim you can explain is not an explanation.
As long as there is no explanation these are hand gestures.
My definition of evolution is not too broad. What is "too wide" in this context?
Did you read the links I gave you?
Michael
Really really not. I explained to you why not. I don't see my words as handwaving, I can explain each of my claims.
Your definition of evolution is probably too broad and therefore you throw it at the formation of life.
To explain - I will ask you a simple question: if evolution needs reproduction, then how does it create reproduction in the first place?
Too bad you don't try to understand what I wrote before... This is a summary of my half thesis in a few sentences 🙂
How many times you repeat that inexhaustible complexity can and even must be created in an infinite universe will not change either the fact that the universe is finite or the fact that it is very very very very very very very improbable.
After all, you yourself said that if you found a stapler on Mars, you would believe that an intelligent designer was involved in its creation, so what happened to this whole infinite universe?
Another relevant link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Miracles:
You are wrong.
Life could have arisen from inanimate matter through evolution and there are quite a few scenarios showing how roughly this could have happened.
For example, read this article and the links in it:
http://sciam.co.il/archives/1833
Or watch the following lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7iByyEqgtY&feature=youtu.be
To wave one's hands and say that another mechanism is needed here is not wisdom.
There is nothing that rules out the possibility of evolution creating life and there is no other mechanism that anyone proposes as an explanation for the origin of life.
The claim that evolution cannot address the origin of life is one of the common mistakes of science supporters because in doing so they are actually turning the arena in this area over to God
Michael Rothschild
Inextricable complexity can also be created randomly. I said earlier - the fact that it is "unlikely" does not rule out the possibility. In an infinite universe, it even has to happen.
Michael
Let's go a little bit into the mechanism of evolution. In order for evolution to occur, several conditions must be met, and there are 4 such conditions. The conditions are: reproduction, competition, variation and heredity. These are sufficient and necessary conditions. In a framed article I'll just state that I personally believe it's a little more complicated than that... but another time.
In other words - to "start" life, a completely different mechanism is needed. We know a number of such mechanisms, but we don't know which one is correct, or it is a completely different mechanism.
It's a nebulous trick of creationists to link evolution with the creation of life - don't fall for this trap 🙂
And in relation to your later response - it seems to me that you deviated from the topic.
I did not say that no discharges would show the existence of God. I only said that you would see the existence of an intelligent planner.
Miracles:
I don't understand where you are going.
I said a long time ago that I think there is evolution.
I'm consistent as hell but you don't follow the consistency.
Most life on Earth (those not created by us through intelligent design) was created by evolution.
All the evidence points to this.
But if evidence of the existence of an inextricable mechanism is found (and I explained why it is unlikely that you will find such evidence because the claim of inextricability is usually an argument from ignorance) in a living creature that we thought was created through an evolutionary process - this would be extremely reliable evidence of the involvement of an intelligent designer in the creation of this animal.
This would contradict our sweeping claim that all life on Earth came about by evolution.
If an inextricable mechanism is found in all living things, it will contradict the formation of life in general in the process of evolution.
And an important point:
Evolution is the only mechanism we can offer today as an explanation for the formation of life.
Although we do not know what the process was and it is very possible that we will never know, but we do not have any explanation that is not evolutionary (and I do not see intelligent planning as an explanation because intelligent planning requires the existence of something living that would be planned in the first place)
Michael
I will explain my point again. Let's assume that the bacterial shuton is of inextricable complexity and indeed it will be proven that it could not have developed in evolution. Bullshit... but let's assume.
So it is much more likely that the Shotton was designed by some creature from another world, let's say as a nano-robot for medical purposes... From here the distance to contamination of the Earth is short.
God is still not to be invented…….
Michael
But but but... we agreed that there is no risk... because even if there is a mechanism that has inextricable complexity then it is possible that another creature created this mechanism. You are not a follower……
And an important point - evolution is not related to the creation of life. There are several possible mechanisms for the formation of life and we may never know which of these mechanisms actually produced life on our planet.
Life is a prerequisite for evolution - so it does not make sense that evolution is the source of life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html
Of course we agree on that.
The risk to evolution (as an explanation for the formation of all life on Earth) is only if it turns out that life on Earth has inextricable mechanisms (and I mean life that was not created by man: even today, evolution does not explain all existing life forms because the bacteria created by Craig Venter were created with the involvement of intelligent planning).
Michael
So we agree that there is no risk to the theory of evolution because of the idea of inextricable complexity?
After all, a refutation of evolution as a mechanism would not come to mind.
It would work even if all life on Earth was created by intelligent design.
The same goes for intelligent planning and our intelligent actions prove it - intelligent planning is possible and exists.
When discussing the question "evolution versus intelligent design" we only mean the question of whether life on earth is the result of evolution or intelligent design.
True, miracles, but don't get confused.
After all, I said that we try to create even life through intelligent design.
When I talk about the fact that something was created by intelligent design (and there are many such things) - this is not in contradiction to the claim that something else was created by evolution. It just contradicts itself being created by evolution.
Michael
Therefore, you agree with me that complex inextricable inventions in life on earth does not contradict Darwin's evolution - right?
Ghosts:
I'm not asking you to decide if math is just a language as you said before or what you just quoted.
You do not understand the meaning of any of these contradictory claims, so how can you decide?
I'm tired of you.
From * Al
The fact that you know how to scribble numbers and letters does not make you someone who understands something about the nature of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics :
"Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.” - he said. Mathematics explains nature in a logical way and through proofs. And nature does not explain mathematics (as Sam*kal is wont to think).
Friends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_mathematics
You are welcome to read, and explain to Michael where he is wrong.
"
The subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” (from the link)
Machel
The fact that you know how to scribble numbers and letters does not make you someone who understands something about the nature of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics :
"Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.” - he said. Mathematics explains nature in a logical way and through proofs. And nature does not explain mathematics (as Michael Rothschild is wont to think).
Friends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_mathematics
You are welcome to read, and explain to Michael Rothschild where he is wrong.
"
The subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” (from the link)
Yes:
I agree with the fact that a creature created in Darwin's evolution will design inextricable mechanisms and these will obviously be mechanisms created with the involvement of intelligent planning
Michael Rothschild
I will then give you only one of them ……the second time.
There's no stopping a creature created by Darwin's evolution from designing indestructible mechanisms, right? do you agree to this
I don't know what scripts that contradict my claim I gave.
I don't think I gave anyone.
Michael
If I saw a clamp on Mars I would be convinced that an intelligent creature did it.
But - you gave me 2 scripts that contradict your claim. You didn't disqualify them. I'm wrong? And surely there are many more…
and miracles:
Now with hand on heart:
If you came to Mars and saw such an arrangement of cups and knives as I photographed: would you conclude that it developed in evolution? Did it happen randomly? Or did an intelligent creature do it?
Miracles:
I don't accept your bans.
I am allowed to claim what I want and I am also allowed to claim "unreasonable".
The term "mechanism necessary for life" is not what is at play in evolution. What plays into it is what mechanisms allow you to survive well beyond your estimate. It is possible to live without seeing even in a fearful environment, so is sight necessary for life? It is necessary, as mentioned, only for competition with other creatures and if they see - you will not give up your sight.
But what about life in the dark?
There really are animals that gradually lose the ability to see.
An inseparable mechanism that has no function in life is an undefined thing.
What does "take out a part and the mechanism stops working" mean if it didn't work in the first place?
ghosts:
The fact that you know how to scribble words does not mean that you understand Hebrew. The fact is that you did not understand my question written in Tchacha Hebrew at all.
Michael Rothschild
There are only 2 options? What about randomness for example? If all the non-decomposable mechanisms are simple enough then there is no stopping them from generating randomly. And in an infinite universe you are not allowed to claim "unlikely".
Another possibility - if these inextricable mechanisms are not necessary for life (and I have no reason to think otherwise) then another form of life, which does not have inextricable mechanisms - is the one that created these mechanisms. And again - there is no need for an a priori intelligent planner.
And that's before I even finish my beer……
I don't understand Hebrew either? So what language is this comment written in? French?
like I said…. Well, actually I don't want to repeat things because you will be offended.
(and I have no intention of insulting you, but only to show where you are wrong)
Ghosts:
My question was formulated in Hebrew, but it turns out that you don't understand this language either (and it's really just a language).
Miracles:
Because for now there are only two possibilities: either intelligence was involved in the design or it wasn't.
If it is proven that without intelligence (through evolution) it is impossible for this to be created (and this is what is proven when inextricable complexity is discovered because everything that evolution creates is an uncomplicated complexity), then it is created by intelligent planning.
And it would also be funny to know that you speak such a "language" with someone who despises you
Your question (intended, according to you, to check whether the commenter in front of you is religious or not) is out of place.
And the fact that I am putting you in your place - is another reason for you to write nonsense like: "You are not able to think properly."
And again I clarify (for those who did not understand): to think that nature does not obey the laws of mathematics is nonsense.
But to think that mathematics existed before humans is even greater nonsense.
Ghosts:
Okay - let's say math is a language.
Tell us in this language why in any group of natural numbers less than a thousand whose least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand, the sum of the inverses (the inverse of a number is one divided by the same number) of the members of the group is less than one and a half.
The reason why you don't know how to answer is not because you don't know the language (you know all the words necessary for the proof) but because you are not able to think properly.
Machel
You wrote: "As soon as something is created through an evolutionary process - this is proof that its complexity is a decomposition (because the process that created it is a decomposition of complexity)." So far so good.
Then you wrote "therefore proving the existence of inextricable complexity in nature would be proof of intelligent design." I don't understand where you got "therefore"... I don't see how it follows from the previous claim.
Beyond that I also don't accept that proof A leads to B.... Without there being a proven connection between the two things...let's assume there is a mechanism that we have proven is not a discharge. Where does the intelligent planner come from?
I don't understand what you are saying"
You are welcome to stop yourself wherever you like so as not to embarrass yourself by writing more nonsense.
Ghosts:
Just apply your advice to yourself and everything will be fine.
Mathematics is not just a language. It has a language but the knowledge of the language is not equivalent to the knowledge of the proof or the knowledge of the facts.
But I said that I don't want to get into a silly argument and an argument with you is based on such a definition, so I'll stop here
I believe it will be possible to create a common language with extraterrestrials through the mathematical language. But don't talk math with extraterrestrials as it is purely.
When someone says he doesn't want to get into a silly argument, he should not talk nonsense.
Mathematics is a language.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94
("The knowledge and use of basic mathematics has always been a natural and essential part of human and group life. You can find inclusions of the basic ideas in the mathematical texts created by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks and Muslims.")
Therefore, when someone claims that mathematics existed before humans and nature obeyed mathematics before humans - they are simply talking nonsense.
But this nonsense stems from confusion - because nature obeys the laws of mathematics not because mathematics dictates nature - but because man dictates mathematics according to the laws of nature.
Israel
My parrot does not speak the mathematical language. (you can ask him)
I also don't know that winged animals spoke mathematics before the existence of man.
To think that we will speak the mathematical language with extraterrestrials is naive.
By the way - it's nice to see my explanation on the subject of elaborate numbers echoing in other comments.
Anything you have seen the proof of can be presented as trivial.
Israel:
I refrained from pointing this out until just now, but I also discovered the formula for the sum of my account column even before the sixth grade.
Of course I agree with the claim that the god of gaps is a lousy god. I just wanted to set things straight mathematically.
Regarding the entropy - I gave an answer to the issue of time reversibility (which, by the way - does not exist in all physical processes but exists in most) and said that all that needs to be explained is the fact that the entropy was low to begin with. Once we explain it, everything will be solved and the reversal of time will not be a problem.
I also mentioned that Penrose proposed a solution to the issue and of all the solutions I have seen, it seems to me that this solution is the most convincing (in the book I pointed to, he also explains why in his opinion the accepted solutions based on the flattening of space by inflation are not convincing).
By the way - Goldbach's hypothesis may still turn out to be wrong or someone (Uncle Petros?) will prove it, but Godel assures us that the God of Gaps will always have a place to hide.
Miracles:
My comment to Shmulik is completely factual and has nothing and nothing to do with sexual reproduction.
As soon as you found an evolutionary development path that succeeded natural selection - you found disintegration - and I repeat and remind you of Bihi's second definition of disintegration.
skeptic
It's not that obvious at first glance. To the untrained eye the features appear to be independent. Would you have been able to prove property 2 (powers) by yourself without Euclid and Euler?
And if so, could you also explain why every even number is the sum of two primes? Also which features depend?
I will personally give you half a million dollars.
The other half (of the prize) - for debts.
Israel
Who is Leibnovitz? I hope for his sake that he *didn't* claim that property 3 is independent of 2, or he decided to just philosophize about it.
2 and 3 is the exact same claim in different formulations. (The use of the formula for the sum of an arithmetic series - when it is applied to natural numbers in the above case - is self-evident and does not need to be explicitly mentioned).
According to what is written in the Hebrew Wikipedia, feature 2 follows directly from the definition. (Therefore: if property 1 is a formulation of the definition, then 2 follows from 1. The fact that 2 follows directly from the definition was proven by Euler as I assumed.)
In short: all claims of non-dependence are false.
Michael Rothschild
Your comment to Shmolik is a little off topic: "If A leads to B, then B does not lead to C".
I hope you understand that not everything in living things had to develop in small steps…….for example in asexual reproduction there may be (relatively) large changes that will not harm the ability to reproduce.
And in order to kill the issue of bacterial shingles once and for all - we sell 3 completely different types of shingles. When I see the same function implemented 3 times in a computer program, I call it "mess" and not "planning".
QED.
let's move on shall we?
Michael, you are guilty.
What, you don't realize by yourself that when I write "all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers" then I mean the sum? how long have you known me
And Inel Drabcom for this store that sold me a book about the wonders of numbers. Couldn't they specify that all the features are related? This is how to scold me in front of everyone?
Sue them.
Anyway, well done and thanks for the solution. If I remember correctly, the 7-year-old Gauss also used your formula to calculate in a few seconds the sum of the consecutive numbers from 1 to 100.
Unfortunately, this does not answer the dilemma presented by Prof. Leibnovitz in the story.
It shows the 3 features as unrelated. Euclid and Euler proved that the first two are related, you and Gauss proved the third as well.
But what if we didn't know the solution? If Euclid, Euler, Michael and Gauss did not exist in the world?
(Michael, you're not too offended by the comparison, are you?).
We would walk around with the feeling that there is some kind of superior force here, that all 3 features focus on random numbers that cannot be predicted, and that the good old Xingua would talk about "intelligent design" in the world of numbers.
Just as we can't explain why every pair is the sum of two primes (Michael, you're not going to trouble me with a Goldbach solution either, are you?)
Wonders of wonders, magics of sorceresses, miracles of miracles.
And this is my point and the point of the story: even if we cannot yet explain many things in evolution, even if many things appear to be intelligent planning, it does not mean that we will not be able to explain them in the future in an understandable and simple way, as Euclid Euler and Michael did for the miraculous properties of the perfect numbers.
Regarding entropy increasing over time, you write: "It must increase over time for mathematical reasons".
The problem is that time in all Newton's equations is reversible in both directions - past and future. Why then if we take a thermodynamic system in a given state and apply Newton's equations to it, does the entropy not also increase in the direction of the past?
This, by the way, is the problem with which Quinter Poincare tormented poor Boltzmann until he eliminated him. Poincaré proved mathematically that cosmic entropy must eventually decrease, and the arrow of time reverse.
A possible solution to the problem was discovered only later.
Ghosts - I don't remember saying that the universe is a closed system. I said that Israel is a psychomechanical closed system, therefore the hope for world peace is naive.
And I believe that mathematics exists independently of humanity, that if we ever make contact with extraterrestrials we can communicate with them through mathematics regardless of language. It is the same everywhere in the universe.
In my understanding, even those who believe in intelligent design do not claim that the intelligent designer created mathematics (and this is in contrast to religious people and creationists, who believe that God created everything). Therefore it is important to show that according to the logic of intelligent design it is possible to show that there is intelligent design in mathematics as well (Goldbach for example), which drops the foundation of the entire argument.
Shmulik - glad you liked the story. I read "The Last Question" at the age of 16, and loved it like most Asimov stories.
You can find the first chapter of "The Law of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" at:
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3
Good night and Happy New Year from Los Angeles.
here:
I couldn't resist and wrote the The proof of Israel's miracle in a readable form
Shmulik:
As soon as something is created in an evolutionary process - this is proof that its complexity is disintegrated (because the process that created it is a disintegration of complexity).
Therefore proving the existence of inextricable complexity in nature would be proof of intelligent design.
And in relation to entropy: it must increase over time for mathematical reasons.
The second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic mathematical law.
The term "order" is a more complex term than people tend to think and in terms of "order" used in the definition of entropy, the degree of disorder of a spherical structure is higher than the degree of disorder of another distribution of the same mass.
The interesting question is not why the entropy increases - it is a necessity for mathematical reasons.
The only interesting question is why the entropy was low in the first place.
This is also an important question because without that initial order nothing significant would have happened in the universe and life certainly would not have been created in it.
There are many attempts to answer this question and one of the most interesting and new ones is described in Roger Penrose's book: Cycles of Time
I don't want to get caught up in another silly argument, but of course the math is correct regardless of man and nature obeyed its laws before there were even humans and will continue to obey them even after they become extinct.
It is not a coincidence that mathematicians all over the world eventually reach the same conclusions even when working independently. They do not invent the laws of mathematics - they discover them.
Israel
How do we know that the universe is a closed system? Maybe the whole universe is surrounded by a huge black hole which is dark energy and quite cool? 🙂
Maybe I didn't understand your story, but the way I see it: nature is what it is. Man invented the orderly mathematics to explain in an orderly and logical way the phenomena in nature. It is not nature that arranges itself according to mathematics, it is man who decides on the order (and what it is) in nature as he sees fit.
Israel,
Cool story, where did you get it and if it is yours, very cool although I didn't understand why, in the first place, a mathematical theory should be subject to the second law of thermodynamics? If we're talking about a story about the second law, it's impossible not to mention Asimov's wonderful story Tomorrow Times Nine (the English name is much better): "The Last Question":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
mathematical biology,
What is not understood? You claim that the whip is unbreakable, prove it.
Only you think you've disproved Miller. This is his rebuttal: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Even if he failed, it still means that he was nice to try and fail. His failure does not shift the burden of proof to him. again (maybe this time it will be picked up). Asserting a claim that Shoton has an inextricable complexity, you will prove.
What is most ridiculous is your attempt to address this issue (after failing repeatedly) in your attempt to prove the existence of God, when there is such a better issue: the question of how chemistry became biology is much more interesting and where science still does not have a satisfactory answer. Go for it (what is another god of the gaps argument for you?)
Regarding inextricable complexity,
I am aware of the problematic nature of definition and that the claims to existence are inextricable complexity is a claim based on ignorance and because of the great difficulty in definition, creationists try to transfer the burden of proof to evolution experts, as mathematical biology demonstrates time and time again, in a puzzling manner, but let's assume for a moment that inextricable complexity exists (according to whatever definition you want ). Does having a biological structure with inextricable complexity necessarily lead to an intelligent designer?
The following two links (one I have already brought) demonstrate that this is not the case, but that these are computer simulations.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html
http://www.complexity.org.au/vlab/evolution/irreducible-complex/icTechnicalReport.pdf
your opinion?
Israel:
Of course, you should tell the above to the characters in the story (which I did not read the details of) because at this moment - when the wording of your question is complete - its solution is also complete.
There is no miracle here and the phenomenon is required according to the laws of arithmetic
I think it turned out pretty well.
If it is not clear to someone - let them say so and if necessary I will nevertheless prepare a special file in an environment that allows the registration of formulas
Israel:
It is clear to you that I know what consecutive numbers are, but you wrote "All perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers."
This is your poor phrasing where the phrase "amount of" is missing and therefore it is interpreted as the series of elaborate numbers and not as you intended.
Regarding the fact you are talking about - it is an interesting diagnosis but it is very, very easy to prove it.
The problem is that it's hard to write distractions here, but I'll try anyway.
If it doesn't work I will create a special file.
The sum of the numbers from 1 to k is
k*(k+1)/2
Now - place as K you
(2 to the nth power) minus 1
And you will get exactly what you need.
"Let us examine the claim of the second law that mathematics requires increasing disorder" said the professor.
He drew a straight line on the board from end to end, marked a point in the center of the line and wrote "0" above it.
"Here, this is the number axis. It starts from minus infinity at the left end of the line I drew, passes through zero and ends at plus infinity, at the right end of the line. It can be compared to a certain extent to the timeline in nature, with infinity as the very distant future and minus infinity as the past. "
In his speech, the professor marked ∞- on the left of the line and ∞ in the present day.
"All numbers, large or small, whether whole or fractional, positive or negative, rational or irrational - can be entered in ascending order between minus infinity and infinity. It could be expected that such a simple arrangement would not lead to any particularly neat pattern - because what have we done after all? We put 1 at the beginning, followed by 2, 3, and so on."
"If the claim of the second law were true, there would be increasing disorder as we progressed from zero towards infinity, and the quality of the mathematical relationships between the numbers would decrease, like in the case of the deck of cards. But here we are in for a pleasant surprise. From this completely simple order, a much more complex and interesting order is created. It turns out that there is no end to the cunning sophistication with which these seemingly simple numbers can be arranged. Take for example the phenomenon of perfect numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself. The number 6, for example, is divisible by 1, 2, and 3, and 6=1+2+3. The numbers 28, 496 and 8128 are also perfect numbers. And here, it turns out that all perfect numbers obey the rule discovered by Euclid: every perfect number is a multiple of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1. For example:
6=2¹ x(2²-1)
28=2² x(2³-1)
496=24 x (25 -1)
x(27 -1) 8128=26
.
. .
. . .
-2216090) =2216090 x (2216091 -1) 2432181 )
This number is over 130,000 digits long! And he obeys Euclid!"
"And that's not all. It also turns out that all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers:
6=1+2+3.
28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.
496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.
8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.
The professor continued to write numbers on the board while the audience whistled in admiration.
"We therefore see that even though we started with a minimal amount of order, the series of numbers is numerous, the order is increasing as we add more members to the series of perfect numbers. This is just one of many examples of order and perfection in the field of mathematics called number theory. There are many beautiful numbers - friendly numbers for example - these are pairs of numbers between which each number is equal to the sum of its partner's divisors. For example, the numbers 220 and 284, known as Romeo and Juliet, are friendly numbers, and are considered a symbol of friendship and love, because the parts of 220 are: 20,22,44,55 1,2,4,5,10,11, and 110, whose sum is 284 The divisors of 284 are 1,2,4,71, and 142 whose sum is 220. Do you feel a lack of harmony or any disorder in the world of numbers? ” the professor addressed the audience.
The hall was plowed with applause and rhythmic chants: "Leibnovich! Leibnowitz!
The professor slowly withdrew his voice and smiled graciously at the frozen law in his chair. "Do you want us to continue? We still have prime numbers, twin primes, trapped numbers…”
"Give him the geometry!" St. the vengeful prosecutor.
"Oh, yes, the geometry." The professor drew a blocked triangle with a circle on the board. "Note: when the angles of the triangle are completely random, the relationship between the sides of the triangle is also random. However, when one of the angles reaches 90 degrees -" the professor moved the chalk along the circumference of the circle, which caused the central angle in the triangle to increase steadily, "the phenomenon known to us from the Pythagorean theorem occurs: the sum of the squares of the opposite sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. 90 degrees is, completely coincidentally of course, an exact numerical ratio of 2/1 of the total sum of angles in a triangle and 4/1 of the total sum of angles in a circle. Where exactly is the disorder here? And here is another phenomenon from the field of geometry" he drew a sphere on the board while using perspective. "Or should we say: stereometry? Has it ever occurred to you, dear law, why nature, whose nature you claim is the increase of entropy, uses spherical symmetry so much even though it is the most perfect and orderly symmetry?"
"Would you mind explaining to the court what spherical symmetry is?" The plaintiff was determined to use the advantage to the end.
"Spherical symmetry is the only symmetry that allows us all to be "on top". The professor chuckled to himself, enjoying every moment. "A person standing on top of a mountain on Earth will see himself as taller than another person standing on top of another mountain of the same height, and this is because of the uniform curvature, at least theoretically, of the Earth's surface. The other person will see himself as higher and so on, with any required number of people.”
"The shape of the sphere, which is considered the most perfect geometric shape, is the most common shape among the large celestial bodies, another example of order in an apparently disordered universe."
"It is because of gravity, which causes bodies to have the smallest surface area, as in the case of soap bubbles.." Law began.
"Oh! gravity!" exclaimed the professor excitedly "And what causes the perfect radial symmetry of gravity? How does it happen that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance, without a remainder and without an additional term in the equation of gravity?
The law was silent.
"What makes numbers create such perfect structures out of the loosest order?
What causes the squares of the opposite sides in a right triangle to be exactly equal to the square of the hypotenuse? Why is there not, for example, a ratio of 1.147 between them?
What makes the constants of physics fit together in such a smooth way that any slight deviation from it would have prevented the formation of the universe?
What causes the formation of life, and the formation of intelligent life in particular?"
"Well, evolution.." the law opened.
"To the DM, absolute nonsense!" The professor was now screaming at the top of his lungs. "Do you know the probability of the spontaneous formation of a single living cell capable of replicating itself? Zero, absolute zero!”
The audience demanded an explanation.
"Here" the professor removed his watch from his wrist and threw it furiously on the stand. "If you found this watch lying on the ground on some distant planet. Would you assume that the clock was created by itself through evolution? The forces of nature, through a completely random assembly of molecules? No, of course not. Someone had to create it.”
The crowd nodded in agreement.
"And are you ready to believe that a living, thinking, feeling, creating person, consisting of billions of cells, each of which is composed of a million times more than the clock, was created spontaneously without an external creator?"
Complete silence reigned in the hall.
"I can testify, as a mathematician, that the probability of such a perfect universe, as well as the probability of the spontaneous formation of life, is exactly equal to zero."
"Are you implying that..." The prosecutor's voice was hoarse with excitement.
"I'm not implying, I'm saying it explicitly. God Almighty is responsible for the amazing perfection of mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry, and as a result, biology. Because we are biological beings, we owe our lives to everything.”
The crowd cheered for a long time.
The law came to its senses. "Well, so be it, I don't intend to harm your freedom of belief. Good, there is a God! Can we go home already for God's sake?"
"No," said the prosecutor firmly. "The question you are on trial for still remains open: why does entropy increase over time?"
Israel Shapira
I understand what you mean but maybe God (or Allah or Brahman or Zeus or Murdoch or …..) also designed the natural numbers (as Kronker said ….).
The watch has many characteristics of a designed object. For example - he has a mission. Everything we know as planned has a purpose, right?
But - life has no purpose that we are aware of. And this weakens the claim that life is planned.
And let's look at another level: each of the clock's components has a unique purpose (William Paley even lists it in his article). Organs in a living body do not have a single purpose. For example - the tail of the vertebrates has many uses, but it has no defined function.
Again - the weakness of the argument of the intelligent planner.
This explanation can go on and on. And to weaken the argument of the intelligent planner more and more... :*
Miracles
I don't know that there are no independent ones.
But the probability that all 48 sophisticated numbers, including numbers that include hundreds of thousands of digits, will contain all the attributes randomly is very low, agree?
And currently (to my knowledge) we have no proper explanation of how this happens, just as we have no explanation why all the even numbers we know are the sum of two prime numbers, or why the zeros in the zeta function are removed from the X-axis before they reach it.
So why go so far and claim that a watch must be designed by an intelligent designer? It is enough to look at the world of numbers to discover amazing and inexplicable regularities (as of now).
Didn't you try miracles?
Israel Shapira
1) There are currently only 48 sophisticated numbers.
2) I would love to understand how you know the attributes are independent….
Michael
Consecutive numbers are numbers whose difference is one.
All prime numbers are sums of consecutive numbers:
6=1+2+3.
28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.
496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.
8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.
I did not see in the proofs of Euler and Euclid any reference to this point, which is apparently independent. Their proofs are only about the dependence between the other two properties.
So how is it that every perfect number also contains this independent property?
No magic spells?
how did you freak?? You take out one stone (any stone) and it collapses... and therefore it really has an inextricable complexity.
Regarding the second definition - that there is no way to reach the same product in stages - just as there is a way to build a bow in stages, so there is a way to build the bacterial baton (and the rest of Bihi's inventions) in stages.
So where is the danger of losing?
Miracles:
I prefer the way of reference I described - not because I like the creationists but because of the need to be careful and not give them a basis to argue with you about irrelevant issues.
In this case - the creator can show you that Sagittarius is a freak thing and since it really is a freak you will not have an answer and the impression will be created as if he won the argument.
Michael Rothschild
I have yet to hear a single argument against evolution that comes from integrity. So, I'm sorry if I sound a little intolerant of all kinds of nonsense.
The whole idea of an "intelligent planner" upsets me, because it's just a dirty trick of Christian preachers. I have not yet heard a single serious argument on the subject and certainly not the fabricated argument of Bihi....
And obviously, as far as I'm concerned - evolution is correct.
I just think that when defending her one should do so honestly and attributing a minimum of stupidity to the other side.
To claim that the term "inextricable complexity" is meaningless is to ascribe to it the utmost stupidity. To claim that there are no such phenomena in nature, or to claim that there is a logical fallacy of the "argument from ignorance" type in the use of this term, is to treat it with a minimum of stupidity.
Not that I think Bihi has any special status in relation to the meaning of the term as it is understood by the public, but, as mentioned, the quote I gave shows that he meant what everyone else meant.
Miracles:
You are ignoring a very significant part of my response, which is a quote from another definition of the same Bible.
The additional quote helps to clarify what he meant in the first place and there is no reason to confront precisely the unclear wording when there is a clear wording
Michael Rothschild
I don't insist on Bihi's definition - but Bihi is the one who defined this concept and I don't understand why we are looking for another definition 🙂
Here is the definition from that wiki….
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
I think you need to be precise in the concepts, that's all.
What you are talking about is Darwin's own "eye argument".
But - I guess we all agree that no matter which definition we take, the correctness of evolution is not in doubt.
I'm right?
Miracles:
So let's sort out the settings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
You will find there another definition of the same bihi:
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
But even without this definition (and I repeat - by the same Bihi) it is clear that Bihi was talking about evolution and that he did not know how to express himself clearly does not change anything in the matter.
There is another problem in the formulation that Shata is based on that people don't seem to notice, and that is his very use of the word function
Hidden here is the wrong assumption that the whole has a basic function for which it was found and that is not how things work in evolution.
I guess some of you know that our auditory organs, which are so important to our ability to hear, developed in the first place from the jaw bone system.
If you return to the example of the bow and insist on the same wording of Bihi, allow me to ask you what is the basic function of the bow - what was it created for and why does the manner of its formation that I described harm that basic function.
And therefore - Bihi's argument is so stupid.
The (modern) theory of evolution does not claim that every component of the living body developed in stages. You will read about it in Gold's book...
Listen a moment
I say again and again - inextricable complexity was defined by Bihi in his book Darwin's Black Box. He meant something very specific - that as soon as you disassemble something (anything...) from an inseparable organ, then it will stop functioning. Therefore - a rainbow is not a discharge.
You are talking about something completely different, about the development of that organ.
Israel,
I just turned to your question about sophisticated numbers.
The connection between the first two features exists and has been proven, so I don't understand the claim that there is "seemingly" no connection.
I don't understand the third feature (the numbers are not consecutive and the powers of 2 that define them are not consecutive numbers or even consecutive primes. The only thing that can be spoken of as "sequential numbers" are Martens numbers that are a factor in them but since it is known that any number that has this type of pattern is perfect After all, this feature is self-evident and there is nothing surprising about it.)
All of the above is true only for even perfected numbers (it is not known if there are odd numbers at all).
In short - there is actually no question here.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C
for miracles
"The example of a stone arch is exactly an example of inextricable complexity - take out every stone and the arch will fall apart."
Absolutely not, you accuse others of lack of understanding when you yourself do not understand:
The example of a stone arch is an example of complexity -unfolding- which *looks* like an unbreakable complexity, why is it a unpacking? Because it can be built gradually. On the other hand, in the example of Michael's knives, the claim is that there is no way in the world to build them gradually. And even if there is a way and in fact it is a matter of unpacking complexity, this still does not mean that there is no such object and that there is no way in the world to build them gradually, note: the fact that you found objects that were thought to be inextricable and turned out to be inextricable, does not mean that there is no truly inextricable complexity in the world, such that even if there is not In our ability to check this, it still cannot be reached gradually.
There is a difference between the claim that we cannot/have the ability to test whether complexity is a decomposition or not, and the claim that regardless of our test, there is/does not exist an object in the real world that has irreducible complexity.
... also the paintings of Maurice Cornelis Escher are unbreakable...
Miracles:
You said you'd love to know what the difference is, so get ready to be happy, but before I explain the difference, I want to repeat and emphasize things I've already said before on this topic:
One is that defining something as having inextricable complexity is usually an argument from ignorance in the sense that we claim its inextricability only because we don't know how to break it down.
That is why I explained that my examples could also fall into this category and to really know that this is an inextricable complexity one must plan a special world in which it would be possible to claim this because in our world such a structure can theoretically be created even at random (and I explained more or less how) - I said all this in my response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-9/#comment-445517
Now about the bow:
People usually only refer to the sand and stone components you asked for in nature. They do not address one very important element that makes it a bow.
This component is the "hole" that allows you to pass under it.
This is exactly the component that can be "removed" to get the discharges.
The arch begins as just a collection of layers of rock and soil that stick together by chemical and mechanical forces.
At this stage it does not look like an arch, but at some point later - a natural process causes part of the lower layers to drift or fall, and then the hole opens and what remains is called an "arch" even though it was there before.
There are other forms of formation that include more stages, such as the formation of a cave by drifting or falling of material and when later a part of the cave ceiling falls, an arch is formed - but it's all the same principle.
The structure I described was not created in this way and it is difficult to imagine that it will be created this way.
Pay attention to the phrase "hard to describe".
This is exactly the same argument from ignorance and in the response I pointed to above I also explained how the same thing that is "difficult to describe" can still happen.
That's why - I repeat - I explained that in order for us to truly claim that this is an indestructible structure, we need to plan a special world where it is possible to prove this in practice and not just claim from ignorance.
However, even in our world there are good reasons to think that the structure is indestructible and this is because of the materials it is made of, the way they are processed, and later their somewhat paradoxical combination where knife A is under knife B, knife B is under knife C but knife C is under knife A.
Therefore, it is not surprising that bows are found in nature, but such a structure of knives is not.
Apparently not only we, but also nature, did not find a way to produce such a structure and the reason why nature did not find it is that it was not disassembled.
Shame on you!
Triangles only exist in geometry and pizza.
and in the kibbutz.
And while the similarity is beautiful to them... to them...
to the triangle!
Israel,
Well, it's a kibbutz, what do you want? what did you expect? 🙂
Mathematical Biology
When I tell a joke to a friend ….. I like to quote your nonsense … you are just great 🙂
Mathematical Biology
Your example is good but it is disproved for the reason that the same sequence of (say) 35 proteins may have been used for another purpose.
That is:
1) This system is indeed not a discharge
2) This system does not rule out evolution because it could indeed have been created by evolution. It turns out that we know about several possibilities for the development of this sequence.
I'll ask you a question (which normally you won't be able to answer): You say that man (who is an intelligent designer) failed to create a self-replicating car. Nature did manage to create something that replicates itself. Argo - an irrational being managed to create a replicating creature...
The question is - what is wrong with what I said?
Michael Rothschild
The example of a stone arch is exactly an example of inextricable complexity - take out every stone and the arch will fall apart. This is the meaning of the phrase as defined by Bihi, and as used by mathematical biology.
You built a bow of knives - I would love to understand what the essential difference is in our examples - except that mine does exist in nature and therefore completely refutes Bihi's argument.
Michael and the forum.
Serious question about the complex numbers.
Each of them has 3 seemingly unrelated features:
1. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself.
2. Every perfect number is a multiple of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1.
3. All perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers.
1. Could you explain why if a number has 2 of the 3 properties discussed, the third property is also required?
2. Can you find any number that has only 2 of the 3 attributes?
3. Can you find a formula that will yield sophisticated numbers?
This is not similar to triangles, where always when there are two equal legs then there are also two equal base angles and the opposite is also true and it is not possible for a triangle to have only one of these properties. This is self-evident and also provable if I remember correctly. In the case of sophisticated numbers, we took the simplest series of all, the series of numerosities, and by a certain consecutive combination of numerosus, we unpredictably got from their numbers 2 additional properties that are not related to each other.
How does this happen?
Ghosts - in our kibbutz the triangle was the God of the whole society, big and small.
And by the way, for those who think that inextricable complexity has not been demonstrated in a laboratory experiment:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts_1002157.html
"One mutation, one part knocked out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect."
Etched Biology:
"I gave an example that no one has disproved, and in my opinion will never disprove either. car."
A car - invented by man.
Man invented it step by step.
Which disproves your claim.
Just a final note about non-decomposable structures. Even Darwin himself understood that if they demonstrated the existence of inseparable systems in nature, his theory would be disproved (of course he adds that he did not find any, but that was at the time, when they didn't even know what a gene was). The reason for this is of course the too low probability of such a structure appearing at once. I have seen evaluations by evolution experts who claim that even 100 ha is too big a jump (and in my opinion even less, and I have no problem expanding on this for several pages). And a single protein consists of 300 ha on average. Not to mention a system that requires a number of proteins. The problem here is all about evolution. Because, without a theory that unequivocally explains how an organic robot can develop, there is no point in claiming that nature developed through a natural process. And it's not for nothing that Dawkins adds that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before the year Darwin published the Origin of Species. And it is not for nothing that he adds that if there is no one among his readers who thinks that such a degree of complexity means sermonizing, he raises his hands.
Even the RNA world was invented to solve the problem of probability (the chicken and the egg). So yes, this is a serious problem. And if evolutionists have no problem with probability, then they have no problem accepting the simultaneous formation of a living being.
you said :
"In a trial and public debate between Miller and Behi, Miller presented alternatives including an alternative to the claim that a mousetrap is unbreakable (he used a neutralized mousetrap as a tie holder). Mathematical Biology claims to have disproved Miller's examples but it doesn't matter. The burden of proof that the whip is unbreakable is on the claimant "-
So why doesn't Miller prove that the whip is a freak? Why did I refute his words so easily? Do you now understand that according to your criteria Miller has to provide evidence, or do you think only the planning proponents have to?
I gave an example that no one has disproved, and in my opinion will never disprove. car. And just as a car has inseparable systems, so we find such systems in nature. Each protein is actually an inseparable system. It has a certain minimum below which it cannot be functional. The blood clotting mechanism is like this, the shuttle, the atp turbine, the ttss system, hemoglobin or myoglobin, synthesis of the "hem" molecule, cytochrome c and b, histone h4 and h3 and thousands of other different proteins and patents.
The funny thing is that inextricable complexity (they obviously don't use the above term) is starting to appear in scientific papers by evolutionary biologists. They probably have no choice.
Miracles:
I mentioned your name for a very good reason and not in vain.
I also gave examples of indecomposable complexity and the fact that you find that someone gave wrong examples of indecomposable complexity shows nothing and a half in relation to the examples I gave.
You are confusing here the claim that everything has an inextricable complexity for which one counterexample is sufficient and the claim that there are things whose complexity is inextricable which no counterexample can contradict.
The complexity of bows is completely unearthed and we know exactly how they are formed. Just because someone got confused and thought their complexity was inextricable does not make them criminalize the whole issue of inextricable complexity.
It is interesting to see how everyone repeats what I have already said regarding the (in)validity of the argument of the inextricable complexity and even demonstrates for themselves the fact that they relate (out of ignorance - and therefore it is called an argument from ignorance) inextricable complexity to complex structures whose complexity is disaggregated.
The claim regarding the existence of biological systems that did not develop in stages is also an argument from ignorance.
At most - those who claim that they did not develop in stages do not know what the stages in their development were.
Also the examples in the article he brought Shmulik are not examples of inextricable complexity.
The complexity may not break down as expected, but if you follow step by step the evolutionary process of the ability to connect - there is no doubt that the appropriate decomposition of the complexity will be found.
Miracles
You wrote
"I was once in a place where there is a "hall" made of large stones that enclose a volume where you can walk. The stones form a dome over this space like an arch - move another stone (which weighs tons...) and everything falls on you.
How did it come about? There was a big landslide from the nearby cliff. Big stones fell on a small hill of soft earth. Then, for years, rainwater washed away the soft soil and that's how the hall was created."
The example you gave is an example of a human structure that is a freak structure: the hall that is sometimes created for a specific purpose by a person, can be created through natural processes.
I start from an apparently not unreasonable assumption, that there are structures that man created that practically cannot be created gradually. It makes sense why: man is not subject to this constraint, compared to nature which is 'subject' to it. Indeed, apparently it is not possible to prove positively that a certain structure in nature is of inextricable complexity, because as you write, and was demonstrated by Shotton Ha'in and others, structures that sometimes appear to be non-freaks, turn out to be freaks.
^ In response to Shmolik
Regarding the mistake of "the absence of evidence is necessarily evidence of the absence", it is clear that given that Shabihi did not positively prove that there is inextricable complexity in nature (how can this be done? I have no idea) this is an argument from ignorance, still, given inextricable complexity, even if he had proved it , on the face of it this is planning.
You wrote that my words remind you of the answer: he is deaf because he cannot hear. I would appreciate it if you could explain the analogy.
Further, if you agreed that a certain object is inextricably complex, why do you think you wouldn't *need* to conclude that someone designed it? Can you explain in your own words?
"Inextricable complexity" is a demagoguery that has no second.
As long as there is no complexity that cannot be decomposed - in the known physical reality (and I am not talking about numbers and virtual mathematics) - then there is no complexity that cannot be decomposed.
Shmulik
You wrote "everything that does not contradict basic physics in that universe everything is possible" - Marie Gell-Mann even expanded and said (in the context of an infinite universe) "everything that is possible is necessary"
ארי
no no no! An indestructible structure is not proof of planning!! One example is enough to contradict this nonsense - and I gave such an example.
I will give you an example and please spend 5 minutes thinking and understand what nonsense you said....
I was once in a place where there is a "hall" made of large stones that enclose a volume that you can walk through. The stones form a dome over this space like an arch - move another stone (which weighs tons...) and everything falls on you.
How did it come about? There was a big landslide from the nearby cliff. Big stones fell on a small hill of soft earth. Then, over the years, rainwater washed away the soft soil and thus the hall was created.
just no?
If you ask a cat what God is, it will answer: a big cat.
If you ask a triangle what God is, he will answer: a big triangle.
Religion - in the eyes of the modernists and postmodernists - has become a consumer product of leisure time. and took root as a culture among the middle class.
Eric,
I must admit that the beginning of your words remind me of the answer: he is deaf because he cannot hear. The question is, is there really such certainty? I'm going to get carried away for a moment into multiverses (the theory of inflation that is slowly happening, physics points to such a possibility) and argue that under the assumption that there are an infinite number of universes, everything that does not contradict basic physics in that universe is all possible. In our universe, for example, breaking the laws of conservation would be good evidence for an intelligent planner and that's why I wrote that if you show me a system whose existence contradicts the laws of conservation, I say to you, by God there are things in it, but that's it, I stopped drifting and came back to reality.
When I say that in the "irreducible complexity" argument we rely on language, I mean that sometimes, we get carried away looking under the lamp. The creationists see a shotton and understand that it is similar to an engine because it is easy for us to quantify the function into a word that is familiar to us from everyday life and hence, this is the claim, the entire development of the shotton is done while determining that the component always wanted to be a motor. But, who determined that the same shoton, less a molecule, has no function, a function that we do not know how to identify or give it a name? At this stage the creationists make the mistake of "the absence of evidence is necessarily evidence of absence". In an oral trial and public debate between Miller and Behi, Miller presented alternatives including an alternative to the claim that a mousetrap is unbreakable (he used a neutralized mousetrap as a tie holder). Mathematical Biology claims to have disproved Miller's examples but it doesn't matter. The burden of proof that the whip is unbreakable is on the claimant and not on Miller who responded to the challenge. This is for good measure.
Now, I go further north and for the sake of argument, I agree that there is inextricable complexity and ask, if there is inextricable complexity, is the only solution necessarily an intelligent planner? Obviously, this could point to an intelligent planner, after all, this is why humanity invented sea-gods already thousands of years ago. They know nothing except that they themselves build things and therefore everything around them was built by God. I can always say God created everything and everything can point to him, it's the easiest but since then we've learned a few things and the third link I gave demonstrates that unbreakable structures can be created by natural selection although I admit, I don't know how much you can rely on the simulation described there to decide but Anyway, the topic is interesting and I don't agree that inextricable complexity necessarily indicates an intelligent designer.
Just to clarify Shmulik: given that there are things in our world that man created for a specific purpose and which certainly cannot develop naturally then they can be defined as 'unbreakable' this is a matter of definition. So theoretically if there is a structure in nature created by an intelligent designer like us at least, it can have an 'undecomposable' structure simply because the decomposability is a constraint that does not apply to the designer. If there is such a planner, then factually there is a reason for there to be such non-decomposable structures, and let's say there was a sign that points to the non-decomposable structure, it also points to the planner.
Shmulik
What is it that 'relies on human language'? Theoretically, if it is possible to prove that a certain structure in nature is indestructible, this is evidence of design. It is hard to understand how such a thing can be proven, but theoretically it is true.
In advance, the subject of "inextricable complexity" is extremely problematic because it largely relies on human language and assumes the logical fallacy that a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack. He relies on language because he seeks a purpose for action, but only for actions that we know how to define with words (coagulation, engine, etc.) but who said that there is no way of activity, that we do not know how to locate, or quantify and give the activity a name and in our great arrogance (at least that of the creationists) we decided which is not an activity. I think that if I am shown a system whose development contradicts conservation laws (for example), I will begin to suspect that there may be an intelligent planner as an agent outside of nature.
In order to advance the discussion a bit, I looked for articles that ask the question: if there is indecomposable complexity, is the only answer necessarily an intelligent planner (naturally, it is very difficult to talk about handling it because we are not sure that there are systems that are indecomposable) and here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#False_dilemma
http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/behe/
And a link to the most interesting article I've seen, although it's about computer simulations and I'm always suspicious of simulations that try to model nature, in the sense that it's not clear to what extent such simulations can be extrapolated to real life. Suspicious but not ruling out of course (simulations are a necessary and very effective tool in developing technologies):
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html
Michael Rothschild
Why are you mentioning my false name?
"Inextricable complexity" is a concept defined by Michael Behey, following an idea put forward by Darwin in the Origin of Species. Bihi's intention is a system that stops functioning as soon as one part is missing, so it could not be built in stages. Note that Bihi's definition does not speak of the way of construction, but of the current situation. If you don't believe read the book...
And it certainly has nothing to do with number theory... There is no even number whose last digit is not 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8... is this also an indecomposable complex? 🙂
It is worth clarifying 3 simple points:
1) We currently do not know any biological system that casts doubt on evolution. And this includes the bacterial rod, the blood coagulation mechanism, and the hemoglobin system and many more inventions and gibberish by Bihi, Dembsky and the other charlatans.
2) There are indeed structures in geology that have an inextricable complex - arches for example. Or a pile of branches in my garden standing like a teepee tent... you move one and they all fall 🙂
3) We must not forget Dennett's "philosopher's syndrome" - do not confuse lack of imagination with necessarily recognition. I will explain, for mathematical biology....you found a biological mechanism that you do not succeed in, how it was created by natural selection, therefore there is necessarily an intelligent planner.
I suggest re-reading 1) …..
Michael - one example is enough to disprove a theory, right? Cairns-Smith gave the famous example of arches in nature, 10 years before Behey's book.
And one last point - biological systems are known that really did not develop in stages. And there is no problem here for the theory of evolution.
QED
: )
And here is a simpler example (only three knives):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4vC0WMytR66dl9GVmNPWWtwT28/edit?usp=sharing
Michael
Do you doubt the reliability of high-ranking lads like Blondie and Toko?
Surely there is inextricable complexity in the world of numbers! And surely and surely the intelligent planner is the cause of the complexity! Haven't you read the biblical code? Didn't you see how they were accurate in everything?
(Well, it's true, there were some insignificant misses in the part of the predictions for the future. Bibi was not assassinated in 2000 and an atomic war did not break out in the first decade of the 21st century. But we must admit that in everything else they hit a bull's eye.
As Toko says:
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk
Miracles
Instead of appreciating Bihi's effort to formulate a clear definition for a structure that reflects planning, you underestimate him? Compared to 'mathematical biology' which cheaply uses unfounded intuitions in order to sell its wares, it at least tries to use rational arguments, and since it uses rational arguments it indirectly serves evolution because it is possible to better understand how it works.
here:
I was too lazy to draw but I wasn't too lazy to build (with mugs instead of bottles):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4vC0WMytR66NGFlRjNqZ0xRUkk/edit?usp=sharing
Israel:
The fact that there are theorems in mathematics and that whenever the conditions of the theorem are met, its conclusion is also met is not what is known as "irreducible complexity" in nature.
You could also argue that there is inextricable complexity in Euclidean geometry, for example - always when there are two equal bisectors then there are also two equal base angles and the opposite is also true and it is not possible for a triangle to have only one of these properties.
Also the pun of Miracles is not a serious reference to the subject.
An example of inextricable complexity that requires planning is, for example, the structure of 4 bottles that form the vertices of a square and four knives, the length of each of which is less than the side of the square, placed with the end of each of them on the head of one of the bottles and the other end combined with the others in a fabric structure that prevents the four from falling and forces them to form A bridge between the heads of the bottles.
I hope the description is understandable because I don't have the strength to draw it.
It is possible to describe a situation in which a great many knives fell in the form of a pile between the bottles and at some point such a structure was formed above and then the knives below were washed away by a stream of water passing through the place, but it is possible to plan an imaginary world (and even one in which knives are constantly falling from the sky) where such a thing is not possible And the intelligent planner will be indispensable.
Inextricable complexity in mathematics.
Take for example the phenomenon of the perfect (sophisticated) numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself. The number 6, for example, is divisible by 1, 2, and 3, and 6=1+2+3. The numbers 28, 496 and 8128 are also perfect numbers. And here, it turns out that all perfect numbers obey the rule discovered by Euclid: every perfect number is a multiple of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1. For example:
6=1^2( 1- 2^2)
.
. .
. . .
( 1- 216091^2 ) 216090^2 = (216090^2 – 2432181^2)
This number is over 130,000 digits long! And he obeys Euclid!
"And that's not all. It also turns out that all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers:
6=1+2+3.
28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.
496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.
8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.
It is impossible to break down the properties of these numbers - for example, a sophisticated number will contain only some of the discussed properties and not all of them, which indicates about a thousand witnesses to inextricable complexity and therefore to an intelligent planner in the world of numbers.
And this is precisely why the intelligent planner chose the first perfect number - 6 - as the number of days in which the perfect world was created.
And if this clear and decisive proof is not enough for the skeptics, Clint Eastwood in the good, the bad and the ugly also says "six - a perfect number" before he goes with Toku to eliminate the eyes of Angel and his friends.
No wonders wonders?
Michael Rothschild
There is a beautiful definition for "inextricable complexity" - something so simple that it cannot be simplified any further - and yet creation is unable to understand …….
The phrase "inextricable complexity" is a phrase that has meaning and in my opinion, if there was something in nature whose complexity was inextricable, it would indicate an intelligent planner.
The point is that to this day nothing has been found in nature that justifies this description, and for everything that has ever been claimed to be inextricably complex, it has actually been found to be broken down into small components, each of which in itself gives an evolutionary advantage.
No animal trait has ever been found that on the one hand requires many coordinated genetic changes and on the other hand there is no order in which these changes can be made one by one while gaining an advantage at each stage.
But more than that - even if all creationists' claims of indecipherability were not actually disproved - this would not point to the existence of indecipherable complexity.
It was merely an indication that we haven't found a way to decompose but the fact that we haven't found something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist.
In other words - the argument of inextricable complexity is simply a logical fallacy of the type "Argument from ignorance"
Shmulik
"Inextricable Complexity" is a poor attempt by a poor Christian preacher named Michael Behey. The expression once made a judge in the USA laugh 10 years ago, but that's the end of it. This concept has no scientific meaning.
This is the last straw for voodoo believers, like mathematical biology. Now - let's assume that such an ingredient is really found (the voodoo workers insist on the ass of a bacterium, well, that's it...). Does this mean there is an intelligent planner? No - it doesn't mean that. We know about "unbreakable" ingredients in nature, and we know exactly how they were formed.
If only a man of faith would come up with some reasonable argument... probably not
Mathematical Biology
What exactly is the relationship between a car and inextricable complexity?
I asked you several questions and you did not respond - may I understand that you have no answers?
Michael Rothschild
Or was I in the bathroom?? 🙂
Water blowing
The meaning of life, in my opinion, is that each person's role is to leave a better world for the next generation. Imagine what would happen if everyone thought like that? What a wonderful world we would live in today? You don't have to go crazy, but everyone can do something small...
There was also the episode of a towel from Stola (slightly reminiscent of the mathematical biologist)
Water blowing:
You killed me with your response
mathematical biology,
What's the point of arguing?
If you think that a limited theory should be confirmed or proven, that most of the tested parameters are known, by direct observation, as an inference on a subject where the majority of it is not known, fine. Keep it up. It is clear to me that the two are not equivalent and so is science, the philosophy of science and logic. How many times do I have to explain this and how many times can I send you to the Wikipedia entry for the word "confirmation" so that you understand it? So you are welcome to keep telling yourself that an inference is worth proof and think that by doing so you have proved the existence of the irrefutable and hence unprovable intelligent designer. I do not.
If you think that my job is to prove that inextricable complexity does not exist, I will again wish you that no indictment will be filed against you, but if so, I hope you understand why the burden of proof is on the state, that is, on the person making the claim. You claim that there is an inextricable complex. prove it. Failure of someone to show discharges is not proof of this. This is just proof of his own failure (whatever the failure does not agree with you that he failed and is a world expert in the field, but what does it matter).
If you think that even if inextricable complexity exists, then there must necessarily be an intelligent planner, fine. Prove that this is the case and no, the question: "What else can explain this" is not proven. In South Park there used to be an episode where the kids come across gnomes stealing underwear. The dwarves had a three-step plan and it read: step one steal underwear. Third step to get rich. Second step was a question mark (?). You steal underwear and try to get rich while skipping step 2. You won't succeed. http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e20120a962e645970b-pi
And that's what I meant when I said there were no new arguments. A cycle of pseudo-scientific claims and self-convincing. Continuing to argue is not a smart thing to do.
Shmulik, I brought as an example the theory of the elliptical earth. A theory that was later proven correct, with technological progress.
That is, the principle of proof is an excellent fact, and hence the intelligent design is scientific.
Regarding new arguments. I don't understand what arguments you mean. I gave an example of the psychophysical problem (a car created in a closed room). And of course the statistical refutation in the form of inextricable complexity, which, remind you, stands and you have not yet refuted it by demonstrating gradual steps for the car.
Miracles:
It was important to me to expose the liar's nakedness because in my opinion lying is one of the most horrible things that can be done on this type of website.
When I realized that I had achieved the goal (partly thanks to your comment) I said that it was a waste of my time and I stopped referring to him.
You are suggesting that I quit after I quit and you didn't suggest that I quit before.
This means that, at least for you, I stopped at the right moment.
Sorry Nissim, just a question that I missed from you and is somewhat related, if it is possible to repeat for me the meaning of your life because I didn't notice, thanks
shocking
Children in kindergarten... enough with that.
Yes.
That you are not ready to "put money on the words you say". (translated from English)
Well, I'm sorry for my time. Everyone already understood what was happening here.
Surely you will introduce some more….
But can you prove that I am a "Serkh"? You won't be able to because you know you will have to pay me a lot of money.
And of course Serah too
Dodger liar!
You are welcome to come with the following list of people:
Sane
Evolution for your face
To Emanuel
The sting
thistle
calyprus
As I observed from you: you are evasive.
You are welcome to use all the information available to you. Do you still want to keep dodging? If so then you are just proving me right.
Knows what?
Come with more people from among those who you claim are responding from the same computer who will testify to your identity.
This will already reduce the uncertainty by a lot!
The evasion continues.
We have already said that in science there are no proofs.
Come with Serah to a lie detector and we'll get confirmation for my theory or the one you're making up for us.
You can keep bragging.
Let's see you prove that I am the commenter "Serah".
If you fail - you will pay me 100 times the cost of a polygraph test. agree?
Between us - I know that the requirement to come with Serah is very easy to fulfill because you live in one body
In short - you avoid.
Knows what? Come with Serah too. This will increase the certainty of the test. see you!
Besides that, I also have a 'little' knowledge of law as well.
And your attempt to confront me with the lie detector (so as to prove your righteousness) will only work on those who do not understand it.
Khantrishkar:
Are you ready to come to be tested by a lie detector or do you know you will be caught?
I know that you have some knowledge of computers (and so do I) so I asked him to write the email in this way.
Because I knew that's exactly what you would rely on!
You're just a liar and a stinking clown.
By the way - they say that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare's plays.
They were written by another person who had the same name and lived at the same time in the same house (and maybe also in the same body).
You can read a beautiful description of a ghost here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
And here we have further proof that what a ghost sees comes directly from his fevered mind.
By the way - it's not only the IP (and by the way - Rafaim uses more than one IP) but also the style of the email address (I allow myself to point this out because in his last hack he already proved that he discovered it. Otherwise I would have continued to hide it from him).
Of course, the nonsense he writes also proves this.
And the funniest thing is that he calls others with the title "liar".
Knows what? Ghosts! You are welcome to reveal your full name and come with me for a lie detector test. The cost is on me, but if it turns out in the test that you are a stinker, you will pay me 10 times the same cost.
agree?
R.H. Rafai.M
What exactly do you have against me?
I see that Makhal is unable to prove anything.
For the sake of full disclosure:
This is the IP from which I usually write.
The computer from which "Serah" responded is the same computer from which I also responded several times. (and from which more people comment - although I don't know if in this forum or not).
I asked commenter "Sarh" to read the stinking messages of Michael Rothschild. and will respond as he wishes.
Of course the Rothschild knows all the facts. And he must have known this fact too. (alek)
But that's what happens, Rothschild, when you're sick of megalomania, and arrogant and prideful, and it also stinks when you're wronged.
From today you are also marked as a liar by me.
Because anyone can see that when you are wrong you have no problem to start lying. (After all, you know everything - so surely others will believe you even when you lie)
Your farce has crossed all limits and you can be content with commenters like Nisim and Mouthhole (whose -bad- reputation has already been proven here) to continue to believe you.
Michael Rothschild
I wrote that not all... and you are 100% right
Miracles:
This is another one of the times I regret not having a like button here.
He does prove this over and over again and now continues his stinking impersonation attempt.
There's an interesting situation here: he manages to prove to you that he's a jerk, but I can prove to you that he's a ghost just by getting you admin privileges on the site. With such permissions it is possible to see that it is the same person (if we make an assumption and call him a person).
By the way - not all religious people are idiots and that's a fact.
Some of them are so smart that they manage to excel in spite of religion, even though it limits their abilities in some areas.
Michael Rothschild
It's one thing to think religious people are jerks (I guess not really all of them….).
It's another thing when they prove it over and over again 🙂
Maybe you can prove it to us?
Ghost was right. You really start to stink when you're wrong.
By the way - I have a lot of patience, but only for people who want to understand.
People who lack knowledge and understanding who insist at any cost to remain like that and drag the people after them really annoy me.
The dilemma is always whether to roll them in the products of their oral diarrhea or ignore them.
The answer is not always simple.
Just be clear:
Serah is a ghost in one of his usual scam attempts.
I have to admit that this name suits him better.
MouthHole is right.
A ghost has gone from a cartoon to a troll to a troll.
He does not understand anything of what is said to him and of what happens in nature but he speaks as if he were God's boss.
Of blessed memory.
Water blowing
what are you smoking there 🙂
What does this have to do with what I wrote?
And miracles can also be metaphorized
Trouble-free, fast, and a good memory can be your "destiny" in relation to the intelligent planner
You can also see that computers have evolved if that helps
Sorry miracles
Good for the computer - no problems, large memory, fast and more
Water blowing
Why agree to this???? And why think that humans know what "good" is? To live as long as possible? the least? multiply as much as possible? the least? Kill other species or not? Kill other people or not?
So 1) I see no reason to agree to something so delusional and unfounded
and 2) How do I, or anyone else (and who determines who this someone is?), know what "good" is?
Listen, my theory is much simpler, explains the world, has no contradictions, and gives meaning to life.
Yours starts really bad, and from there it doesn't progress anywhere, as far as I understand.
It comes in stages, at first a theory, then you actually feel it, so do parallel universes
Start by going one step further by agreeing that people want the best for the computer to work "well"
Water blowing
I agree with you. The point is this: in archeology for example, one of the ways to know if something is planned is to try to understand what the purpose of the planner is. If you say it's meaningless here, and maybe you're right, then how can you argue that life seems planned?
I can understand what the purpose of a certain living being is and thus understand what it does. But I don't see any reason to think that someone planned life…..without looking for a reason for this planning.
Let me say it another way: if there is no way to know anything about this intelligent planner (the term "intelligent" is also problematic, but more on that another time) it means that he has no influence on my life. It's like talking about a parallel universe that we will never be in contact with. Nice intellectually but a waste of time on a day-to-day level.
Understand - there is no reason, according to you(!) to think that the planner wants my good, or the good of man in general. On the contrary, we are tools for a certain purpose that we can never understand.
MouthHole
Are you M*Kal's sanger? It would be better if you didn't open your jure why you just stink.
The honorable Mr. Nissim
It's a bit like a computer and a human being, the computer itself is not aware of its purpose, the planner, the human being above it. So is the attitude of a human being "and the intelligent planner"
Mathematical Biology
You think there is a planner. The planner has a goal, and planning has a goal.
Can you awaken our eyes to the purpose of life?
tickle tickle
I don't know if a ghost is a cartoon designed to emphasize Michal's impatience by the crazy extreme of his impatience or if he really suffers from Tourette syndrome (and not too smart either)
"Evolutionary algorithms" is an organism? - indeed nonsense.
I wonder where you saw such a creature "evolutionary algorithm".
Sure say they exist because man made them. But of course you will not understand that man is a creature and not an evolution. But I don't care if you understand or not, a megalomaniac like you will never accept the fact that he was wrong.
mathematical biology,
I really didn't get to the bottom of your mind, but if I understood the point of your words, then you keep trying to disprove evolution, but I don't defend it. For that matter, evolution does not interest me. All I'm saying is that the president was right.
There is no such thing as the confirmation principle and there is no such thing as the proof principle. There simply isn't. There are stronger and less powerful theories, but never, they are not proven (and I'm not talking about the theory of getting stuck in the wall, but about theories where we don't know all the data). You are at most, inferring, and not proving the existence of an intelligent planner from your (superficial) observation, but you should know that you are doing this for something that there is no way to disprove. This is a logical fallacy.
I was hoping to get new arguments regarding the intelligent designer. It did not happen
I will follow up on one thing.
you said:
” The same goes for any replica car. You invent machines that don't exist,"-
If they don't exist, then you didn't see their production, or someone did on your behalf. And hence again - in your opinion such a car is not proof of a designer. And if according to evolution it is not possible to tell whether a replicating car requires a designer, something is very wrong with the theory.
The same goes for the principle of authentication. You want to call it the principle of proof. Not that it matters.
Indeed, extreme nonsense.
The whole world calls it evolutionary algorithms just because one plus one equals two and it calls one plus one equals two in the name of evolution because the ghost has not rested on it.
Knows what?
Actually it is clear to me that you do not know what!
This is what I wrote:
"It is also desirable to clarify that all these "replicating robots" are the product of the thought and creation of humans, and not the evolution of another organism in nature." - A metaphor for what this is similar to: Man did not create the dinosaurs - but evolution.
Robots that are capable of replicating are the creation of humans. And not the evolution of an organism called a robot. Because there simply is no such creature.
But when you determined in advance that one plus one is evolution - it will be difficult to prove to you that one plus one equals two.
So let's make order:
When I gave an example of robots that develop through evolution, you found it appropriate to "clarify" that the replicating robots that I reported on are not replicating robots (otherwise why the quotation marks?) and that they are the product of human thought and creation.
Since I said before that it was a man-made evolutionary system and you didn't just want to repeat what was said, I concluded - as any reasonable person would have concluded - that when you say that they are the product of human thought and creation - you mean that evolution did not create them.
On the other hand - you say that I did not understand and that I am lying when I say that these are the things that you tried to clarify.
I suggest, therefore, that you clarify for us (and this time in Hebrew!):
1. Are, as I claimed, replicating robots that are the fruit of evolution? Please answer yes or no.
2. If you answered "no" then tell me what is wrong with my presentation of your claim. If you answered "yes" then tell me what your responses were intended to achieve.
Besides, you are welcome to vote for us on any contribution of yours to any discussion.
You wrote more nonsense. (and you lied too)
The only nonsense I do in all these discussions is the very reference to you.
I have yet to see that you have ever contributed any information, thought or original idea to any discussion.
All you care about is yourself and promoting your superstitions.
You just wrote nonsense.
If only because you didn't understand my words, you decided to simply twist them.
(Have you ever thought of going to North Korea and replacing Kim Jong Un? - You both suffer from megalomania)
It is advisable to understand that the one who did not understand is a ghost and since he probably won't understand either, there is no need to argue with him.
The laws of mathematics are part of the laws of nature and are the main thing that also works in the evolution of animals.
The fact that the material given to them is not organic (and by the way - even this is not true for all the examples I gave, one of which is organic materials) does not belong to the matter of evolution at all.
The fact that man created the environment is simply so that there will be an environment that encourages the achievement of goals that he himself does not know how to achieve.
In short - it's evolution for everything and all a ghost wants you to "understand" is that it's not evolution and that robots can't evolve through evolution - that is, he wants you to "understand" wrong things.
It should be clarified that Michael Rothschild simply did not understand. Happens…
"In other words: humans created the environment in which the robots reproduce and the details of how the traits are inherited" - as I wrote - and as Machel corrected himself afterwards.
"But everything else is a result of the mathematical laws of evolution." - Exactly. And not as a result of the evolution of another organism in nature. As I explained.
That is: humans created the environment in which the robots reproduce and the details of how traits are inherited, but everything else is a result of the mathematical laws of evolution.
Humans could not foresee what would be created there.
It is also advisable to emphasize that what Rafaim said is not true.
It is also desirable to clarify that all these "replicating robots" are the product of human thought and creation, and not the evolution of another organism in nature.
Friends:
I am amazed that you still hope to restore "mathematical biology" to sanity.
I personally abandoned the discussion with him because I very quickly stood by his nature: the facts are not of interest to him. He's just a troll.
By the way - there are replicating robots that do useful things and are not the result of planning because they are the result of evolution.
Since it is a mathematical law that does not depend on the replicators being alive, the theory of evolution is also used for the development of software and robots.
This is done, among other things, by evolutionary algorithms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
The achievements in this field are not few and in fact these are mathematical laws that not only explain - but actually create - physical reality.
Among them we can find:
Software that plays chess: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3566594,00.html
Evolutionarily developing robots:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
Automatic Scientist:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
And more.
All of these - of course, are not proofs of the mathematical theorems, because these were mathematically proven independently.
It is a technological application of the theorems by artificially creating the conditions in which the theorems show that evolution will occur - in order to receive evolution.
Another area that is found both in the field of application and in the field of the animal world is the development of drugs by an evolutionary process of choosing variants of chemical substances that excel more and more in dealing with the disease or with a toxin, as for example in this example:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/freedom-movement-weizmann-2604114/
mathematical biology,
I realised. You won't answer my question about whether you think an inference is proof, so I will answer. The answer is: of course not.
1. From your words: A person is an intelligent agent. Man plans things and the things he plans are complex. Nature is composed from here (hint, this is where the inference process begins) an intelligent agent designed it. Your claim is inference, not proof. heating.
2. There is no such thing as the confirmation principle. I showed you what the concept of confirmation means and what it does not mean. Pay attention to your Hebrew. You wrote: "For me confirmation is proof of some kind of claim". I am happy that from your point of view, but from the point of view of other Hebrew speakers, this is not what the concept of confirmation means. Since you invented a principle that does not exist, you can claim by virtue of it that although it is impossible to disprove the intelligent designer, you can confirm it. That's how you invent a planner that doesn't exist. Confirm with a principle that does not exist.
3. The burden of proof for the claim: Law has an inextricable complexity and is solely on you. The fact that scientists tried to dismantle the Shouton, and according to you did not succeed, at most demonstrates the incompetence of those scientists and nothing else. I hope that the state will never sue you for anything, but if it does, at least you will understand why it is important to maintain the burden of proof. In addition, you are trying to transfer to me, in a strange way, the burden of proof, that a replicating spaceship is not proof of design. In what universe exactly am I supposed to prove your point, regarding a device I know nothing about?
4. The duty of proof that if there is inextricable complexity necessarily leads to an intelligent factor is solely on you. I argue that if there is a system of inextricable complexity, another naturalistic theory will have to address and include this fact. In order to demonstrate that there are people who do not run to God when it is difficult for them, I told you about Stefan Wolfram (mathematical software developer and the search engine named after him) who claims to have found a naturalistic principle, deeper than natural selection, which according to him solves the problem of probability. The vast majority of experts in the field disagree on him, but so what? The absolute majority of those involved in the field also disagree with you, but at least I demonstrated that there are other theories circulating in the field.
5. Your response regarding the flying saucer and cloned cars was evasive, strange and indicates that you repeatedly miss the point, and it's a shame that after this debate is over, in a few weeks another article will pop up and we'll start this debate again (maybe you choose, again, there different). At least prepare. The point is, again, that an inference is not proof and since you for some reason do not understand this, you are trying to make me conclude (because for you an inference is a proof) that this is planning using a bad example, let's not say cheap demagoguery. You are trying to bribe me into thinking about design by bringing up machines that we built that do not exist in nature and asking me if it is more likely that an intelligent agent built them. Certainly it is more likely that an intelligent person built a flying saucer, but that is because I have already seen people who built such machines and you also saw: a plane is a flying saucer. A spaceship is a flying saucer. This example does not say anything about what I have not seen people planning and building and I will even agree with you that one should be careful with the criterion I brought, because even the appearance of our eyes can be misleading. Okay, this only strengthens my argument, which without sufficient information, cannot be decided. In addition, I explained to you that your example is bad because it contradicts evolution, after all, what is the evolutionary advantage of separating from the planet and flying for millions of years in the most difficult conditions imaginable in the blind hope of encountering a planet? I explained to you that the materials from which the flying saucer I imagine is made (you did not give any specifications) are the least common materials in the universe. I told you that if you give a different detail, I might think differently. For these reasons (and there are more) I will assume that if I see a flying saucer I will think that an intelligent person built it, but it is not because of the complexity of the machine. That by itself means nothing. The same goes for any replica car. You invent machines that don't exist, that I have no idea how they fit into nature (how they survive, what they eat, etc., etc.) and as if you expect me to find a solution for you as to how evolution created them and when you fail, due to the lack of data, you celebrate. This is absolutely ridiculous. In any case, even if I think that it is more likely that nature was designed and not created randomly, that does not mean that I have proven it. Since the intelligent planner cannot be disproved and as I explained to you, there is nothing to talk about in terms of proving it either, the president's decision not to teach intelligent planning in science classes is absolutely correct (it is necessary to teach about intelligent planning in science classes and how scientific theories should not be built)
Arguable at the level of intelligent planning
I see that the differences of opinion on the site are at the level of trial and error, which are intelligent planning, which can also be argued to be the evolution of thinking!
Al- Unrealistic Biology:
"He who doesn't see planning in a replicating organic robot probably doesn't see planning in anything." – The only one who sees an organic robot replicating is you. And you see it in your imagination and not in reality. Because in the existing reality there is no such thing.
Since most of the questions here have been answered, and since I don't like to tread water, I see no need to repeat claims that have been refuted. Anyone who doesn't see planning in a replicating organic robot probably doesn't see planning in anything. And I can't change that.
On top of that, even a still car can evolve in a closed room. For, if an intelligent person can evolve in a natural process, he can evolve in a huge theoretical closed room (containing sunlight, water, etc.) and develop a car. Blessed is the believer.
Ofer, when you prove that chicks can develop in a natural process from inanimate matter or creatures that preceded them, then your claim will have weight. Because then we can claim that we know natural processes that create chicks while cars don't. Until then, the parallel is perfect.
Bio. dead.
As I explained - a car is not relevant - also in your opinion. Answer the questions directly - and don't dodge.
1. You said "there are natural processes that create stones" - do you stand behind this claim?
2. If you see a stone being created in a factory - will you change your claim from section 1?
If you answer directly, then see Q
1. Creating a stone in a factory is not relevant to the natural origin of the stones.
2. That is why the creation of chicks in a factory is not relevant to the origin of the chicks in the wild.
3. And the fact that a replica car is irrelevant is irrelevant.
mathematical biology,
I will refrain for a moment from referring to the mixture of things you wrote and ask again: in the language you use, is an inference a proof?
To show us all the light of course 🙂
ארי
And what is the role of mathematical biology??
Mathematical Biology
And that is exactly my point. The jellyfish is so complex - that's why we, as humans, don't see it as planned. I say again and again and you refuse to listen - simplicity is a sign of planning, not complexity.
What you are doing is taking your opinion, and containing it on the world. You say "there is a creator" and you adapt the world you see to your own taste. I also tried it - and came to a contradiction. You know what? I came to a sea of contradictions. I would expect a world that would look different if it had an intelligent planner.
And what's funny? You, in your arrogance, repeatedly reinforce my feeling :). You describe to me how complex the living world is and how fragile it is. And the funniest thing, you bring rebuttable arguments to your position, arguments of Christian preachers who are very, very far from the spirit of Judaism. Are you trying to prove to me that the Christians are right??
Another sign of planning is to show that the planner had a purpose. I will ask you a question - for what purpose did the intelligent planner designate life?
B.M
What is the purpose of Medusa? harass us in the summer months?
Ofer,
Again, the one who claimed that chicks do not require planning because they develop by themselves. So a car also develops by itself in a factory that makes cars. The analogy is correct and therefore and according to your claim - cars do not require planning.
Do you want to claim that there are natural processes that can create what you see in the natural world? Please, bring here unequivocal proof that any creature could have evolved through a natural process from inanimate matter. Or even from a creature that preceded it containing different systems (not by transferring genes as in Shmulik's example, in which nothing actually developed but was only transferred from place to place). As long as you don't, the parallel is perfectly correct and you can't offer division.
Shmulik,
"All in all, you claimed that it is more likely that a spaceship would be designed by an intelligent agent, but you did not prove it."
Thanks. Now we are moving forward. As I said - from your point of view (and from the point of view of all evolutionists), spaceship/robot/car (it doesn't really matter, as I have already shown) replicating is not proof of design. This serious claim requires serious proof. The theory of evolution simply does not have the proof required to prove this claim, and hence does not constitute a scientific explanation.
"You think it is more likely that a flying saucer was built by intelligence, because, among other things, you saw, or someone on your behalf saw, people building flying saucers"-
I'm sorry to disappoint you. I've never seen anyone build flying saucers. Not for me and not for my sister. Despite the fact that I don't have a sister.
"And this is exactly what I claimed (direct observation equals proof in everyday language) and therefore I will agree that if I see an alien flying saucer, I will assume that aliens built it, but this is not proof, but an assumption."-
Again, even according to your method, it is more likely that someone designed nature.
Your claim about direct observation of someone designing a car is also very problematic. Some people see many things that others do not (I guess you have heard of Dr. Ibn Alexander). Do you think everything they see is proof that they exist? Do you think Ibn Alexander actually visited heaven? If your answer is "no", then there is no point in your claim about direct observation. And thus you can't actually prove anything.
And yes, I am indeed talking about a biological spacecraft. Not that it matters. Even if plastic was the most common material in the universe and existed in nature. Do you think we expect to see a spacecraft made of plastic in such a state?
"The point was not to test a jellyfish against a paper clip. Since a paper clip requires a planner for the paper clip, which is much more complex than a paper clip and probably from Medusa as well, so the example aims to create much higher than just a comparison."-
And even it is far-fetched. For if the first planner had no beginning, he does not require planning anyway.
Miracles, yes I would be more surprised by Medusa than by the spaceship. Have you ever watched the processes that take place in a jellyfish at the molecular level? I would suggest you start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8
And that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
I said Dennett's idea… I'm using it a little differently. What I'm saying is that the simpler object will surprise us and make us think that there is a planner on the same planet. Again - I'm talking about the simplicity of the bone. This is what shows us that it is planned. It's every engineer's dream…
Mathematical biology did not deal well with this idea...nor with the idea of probability that I brought up. This always happens in arguments like this, because they don't really have any serious arguments. That's how it is when you believe in something without any basis...
mathematical biology,
Is an opinion proof?
You didn't disprove anything, you just claimed that it is more likely that a spaceship would be designed by an intelligent agent, but you didn't prove it. An opinion is not a proof and if you were my child you would ask yourself: why do I have to explain the same thing to you over and over again. You think it's more likely that a flying saucer was built by intelligence, because, among other things, you saw, or someone on your behalf saw, people building flying saucers, and that's exactly what I claimed (direct observation is equivalent to proof in everyday language), so I'll agree that if I see an alien flying saucer, I'll assume aliens They built it, but this is not proof, but an opinion. My argument does not mean that what you did not see was necessarily not built by an intelligent agent. Do you claim to have seen, or has anyone on your behalf seen, the intelligent designer creating nature?
Note by the way that you did not try to examine whether a spaceship is even compatible with evolution (why would there be an evolutionary advantage to leaving the planet?) and I flirt with the idea of calling your example cheap demagoguery since the fact is that all of nature is built from the materials common in the universe, while a spaceship (at least the one I imagine) is made from the materials The least common in the universe, indicating that an intelligent agent created them. Do you want to correct me and tell me that this is a biological spaceship? If so, give details. It may be that with a different technical specification, it would be more likely that no intelligent agent built the spaceship.
Paper clip or jellyfish?
Here is the article that discusses the subject (miracles, do you have a link to the others?). Look for the words clam rake
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/danieldennettchapter.html
The point was not to test a jellyfish against a paper clip. Since a paper clip requires a planner for the paper clip, which is much more complex than a paper clip and probably also from Medusa, so the example aims much higher than just a comparison. The article does use this example to say that the "intelligent planner" explanation leads to a vicious circle or infinite regression and therefore explains nothing
Mathematical Biology
If all the enzymes and mechanisms and the miraculous patenites in the jellyfish - it survives with great difficulty. Change the salinity, the oxygen concentration or countless other things by one percent and the jellyfish will die. After all, this is exactly the claim of the believers in intelligent design. It is called the fine tuning principle and like all the claims of the believers, it is simply wrong...
But to the point - let's replace the paper clip with a Coca-Cola advertisement sign in Greek. Still claim you'd be more surprised than the jellyfish. Let's make another change in the experiment - the spaceship that lands on the distant planet is unmanned, and of course no human has set foot on this planet.
Would you still be more surprised than the jellyfish?
Not to mention that scientists have managed to produce a hamburger in the laboratory….
"And the question is how all the aforementioned mechanisms were created, and there are no real answers."
And you have an answer "someone designed it" and the non-scientific proof is "because it is more complex than a watch"
And I have an answer "it developed naturally" and the non-scientific proof is "because it is found in nature"
And I repeat and ask why your answer is more successful than mine.
Do not try to distract from the answer to what is happening in this or that factory, because it is not relevant. Just like if a machine produces a stone in a factory, you will not change your claim that "there are natural processes that create stones". So even according to your opinion, if someone invented a factory for the production of chicks, it is not relevant to the origin of chicks in the wild. A factory for the production of cars (and a car is quite a different thing from a chick, even if it reproduces) is not relevant to the origin of chicks in the wild.
I'm sorry, the more you repeat the car replicating or not replicating argument the more stupid it sounds. You want to say that chicks are like replicating cars because they are both complex, and I say that chicks are like stones because they are in nature. Your imagination is for something that doesn't exist at all. My imagination is something that everyone knows and has come across. Sorry, as you said in a very unscientific way, "it's obvious to everyone that" then "it's obvious to everyone that" chicks and stones and streams and trees are natural things, while "hypothetical self-replicating car" is exactly the thing that is not obvious.
Ofer, you are the one who claimed that you know that clocks require a designer because you know that humans create clocks. And by this criterion a replicating car is not proof of design.
Now you come with a new argument - in the case of Christians in nature. Your claim reminds me of Cameron Diaz's claim, according to which a developing baby is, for her, evidence of evolution. This claim is obviously wrong, since hundreds of super sophisticated mechanisms are responsible for this complex process. And the question is how all the aforementioned mechanisms were created, and there are no real answers.
I also see cars being created by themselves in a car manufacturing plant. In your opinion, this is proof that a car is not a product of planning?
Miracles, of course I would be more impressed by a jellyfish than a clamp. For sure when I explore both at the molecular level and see all those hundreds of enzymes and patents working with efficiency and speed that will make your head spin.
Shmulik, we repeat the same claim again. Your criterion was that we have to see someone creating cars to know that a car needs design.
This claim was refuted in my opinion quite easily: according to the above criterion since I have never seen anyone create a flying saucer with alien technology, if we see a flying saucer it is claimed that it is not proof of design. Do you think a flying saucer is not proof of design?
Allow me to make another claim. Do you think a normal car can be created in a closed room?
Shmulik
Dennett's idea is to show the argument in the idea of the intelligent designer. We will be much more surprised by the paper clip, although it has a simpler design. Why? Because the clamp actually looks designed... it has a simple geometric structure, is made of a homogeneous material, and has a defined function - that is, a defined purpose.
The living creature doesn't look like that, it doesn't look designed.
I extend the image, to show that Paley's clock analogy is actually completely wrong. She shows that there is no planning in nature!!!
mathematical biology,
You are free to come up with any language you like, but I showed you what the term for confirmation means in Hebrew and what are the limitations of the concept of confirmation, in Hebrew. I explained to you the difference between confirmation based on direct observation and inference (which is what you do) in subjects where not all the parameters are known to you. I explained to you that there are limitations to induction in the form of mounds of dirt: according to you, if a person planned and erected a mound of dirt, then all the mounds of dirt in the world were necessarily erected by a person and in between you managed to miss the meaning of my criterion. My criterion makes a positive claim about when you can be sure that it is an intelligent agent and not when you can be sure that it is not an intelligent agent. The reason that only one direction takes hold is because the positive direction receives tailwind from observations while the negative direction does not. So here we go again. I claim that I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf, saw that same intelligent agent design and build the component in question (observation - just as you did with Kdvaa). Do you claim to have seen, or someone on your behalf has seen, the intelligent designer building something?
If you agree that you have no direct observation, then you have never seen the intelligent designer build the shoton or all of nature, then all you have is an inference and an inference is not proof.
Nissim (Vednet), great question!
A paper clip seems simpler than the jellyfish figure but I would say that before the paper clip was created, a paper clip builder had to be created. Is the purpose of the question to point out the infinite regression in the intelligent designer's solution? That is, an intelligent planner does not solve anything because it invites the question, who created it.
Mathematical Biology
We have already built replicating machines to one degree or another. Man was created from nature, Argo the aforementioned machines were created from nature...
You're very proud of the ability of human replication, but it's a pretty lame system, and there are lots and lots of problems. Without the help of science, there is enormous mortality in childbirth, both babies and mothers.
I wrote to you earlier, and as usual you ignore what is difficult for you, that you don't see "planning" in the world - when I mean planning in the accepted sense of the word.
I asked you about inventing things about a distant planet - is this also difficult for you to answer? Help you?
". According to your criteria and Shmulik's" - I did not present any criteria with Shmulik, I'm sorry.
"It is a fact that there are natural processes that create stones, and the watch does not"
And there is another fact that there are natural processes that create animals, and a clock does not - every day new chicks are created in the coop, and I assure you that the hen did not plan any part in them... No one has seen anyone planning a chick and in contrast, people plan clocks.
So you chose some ill-defined criterion of "complexity", and said that because a watch is complex, and life is "about a thousand times more complex" then "anyone can see" that they are designed. Then I have another criterion (not Shmulik's criterion) - what is created in nature on a daily basis is not planned and what is produced by humans is planned. Every child can see that chicks and stones belong to nature and are created there on a daily basis, while clocks belong somewhere else. Now prove why your criterion is more successful than mine.
My criterion is also not scientific, but it is much more correct than yours.
Hartabaert biology:
"In your opinion - how long do you think it will take nature to create a replicating car?" - If you meant the replication of a car by man: then nature took about 2 billion and another 1900 years (if you count according to the Gregorian calendar)
Ofer,
Again, I've never seen anyone design a replica car. According to your criterion and Shmulik's we must conclude that such a theoretical car is not proof of design?
A stone is no more complex than a watch. It is a fact that there are natural processes that create stones, and the watch does not. A compound is not necessarily a derivative of many components, but also their design, function, and cooperation with other components.
Shmulik,
Bihi's opinion about common descent is known to me. What to do when the scientific evidence points against it.
Confirmation is, for me, proof of some claim. As I can confirm today the earth is not flat. I proved my claim by presenting positive proof to the designer - a replicating engine that rotates approximately 1000 times per second. Includes a stop and sensors with technology that man can only dream of. And you don't need to know parameters to determine that an engine requires planning.
Miracles,
"Give me billions of years and trillions of attempts and I will develop anything you want"-
You might be (most likely not, as there are many technical limitations). A natural process is not. Are you really comparing your intelligence to the lack of intelligence of evolution?
In your opinion - how long do you think it will take nature to create a replicating car?
I forgot to mention that my example is originally from Dennett...
Mathematical Biology
Give me billions of years and trillions of tries and I'll open anything you want 🙂
You didn't understand anything from what I said ….. Why is the same mechanism you described so complex? Everything in a living body is extremely complicated.
What I am saying is that something we, as humans, see as planning does not exist in nature. I am not saying that there is no planner - I am saying that we do not see signs of what we call planning.
I will tell you a parable - maybe then you will understand. A scientific expedition goes to a distant planet. After years the spacecraft arrives and lands on the planet's surface, the first time man has reached this distant planet. He discovers two things there - a jellyfish-like creature that lives in the depths of the sea... and a paper clip. What more will surprise you? and why?
mathematical biology,
I had many more points where I demonstrated why intelligent design should not be taught that you did not address. In any case, I was able to understand the level of arguments used to oppose the intelligent planner. For you, you are invited to listen to Bihi and what he thinks about evolution, to straighten the line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V_XN8s-zXx4#t=3602
Since the principle of confirmation is so important to you, here is another explanation why confirmation is not relevant to the topic. Confirmation, as it is called, strengthens your confidence in the theory but it does not prove it. In your case, you have decided that everything is planned and therefore your confidence in the intelligent planner increases, but in no way does this prove the existence of the intelligent planner. Read a bit about the word you keep using: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A9
In addition, the argument that man plans complex things and therefore nature, being complex, requires an intelligent planner is at most an argument and not a proof of its correctness (what is more, the argument is poorly defined). Why do you think that making an argument is the same as proving it? In any case, it is completely unnecessary because the claim that the intelligent designer exists is a claim that there is no way to refute. Why do you need more?
I have already explained to you that confirmation by observations indeed "proves" and "confirms" theories in which we control all the parameters, just like in my wall example, but this example does not hold when it comes to theories in which not all the parameters are known. Read carefully again the link to Wikipedia I sent. By the way, if you've already talked about observations, that is, things we see differently from inference (which is actually your argument, since you conclude that there is an intelligent designer, you're just afraid to use this word) then I'll try again: I claim that I can say about something that is designed and built by An intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf, saw the same intelligent agent design and build the component in question (and indeed we saw many buildings designed by us). Do you claim to have seen, or someone on your behalf has seen, the intelligent designer building something?
mathematical biology,
"You know it's designed because it's too complex" - not true, you know it's designed because people made it.
A simple stone is much more complex than a watch, because it is made up of billions of molecules that are arranged in a very specific order that causes it to have a certain weight, a certain color, a certain difficulty, its own ability to absorb water, its own magnetism, its own lacquer temperature and much more. Are you claiming that a simple stone is also designed?
Shmulik, I actually addressed all the points you raised and added more of my own, and I even refuted them. You have the right to think differently. I also proved that there is no problem with the confirmation principle - as it is possible to confirm the claim that the Earth is elliptical. The same goes for the positive proof for the planner.
You also added that evolution "is a fact". And you asked what you mean by saying that. And I didn't get an answer.
Nissim, if as a dancer you are not able to create a million of the existing patents in the living world (for example, try to create your own blood clotting mechanism, without relying on what you see in nature, we will see you), how do you determine that planning in nature is not something?
Ofer, the conclusion is incorrect. If you have a watch in front of you, you know that it was designed because it is too complex, even without determining exact probability. And if in front of you is a spaceship that contains a clock inside. The design conclusion indicates that the spacecraft is more complex. The same goes for the mechanisms of life, which are more complex and sophisticated than anything man has ever dreamed of.
.
You wrote: "Perhaps it is not possible to indicate an exact probability that these objects require planning. But it is clear to everyone that a robot or a flying saucer is clear proof."
I think that sentence says it all. By and large, your proof is "it's obvious to everyone that", and then you add and say that because living mechanisms are "about 1000 times more complex", then they are also obvious.
It is worthwhile to take advantage of the "verification principle" in other areas. For example, "it is clear to everyone that" 91 is a prime number because anyone can see the primacy in it. The number 88119 is about 1000 times larger than it, so it really must be prime. Indeed scientific.
Mathematical Biology
So let's get to your point.
Listen, I'm an engineer. I appreciate planning when planning is simple. There is a (relatively) minority of separable parts. Each part is monolithic - performs only one function well. I like to see straight lines and beautiful circles. I like to see homogeneous pieces with simple geometry. If the same part is used more than once in the design then I want all its instances to be the same.
Look at a living body. It really doesn't look like the result of planning……it looks much more like a collection of patches, the result of countless experiments done over a long period of time. A bit similar to Windows - :)…….
Mathematical Biology
I understand you have no answer for me
So we'll write one-zero in my favor.
mathematical biology,
I'm sorry, but you ignored everything written here. I explained that there is no such thing as a confirmation principle. I explained that all you have is a claim. I explained to you that you are grasping undefined concepts and building a whole, non-scientific theory on them. I showed you why this theory cannot be disproved and why it actually says nothing and is actually pretending and gave you an example of why people are still looking for additional, naturalistic ways to explain natural selection.
This time I will be really concise.
Most of the discussion revolves around inextricable complexity, the science of intelligent design, and whether there is proof that the world was designed.
I showed that a theory can also be considered scientifically according to the principle of confirmation, since it offers a test to check its correctness (another example - if we go back to the days when they thought the world was flat, then we discover cumulative evidence that it is not, until finally this theory is confirmed). This is in contrast to the theory of evolution which offers no test for anything.
I gave as proof of the design of a duplicating car. Or even a flying saucer with unknown technology. The main things that prove planning from these objects is their many components, their components working together, and the visible design in their composition. The same design exists approximately a thousand times over in living mechanisms (as mentioned - Shoton which is a super sophisticated engine that can reach 1000 revolutions per second, or if you take a materialistic approach, even a monkey as an organic replicating robot). It may not be possible to indicate an exact probability that these objects require planning. But it is clear to everyone that a robot or a flying saucer is clear proof.
Those who want to argue for a naturalistic approach, have fun. It is not for nothing that the majority of scientists disagree with you. Because of the clear probabilities I was talking about (if you want to open a discussion about the likelihood of this or that mutation, have fun).
mathematical biology,
1. Where did I send you to disprove natural selection? I wrote that I don't want to mess with it and I wrote that if you want, check on Wikipedia. I repeat and write again and again that I do not come to defend evolution, among other things, because I am not in a position to do so. I come to defend the decision not to teach intelligent design in science classes and I explained why. The explanation begins and ends with the intelligent planner, this is because there is no such thing as "intelligent planning" as a scientific theory because the phrase "intelligent planning" describes hocus pocus that the intelligent planner did. The intelligent designer is a factor outside of nature and cannot be refuted. You can always argue that in practice everything was designed by him, even if evolution is capable of producing new creatures. As I explained, the fact that it is possible to reach Haifa via road 2 does not mean that in practice I did not reach Haifa via road 4. You can always claim that the intelligent designer created all the creatures at once, so that they show us people of different ages. You can always claim that we were created by the intelligent designer, 4 seconds ago, with a memory of our entire history. As a result of this, it is not possible to speak of intelligent planning as a scientific theory because it does not stand on its own and has no existence apart from the intelligent planner (just as it is not possible to speak of the process of building Lego, in the hands of my son, as intelligent planning. The planning did nothing but my son Made).
2. Pay attention to your argument syntax: Man designed things. Man is an intelligent creature. Because of this, necessarily, anything that seems to me to be planned, must be planned by an intelligent agent. First of all, this is an argument and not a proof of the correctness of the argument. You must prove this argument and in everyday language this is called an inference and not a proof.
3. Your argument is inductive and one should always be careful with such arguments. See: A man builds sand mounds. Because of this, every sand mound had to be built by man. Obviously this is not the case.
4. The question of your aliens, the gomim and all is easily solved: the answer is that we really need to examine each case individually, according to the evidence and try to understand what was created randomly by nature (as a blind factor) and what was designed by an intentional factor. My point is I'm not quick to judge and you are. I am not talking about absolutes, some kind of principle that will describe what is being prepared and what is not, and you are. Part of the problem is that the terms "designed" and "complexity" are not well defined. We understand the concept of "designed" only as something that man (and maybe also certain animals) does, so my argument stands and pay attention to what she says and what she doesn't say. My claim does not mean that things about which we have no information were not necessarily designed by an intelligent agent (which, by the way, is precisely the argument against intelligent design. Even if evolution can demonstrate the construction of complex structures, does not mean that they were not designed by an intelligent agent). Here is my argument again: in order to be able to say that I have proven that there is intelligent planning, I claim that I can say about something that it was planned and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf, saw that same intelligent agent design and build the component in question (and indeed we have seen many planned buildings by us). Do you claim to have seen, or someone on your behalf has seen, the intelligent designer building something?
5. The burden of proof regarding the existence of inextricable complexity is solely on you. Miller tried to show that Shotton is made up of simpler structures and you think you have succeeded in disproving his claim. Good for you. At most it means that he failed to explain the discharge of the rod, but it says nothing about whether the rod is really indestructible. The onus of proving that there is no way in the world to produce Shoton is solely on you. If you show that Shotton's creation contradicts the laws of conservation, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, in addition to receiving a Nobel Prize, it will create a real headache for evolutionists. Beyond that, the topic, inextricable complexity, if such a thing exists, will belong to another naturalistic theory that will have to provide an explanation and the jump that if there is inextricable complexity to an intelligent designer is incorrect. Just for example, Stefan Wolfram has a claim that under natural selection there is a more basic principle and he discusses the issue of complexity. I couldn't really find out what it was about and I think most experts oppose his claim but here is an example of how there are those who try to look for naturalistic explanations and don't jump straight to God. You are welcome to enter http://www.kurzweilai.net/reflections-on-stephen-wolfram-s-a-new-kind-of-science
Look for the words natural selection there.
6. There is no problem with the way I explained when theories can be confirmed. In the end, it all comes down to language limitations. The word confirmation, proof, etc. are everyday, absolute words and can be used freely only in everyday matters (therefore the word confirmation fits the link you gave or the example of running into the wall). As a principle, it is not possible to prove a theory in nature (unlike a mathematical theory), but only to strengthen our confidence in it and develop technologies based on it.
Mathematical Biology
Your claim about complex falls flat immediately because you assume something even more complex. You are creating a regression, and it does not advance us in anything.
Regarding my claim - you pull out an answer without any substantiation. To give a probabilistic argument you need to give probabilities………
Your answer is at the level of "Why? So!".
You talk about "evolutionary scientists" - are there any scientists who reject evolution?
I have several more points on the subject, but let's focus on just one point. The point is the "probabilistic argument". If you can't give numbers then this argument falls flat. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it's one less argument that can be used.
Honorable Mr. Mathematical Biology
A. It's good that you suck
B. On the way back, I had time to meet a car identical to mine (a duplicate), how does that relate to what you wrote, I didn't have the strength to read
Well, I will try to summarize because the discussion is getting a bit monotonous.
My proof of the existence of a world planner relied on the complexity of a theoretical self-replicating car.
Your claim, on the other hand, relies on the fact that we know in advance that humans plan cars, and from this we must conclude that a car is required for planning. This claim is disproved in my opinion on several points. The feeling is free to refute:
A) According to this logic, if we see, for example, a flying saucer or a spaceship with alien technology whose creators we have never seen, we must conclude that it was created by itself.
b) We also saw humans making dimples. So according to the above criterion we will have to claim that the genomes in nature were designed
c) I have never seen a replica car. Nor did you provide proof of the existence of such a car. So again - according to the above criterion, a replicating car is not proof of design. Unless you mean that the mere existence of a car is a valid basis for replicating cars as well. Is that what you mean?
You send me to find an attempted refutation of natural selection, when I'm even talking about the claim of common descent. She has nothing to do with it.
Now you claim that evolution "is a fact". Do you mean the claim of common origin, for which there is not a single proof? Or do you mean the definition of evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles? (which is an observed fact and true even if all species were created at once by a designer).
"Or how do the evolution experts handle Shoton"-
You mean experts like Miller? After all, I refuted his claims, so why continue to trust him with closed eyes?
"On small issues we develop theories and of course we confirm these theories to ourselves, but not on the big issues. "-
Now you propose an arbitrary division into "big issues" and "small issues"? A theory is a theory, period. You can't play with it. And it doesn't matter either. Any theory that is testable, by definition, is considered scientific because it provides a way to test it. I can for example claim that the Loch Ness monster could theoretically be a type of plesiosaur. And I can also suggest a way to test this claim - for example: by drying the lake or by deploying a huge net along the lake, etc.
Regarding inextricable complexity. Evolution experts claim that this explanation can be demonstrated to be unfounded. I, on the other hand, refuted their explanation quite easily. So the burden of proof is now on them and not on me. And in general, the burden of proof is on whoever makes any claim. It is strange that you do not suggest to the evolution experts to back up their claim regarding a common origin for all organisms. For you, is evolution free from any burden of proof?
2″. If there is inextricable complexity, it will belong to a naturalistic theory that will have to deal with this fact."-
Since evolution in its essence is not a naturalistic theory (again, otherwise there is no need for the scaffolding method or it would be possible to claim that the species evolved in Mecca)), then the existence of some inextricable complexity is a statistical/technical refutation of the theory of evolution.
Lenski's experiment does not demonstrate a remarkable change. What it does demonstrate is a new feature. For this there is no need even to go to Lansky's laboratory. New features appear even in inanimate objects. A car for example will change color if you leave it in the sun for a long time.
"So if your claim is true, and the scientists repeatedly fail to please you, it is completely explained by the tremendous difficulty in demonstrating evolution in the laboratory, "-
Not my problem. Either evolution is testable or not. And if not - that it should not be taught as science in science classes. Just as you claim about intelligent design.
Miracles,
The probability of the existence of an intelligent creator is at least equivalent to the probability that a self-replicating car requires a designer. And by the way, the evolution scientists themselves do not accept any probability whatsoever. Otherwise there would be no need for evolution.
Mathematical Biology
You write really long and hard to follow. You also mix a lot of things together, things from different fields.
I will make one simple claim and please try to understand it.
The argument is, since no probability can be attributed to the existence of a creator, then evolution cannot be dismissed because of its "low probability".
To refute my claim you have to give me a number that indicates the likelihood of the existence of a creator (at the moment of creation of course, not nowadays) given the universe as we see it.
I hope my argument is clear .... I'm just saying - as long as you don't have a probability to give me, there's nothing to say "unlikely".
OK?
Sorry for the stalking. I will respond to you tomorrow.
mathematical biology,
We are moving here on two parallel planes, in one of which you are sure to have given a winning argument in the form of a replicating car (if you want, rewrite the argument because I can't understand why you don't understand my rebuttal) while in the other, I have refuted it over and over again. On my level, I have already explained your mistake to you and I have already written that I do not come to defend evolution and if you feel like it, a search on Wikipedia and the Internet will answer the question of how to disprove natural selection (evolution itself is a fact, as far as facts can be talked about in nature. Gene transfer Horizontal is just one example of this) or how the evolution experts treat Shoton, but it doesn't really matter to me because during this debate I am only defending the president's decision not to allow the study of intelligent design in science classes and in order to try to come together, I will only respond to what promotes this issue While referring to some things you wrote.
The first thing that is important for me to address is the principle of deceptive confirmation, on which you base your entire worldview, and therefore I will come back again: there is no such thing as confirming a theory and claiming that it is proven. In small issues we develop theories and of course we confirm these theories to ourselves, but not in the big issues. For example, if I come across something at night, I theorize that it is a wall and then, to prove my theory, I turn on the light. After I turned on the light, my theory is proven (or disproved) and I can confirm it by trying to reproduce the damage, by checking again if there is anything else I could have encountered and the same is true for the link you gave me. The scientists created a little theory for themselves and confirmed it. In the big issues, those that describe the limit of our knowledge, we can only strengthen our confidence in the theory by additional observations but we can never say that we have proven our theories and in fact, we make additional observations in the hope that we can discover new information that will contradict our current knowledge and reveal another piece of the puzzle and move us forward. That's why we build stronger accelerators, to test when our current theories collapse. It is clear that in order to develop technologies, there is no need to wait for proof (which will not come). For building buildings, Newton is good enough. The difference between the easy topics and the big ones is that in one all the parameters are known (or the absolute majority) and well defined and in the other not, really not. In the big issues, we will never know what a day will produce and what new information will be discovered and this is the reason why scientific theories are those that by their nature we can never prove but only disprove but in order for us to be able to call them scientific theories, they must provide the ability to be disproved. The intelligent planner does not allow this. Since there is no independent existence for intelligent planning - the job description of the intelligent planner, intelligent planning is also invalid from being used in science classes.
By the way, the name intelligent planning is also misleading. There is no intelligent design here because if the intelligent designer created everything, he simply decided that it would be so. It is not as if he sat in a room with a computer and activated intelligence because intelligence is a concept of human existence and this concept cannot be imposed on the planner.
1. The burden of proof for the existence of systems with inextricable complexity is solely on the one who claims that there is inextricable complexity. As I have already written, it is not possible to prove, in any structure, how it was created. One can only speculate how it was formed, but the inability to explain in detail how any structure was formed is not problematic. If you see a puddle of water on the floor, can you tell what the block of ice that melted to make the puddle looks like? Does the fact that you can't make the claim that there was a block of ice there implausible? of course not. This is what you miss over and over again. Evolution does not contradict the existence of God, but it says that he is not needed. In this context, I must point out that I did not understand your argument as to why there is a burden of proof that there are structures that are inextricably complex on the proponents of evolution.
2. If there is inextricable complexity, it will belong to a naturalistic theory that will have to deal with this fact.
3. The fact that we designed things does not mean that what you see in nature was necessarily designed by an entity outside of nature, because we designed things. This argument is at most an argument and not a proof of its correctness and the problem with it is that I cannot disprove it. Even if it turns out in the laboratory, naturally, that Shotton can form by itself, this does not mean that in practice an external factor did not create it. The fact that you can reach Haifa from Route 4 does not rule out the possibility that I actually arrived via Route 2.
You are also stupid when you insist on not understanding what I am saying about the car. You know exactly who manufactures and builds cars and it's a shame to be pretentious. Since you know exactly who designs and builds cars, you can say that when you see a car on the street, an intelligent person designed and built it. You are not allowed to use this argument about nature, because we have not seen how it was created, so my question stands: I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf saw that intelligent agent design and build the component in question (Indeed we saw a lot of buildings designed by us). Are you claiming to have seen the intelligent designer build something?
4. Something I would like to address though is the Lenski experiment that you mentioned and I am very loosely familiar with. The experiment demonstrates that there have definitely been incredible changes between the different generations, maybe this does not satisfy you (because only you determine what is the basic currency that is considered a change and I am not allowed, what is considered complex and I am not allowed) but I want to shed light on other sides. The first point is that you will see how difficult it is to pick up such an experiment, which created 45 thousand generations. Need financing for 20 years of work. Look how hard you have to work to understand a genetic sequence that was created there and because it is so difficult to pick up such experiments, there was only one like this (maybe there are others, but surely you can count them on one hand), so if your claim is correct, and the scientists repeatedly fail to want You, this is completely explained by the tremendous difficulty in demonstrating evolution in the laboratory, in a way that you (don't) hope to see. The second point is that you will see how problematic the impressive experiment in itself is, because it absolutely does not imitate nature because, for example, all the samples are in jars, which isolates them from the environment, from the various pressures, from the cosmic radiation from the tremendous interactions with other bacteria. All this could explain why what you (very much not) wanted to see, did not happen but from what I get the impression, the evolution experts embrace this research and it confirms 🙂 A lot of ideas.
I tried to make it shorter and I didn't succeed and I'm a little sorry for that because once again you'll miss the points of my words, and once again we'll have fun in short:
There is no such thing as intelligent planning because these words as a whole express the action of the intelligent planner (according to your worldview) and he did not do anything intelligent (which is a word attributed mainly to the human race) but simply decided that this is how things would be. let there be light. There is nothing here to teach in schools, in science classes.
The burden of proving irreducible complexity is solely on you. If there is inextricable complexity, this is something that naturalistic theories will have to deal with
A claim is not proof of the correctness of the claim, therefore the claim that something seems to have been planned by an intelligent agent (because humans also plan things) is at most a claim and one that cannot be disputed.
Hello again Shmulik,
You said: "Your argument is this: there are things that evolution cannot explain because of their low probability (which in itself is an unsatisfactory argument because whoever said that improbable events cannot exist) and attributes inextricable complexity to those structures that you think have a very low probability. At this point you raise your hands and say: So, it is clear to me that there is a factor, outside of nature, that designed these buildings. This jump, to her, I oppose."-
And the evolutionists themselves oppose your objection as far as I know. Why do you think that Darwin himself wrote that if someone demonstrated that some organ could not develop gradually the theory would be disproved? According to the above criterion - even a cat created in Mecca in front of our eyes will not be proof of a planner in your view. Everything is possible.
"You say there is a hole in evolution and immediately fill it with God. How can you not see that this is a god of the gap argument, it's hard for me to understand and this is the general answer to your replicating car question"-
Some things:
A) All evolution is full of holes. In almost every possible field.
b) The gaps argument is based on "we don't know yet". Whereas I gave positive proof of the replicating car design. You have not refuted it yet, as we will see later.
"Until now, we have always been able to explain every phenomenon we see through naturalistic explanations and there is no reason why not now, even though the general consensus claims that we have done so"-
I gave a number of reasons. Since it seems that you are now turning to the consensus, and since that consensus is represented by the same scientist from the previous video. And since I refuted his claim and showed his fallacies, there is absolutely nothing in the consensus claim.
"There is no such thing as the confirmation principle and there is no theory, in the natural sciences, that has ever been confirmed, "-
What is the relationship now to the natural sciences? We are talking about a scientific theory. And a theory capable of providing a way to prove it (for example by experiment, as the supporters of evolution claim regarding evolution itself), is definitely scientific. don't you think so?
"You cannot prove the inextricable complexity and an attempt to transfer the burden of proof will not succeed."-
I actually proved it and did not receive an answer from you for this proof. I ask again - do you think it will be possible in the future to create a car gradually, when each step is effective in itself on the way to the car? And if not, why do you think such a pathway exists in evolution?
"The duty of proof, that there are structures that under no circumstances could have been created by themselves, is solely on you, because you claimed that there is a structure that is indestructible and the claimant must prove it."-
Evolutionists also claim that nondecomposable systems *yes* can evolve gradually. And we saw the nature of the evidence for this in the previous video. If so, in your opinion, even the supporters of evolution have their own burden of proof.
” Just like Bihi's demand that we create in the Shoton laboratory, which we claim took millions of years to form. how exactly? Tell me where to start?"
You must have heard about Lansky's experiment. If each step in a rod or any other complex system has a one in a billion chance for that matter, then we should easily see bacteria or even just random sequences in a test tube gradually evolve into a complex system, where each step is effective for something else. In fact scientists do exactly that, and fail time and time again.
"Evolution, the experts claim, provides a general explanation that explains how every structure we see could have been created"-
Do you mean those experts like Miller?
"But surely the inability to describe exactly how it was created does not work against it for the reason that it is impossible to reconstruct all the conditions and constraints"-
So evolution is not a science since it cannot be tested. Therefore it should not be taught in schools. Do you agree with this statement? There is no reason not to.
"Since we are talking about billions of steps, at least, and there is no way to know, in the laboratory, that the first step on the road to righteousness has indeed been taken" -
First, it is not about billions of steps. A minimal shot includes something like 20 proteins. That means a total of a few dozen steps. For that matter, there is also no need for the developing system to be specifically shoton. Any other system that demonstrates inextricable complexity and the scaffolding method should suffice. A two-step system is also considered.
"Regarding the replicating car (I really don't understand the argument but I will try my best to answer), we do build replicating cars" -
really? You will see one reference that someone created a replicating car that contains dna and replication mechanisms and that is also able to move with a motor.
And without seeing it. According to the above criterion - I have seen people create a pile of sand. From this I must conclude that a sand pile requires a planner? of course not. Now you will rightly claim that we know a natural process that creates a sand pile. And hence not every sand pile was necessarily planned. And I say again that we have not seen a cat that develops in a natural process either. So you're back to square one.
And in general, in order to know that a replicating car requires a designer, do I have to see the designer?. I have never visited a car manufacturing plant. And even without that, I know that if tomorrow I see a car of a type I've never seen before (with technology that seems alien and unfamiliar to me, think for example about the "third day"), it will be proof of planning for me. Because I know that complex objects like cars require planning.
"There is no theory that has ever been proven because of positive observations."-
It is strange that the evolution experts themselves bring such proofs to their claim:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130606191001.htm
There is no such thing as intelligent planning because it is in total the job description of the intelligent planner and no process exists without the intelligent planner. Back to my son building a Lego car. My son is the intelligent planner in the Lego context. After he has finished building the car, is there any point in talking about his building process in isolation from him, as if it doesn't exist? Does the process that took place have an independent existence? Of course not and that's actually your point! Mila was a follower of intelligent planning who thinks that there is evolution and the planner helps it in the difficult points (and Bihi is actually one of those) but you are even more extreme, the type who claims that the intelligent planner is not intelligent enough to plan a process that develops without him and he is the only one who is able to introduce new creatures on the surface of the Earth ( This is despite the fact that I demonstrated to you how, factually, this is not true, by transferring lateral genes). Because of this, there is no such thing as intelligent planning, but there is only an intelligent planner who does what he wants.
Your argument is this: there are things that evolution cannot explain because of their low probability (which in itself is an unsatisfactory argument because who said that improbable events cannot exist) and attributes inextricable complexity to those structures that you think have a very low probability. At this point you raise your hands and say: So, it is clear to me that there is a factor, outside of nature, that designed these structures. This leap, to her, I oppose. The argument of the intelligent designer, which in everyday language we call God (and I feel embarrassed that we continue to write the intelligent designer and not God) existed even without our advanced knowledge in biology and was always exploded by the greatest scientists in the world, when on the front of knowledge, certain elements were not explained within the framework of the theory they developed . Most of the great scientists limited their knowledge to God and each time, we made a new discovery that created a new explanation that contradicted the old explanation and pushed God further away. You say there is a hole in evolution and immediately fill it with God. How can you not see that this is a god of the gap argument, it's hard for me to understand and this is the general answer to your replicating car question: so far we have always been able to explain every phenomenon we see using naturalistic explanations and there is no reason why not now (even though the general consensus claims exactly that we did)
Now for some debt:
There is no such thing as the confirmation principle and there is no theory, in the natural sciences, that has ever been confirmed, certainly and certainly not about God. The idea that you can confirm God, who cannot be disproved, is a logical fallacy of the first order. How can you not see it?
The way you do it is also full of holes. You cannot prove the inextricable complexity and an attempt to shift the burden of proof will not succeed. The duty of proof, that there are structures that under no circumstances could have been created by themselves, is solely on you, because you claimed that there is a structure that is inseparable and the claimant must prove it. You can't make weak claims like "it looks planned" or say that since we too can build an engine, this must be the way the gun was created and call them almost scientific (as if there is such a thing as being roughly scientific) and expect us to come to a standstill. This is ridiculous, just like Bihi's demand that we create in the Shotton lab, which we claim took millions of years to form. how exactly? Tell me where to start?
Evolution, the experts claim, provides a general explanation that explains how every structure we see could have been created (and this argument is sometimes used against it because it is very difficult to disprove such a claim, but fortunately, there are others, but it doesn't really matter to me now) but certainly the inability to describe how It was just created and does not work against it for the reason that it is impossible to reconstruct all the conditions and constraints (on Earth and beyond) and all that the evolution experts claim is that there is no principled prevention (that is, there is no violation of conservation laws here) and even offer a naturalistic explanation that puts their opinion of most experts. The fact that there is some explanation does not mean that it is easy to demonstrate, step by step, how any structure is formed, since it involves billions of steps, at least, and there is no way to know, in the laboratory, that the first step on the way to the stone (for example) was indeed made because you do not know all the steps The possible ones that will eventually lead to Shoton and in addition, why do you think there are so many laboratories across the world trying to produce Shoton?
Regarding the self-replicating car (I really don't understand the argument but I will try my best to answer), we do build self-replicating cars (for example as computer algorithms) and it is certainly possible, for the fun of it, to design a robot to build a robot, but in any case, we programmed or built the first generation for that It can be said that an intelligent agent designed and built and I don't understand why you think we can't say that about technology that we ourselves produce. Hence my question still stands: I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf saw that same intelligent agent design and build the component in question (and indeed we have seen many buildings designed by us). Are you claiming to have seen the intelligent designer build something?
In conclusion, there is no such thing as intelligent planning, there is only an intelligent planner. The jump from "evolution cannot explain" to "the designer did it" is illogical and hidden by human history and at most you can say that you believe the designer did it and there is no such thing as the confirmation principle that proves something. There is no theory that has ever been proven because of positive observations.
Shmulik,
Not for nothing did I link you to the video. Miller does not demonstrate that each component of the shoton has an independent function. This is simply factually incorrect.
A) The base of the rod has at least 2 homologous proteins. I mean you won't find them anywhere.
b) Miller claims that missing components from the Shotton will give us the ttss injection system. is that so? Again, this is simply factually incorrect. Skip straight to minute 5.02. See for yourself how he claims in the enclave suddenly a different claim. Suddenly it became "homologues". And what are those homologues? These are proteins that are *different* from those present in Shoton.
As mentioned above, Miller is wrong twice in the same video. This fact should turn on a red light.
” So, if it makes you happy (and even if it gives you a hint), I will accept his claims. Why does it not matter to me? Because the duty of proof, that an organ exists, which has inextricable complexity, is on you and only you."-
a) The burden of proof is also on the other side, to prove that there is a gradual path to the development of the court. So I assume you agree with Nell from the evolutionary side as well.
b) I gave an almost factual scientific explanation, that there are no gradual steps for the development of a complex system. For your part, you claimed that maybe in the future we will discover how a car, for example, can gradually develop. And in response I asked you what makes you think that in the future we will be able to show something like this. I would appreciate your response.
"Even if you were to prove that Shuton has inextricable complexity, it would only prove the problematic nature of natural selection and nothing else."-
of course. Miller himself in the same video explains why evolution requires that there be functional steps in the development of the rod. All because of the low probabilities. Otherwise evolution would not be able to explain how these systems developed. And evolution will be in dire straits.
"The claim to the right of intelligent planning is actually a claim to the right of an intelligent designer, which, we have already agreed, cannot be refuted and this is the reason why intelligent planning should not be taught in schools and universities, in science classes except as an example of how not to build a theory."-
Again, I stood by the principle of confirmation. If there is a way to prove a theory, then in your opinion it is not scientific and should not be taught in educational institutions?
"(And here Bihi's rebuttal argument is pathetic and ridiculous, because the claim that the shotton developed in an evolutionary way, over millions of years and he wants us to sample it in the laboratory???) "-
Yes. The reason for this is that even according to the theory the baton should develop gradually. When every step is effective in itself on the way to righteousness. Hence, if the evolutionary explanation is correct, then there should be no problem in demonstrating step by step how such a system develops gradually. If we assume the chances of the first step are one in a billion. This is something that we are supposed to see happening in every laboratory today before our eyes.
"Regarding your claim of a replicating robot, I really don't understand what you want to say here. I saw, or someone on my behalf saw the factors that designed a replicating robot"-
But this is what we did not see. Have you ever seen someone design a replica car? I do not. And according to the criteria you presented - such a car is not proof of planning.
Biology,
Reverse order:
I have no idea why you are showing me a YouTube that demonstrates to what extent, regarding the shoton, your argument collapses, because what Miller presents is that the various components, which make up the shoton, have an independent function.
I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with him, so, if it makes you happy (and even if it makes you laugh), I'll accept his arguments. Why does it not matter to me? Because the duty of proof, that an organ exists, which has inextricable complexity, is on you and only you. The idea, inextricable complexity, is interesting in itself, but we'll see you prove that it exists. You have to trace back the entire history of space and outer space and demonstrate that there could be no environmental conditions, no constraints, no accidental element that would allow the creation of the Shoton. Miller, do the work you should have done, before you claimed that the Shotton demonstrates inextricable complexity and he did so because, as mentioned, the idea itself is certainly interesting and a wonderful intellectual challenge. Before you come up with any theory, between yourself, try to contradict it from every possible direction. Intellectual honesty requires you to do this and it is clear that we will not do it.
Even if you were to prove that Schottton has inextricable complexity, it would only prove the problematic nature of natural selection and nothing else. If this is indeed the case, inextricable complexity will become part of another naturalistic theory and the attribution to intelligent design is demagogic. The reason is that it is not possible to separate the intelligent planning from the intelligent planner and in fact, there is no such thing as intelligent planning but there is only an intelligent planner who created everything. If my child builds a Lego car, there is no point in talking about the process in which the Lego was built, but only about my child who built it. The car was not created out of nothing, but it was built by my child. The claim to the right of intelligent planning is actually a claim to the right of an intelligent designer, which, as we have already agreed, cannot be refuted and this is the reason why intelligent design should not be taught in schools and universities, in science classes except as an example of how not to build a theory.
From the other direction, even if a shotton can develop through evolution (and here Bihi's refutation argument is pathetic and ridiculous, because the claim that the shotton developed in an evolutionary way, over millions of years and he wants us to sample it in the laboratory???) that does not mean that this is indeed how it actually developed. It is certainly possible that the intelligent planner created it and as I have already written, the fact that it is possible to reach Haifa via Highway 4 does not contradict the existence of Highway 2 and this is the reason why intelligent planning cannot be disproved and this is another reason why intelligent planning must not be taught in schools and universities, in science classes except as an example How not to build a theory.
Regarding your claim of a replicating robot, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. I saw, or someone on my behalf saw the factors that designed a replicating robot, so I'm not bothered that the 20th generation of the replicating robot created the 19th generation because I know who built the first generation, so my claim stands:
I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf saw the same intelligent agent design and build the component in question. Are you claiming to have seen the intelligent designer build something?
Following on from your words, I don't understand why you think a survey is worth anything? Will a survey of scientists convince me that quantum mechanics does not correctly predict reality? of course not. Why do you think a survey of people is relevant to something?
Regarding the baton and engine, again, you want to claim that it is the same as a human engine, claim it. I was just pointing out a difference that exists between engines built by man versus structures created through an evolutionary process. Here by the way, you missed another point. While we don't really know how to explain how chemistry turned into biology that regulates light elements (and here I will not challenge your claim that there are no proteins on Earth but in living things, but I will refer you to http://www.space.com/10498-life- building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html), the elements that make up the proteins are the most common in the universe, which is exactly what you expect from a blind process: to take advantage of what is available. Is this proof of anything, certainly not but it would be surprising if it were otherwise.
The anonymous user is of course me…
Shmulik,
you said:
"I will come back a second time: I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf saw that same intelligent agent design and build the component in question. "-
That is, a replicating car/robot/watch is not proof of design. Because we've never seen anyone make one. OK. And I think a replicating car is definitely proof of a lot of planning, even without me seeing someone create it. In fact, if you ask this question to any person on the street or even conduct a survey among scientists. I think the answer will be unequivocal.
"Certainly Shotton performs an action similar to an engine, but that does not say anything about it being an engine designed by an intelligent designer. One of the fundamental differences between the one designed by man and the shoton that is claimed to have been created through a natural evolutionary process is that the shoton is built entirely from the most common elements that exist in the universe"-
The rod is made of proteins. Proteins have never been observed on Earth except in living things. Which means proteins are rarer than gold and diamonds. Which means that according to the above criterion the rod is even more special than a normal engine. And here too I disagree with the claim. If I design a car tomorrow made of common elements. Can't I call it a car? Since when is the type of material essential to the identity of the object?
"You don't even manage to show that there is such a thing as inextricable complexity because you have nothing to go through all the options in which the sword could have been created and contradicted one by one."-
Here is from Miller's own mouth. Direct fuel for the 3rd minute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4
Do you agree with him and his statements?
And as for your last question, since I'm not a fan of discussing philosophy, I'll politely avoid it :)
Father, there is no such thing as "half an eye". As there is no such thing as half a camera. Even the simplest eye in nature consists of hundreds of different components (a simple eyespot can reach up to 200 genes). And, many components are required for the most minimal eye. As well as a minimal camera
the missionary,
That's exactly the point, as I've explained over and over again. The fact that it can always be said that an intelligent designer is the one who created the first cell, he is the one who created the first material, he is the one who created everything, makes it unscientific. You can always claim that as a trump card and there's nothing I can do to disprove that. The entity that is claimed to have designed (and built according to some believers) everything we see around us is called in everyday language, God. Because of this, this theory must not be taught in schools or universities, in science classes except as an example of how not to build a scientific theory. All the links that Mathematical Biology brought demonstrated the cheating and coercion around it. Starting with the way in which certain elements suggest how to contradict them and ending with the "easy" logical jump from an attempt (worthy of itself) to disprove evolution to a factor outside of nature.
Evolution does not address how the first cell was formed and in any case, weaknesses/holes of evolution are weaknesses/holes of evolution and not proof of any other theory. You are bothered by these weak points/holes, don't fill them with nonsense but sit down and think how you can fill these holes with content that you can do something with (or let the scientific process do its thing). A polio epidemic is currently raging in Israel. Are you suggesting that we throw up our hands, sit idly by and pray that the intelligent planner will take care of it, or that we try to think and create an effective, non-supernatural, scientific solution to the plague (there already is)?
All the progress we have created for ourselves is a monument to the opposite, and above all, a quote from Mark Twain's words is appropriate here: "Read the weather forecast before you pray for rain"
The missionary:
I'm writing from my mobile phone at the airport and I don't have time for nonsense because I'm taking off in a moment.
You started with a tomato and when I explained to you that this is nonsense you "return" me to a place we were not in - the first living cell.
Even the first living cell can be reached by evolution from inanimate matter.
It is true that there are no fossils from this period, but there are also no fossils of the intelligent creator and there is no evidence of the existence of this creator.
As I mentioned, the idea of the intelligent creator also does not give any answer to the question about the origin of life. Do you even read what is written to you?
The funny thing is that the whole intelligent design joke is an evasive way of saving God, but the fools who take this route forget that they are not talking about anything at all different from the God of Judaism
To Michael
I take you back to the prototype of the first cell
Intelligent design could have created the first cell at the level of evolutionary design
(note, everything I claim and others is a paradigm)
The missionary:
I think you are missing the point.
No one claims that intelligent design is not possible. vice versa! We ourselves - as humans - are engaged in the intelligent planning of animals and we have already had certain successes in this regard.
See for example here:
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell/overview/
The debate about intelligent creation is not about whether it is possible but whether the evidence we find in nature indicates intelligent design or evolution.
The answer is completely clear to anyone who knows the facts: there was evolution and no intelligent design.
Of course, if we had found evidence of intelligent planning - we would not remain silent as the believers do, but we would search for how the intelligent planner was created.
This topic seems to be of no interest at all to the Hozis of intelligent design and they defend it even though there is no evidence of its existence and even though even if our lives were the result of intelligent design - it would not answer the question of how life was created because according to the claim of intelligent design - at the time we were created someone was already alive who created us (and therefore the manner of our formation is not an answer to the question of how life was created).
to the commissioner
The last time you threw him out of a plane he flew 000000
Today's tomato is the fruit of intelligent planning - hundreds of years of agricultural development aided by evolution.
Commissioner
Quit bullshit. Answer a question yourself: you see an elephant flying above your head - is this intelligent planning?
A question for Shmulik & Rothschild
In it we will take a seed of a tomato
We will create it with thought and technology (duplication) an exact copy
Do you think it will be intelligent planning - or something else???
mathematical biology,
I will come back a second time: I can say about something that it was designed and built by an intelligent agent if I, or someone on my behalf saw the same intelligent agent design and build the component in question. Regarding all those things that I have not seen, or no one for my reason has seen, planned and built by an intelligent agent, I cannot say that. Do you claim that you, or someone on your behalf, saw the intelligent designer planning and building the shoton (or anything else)?
Certainly a shotton performs an action similar to an engine, but that does not say anything about it being an engine designed by an intelligent designer. One of the fundamental differences between the one designed by man and the shoton that is claimed to have been created through a natural evolutionary process is that the shoton is built entirely of the most common elements that exist in the universe (I am conjecturing here but it is certainly made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) which is exactly what you expect evolution to do This (working with the common materials in the universe) is compared to the human engine built from materials that are not common. This is one of the reasons why the loose parallel proves nothing. In any case, as has already been written over and over again, even if it is difficult for evolution to explain it, it only means that evolution has difficulty explaining it. that's it. This turns evolution into a theory with holes, but as I already wrote, it doesn't really interest me (the defense of evolution against the Shotton, the explanation of the probabilities, etc. can also be read on Wikipedia) because I'm interested in understanding why you are sure that intelligent design exists or how it can be disproved You can't do that and that. You don't even manage to show that there is such a thing as inextricable complexity because you have nothing to go through all the options in which the rod could have been created and contradicted one by one. You have no way of knowing what were the evolutionary needs that may have created some of the structures in the past until the Shouton was created in order to claim, absolutely, that the creation of the Shouton contradicts physics in the form of a contradiction of conservation laws. Even if you were to show that there is such a thing as inextricable complexity, it would not bring you any closer to an intelligent designer.
If you want me to refer to Miller, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the link and the minute in question.
By the way, how do you see your life as one who believes he is a creature designed by an intelligent designer? Are you happy about that?
As someone whose eyes got weaker and weaker until I had to undergo cataract surgery, I can testify that even a quarter eye is beneficial. It's true, you can't read small fonts, but for survival to get by.
Read for example also here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/seeing-sea-stars-the-missing-link-in-eye-evolution-080713/
Shmulik,
According to the criterion that placing a duplicate watch/robot/car does not require planning. That's because I've never seen anyone create a replica car or watch.
"Acceptance is a nice thing, but it does not prove anything by itself. The fact that you decided that Shoton is an engine," -
So tell me yourself - why do you think the baton is not a motor?
"1. that evolution, at every stage, must produce an evolutionary advantage."-
If you mean every step at the nucleotide level then you are correct. But in general, evolution requires selective gradation. Otherwise it is equivalent to the fact that the eye, for example, was created in Mecca. why? Because if there is no survival advantage at any stage on the way to the eye (although it is not necessary for every nucleotide to be a selective pressure, but certainly in general), the chance that the eye will develop from a random sequence *without natural selection* on the way to the complex eye, is similar to an eye developing suddenly from a random sequence. Therefore, no evolution expert agrees with such a claim. That is why the scaffolding method was also invented.
"The claim is that most of the steps have an evolutionary justification other than being used as an engine (if you go to the Ben Miller-Lebihi debate, Miller demonstrated this)"-
Miller did not demonstrate this. He conceived that there is another system with parts that are common to Shoton. Does this prove that the systems could have developed from each other? Definately not. As I explained with a car and an airplane.
"The duty of proof, that each stage in itself, (each stage) is not possible from an evolutionary point of view is only on your side. "-
I gave you an example from a real engine or car. If there is no selective grade on the way to a car made of duplicate material, why would there be one in the Shoton engine?
Another thing, Miller claims that the above claim is worth considering. Do you disagree with him?
Hartabarate Biology:
Yeah, sure.
(These discussions have already been on this site before. You may have missed them. If so, you are welcome to rummage through the site's archive and read.
And especially to learn from them why you are wrong. Just don't confuse us.)
mathematical biology,
No, there is no such thing as "as you know". The only reason I know that a car engine was designed by a human being is because I saw with my own eyes (or someone on my behalf) the designer design and then build the engine. Do you claim to have seen the planner (or someone on your behalf)?
Beyond that, acceptance is a nice thing, but it in itself proves nothing. The fact that you decided that Shuton is an engine is your claim and beyond that, if you claim that it has inextricable complexity, it is that you have to prove two claims:
1. That evolution, at every stage, must produce an evolutionary advantage. No evolutionist claims that each step in itself must be efficient. The claim is that most of the stages have an evolutionary justification other than being used as we are (if you go to the Ben Miller to Behi debate, Miller demonstrated this) and this claim was made by the evolutionists but it happened because the evolutionists responded to the challenge. The burden of proof, that each stage in itself, (each stage) is not possible from an evolutionary point of view is only on your side. Since no one claims that from the moment, her name will be at the end of Shoton, began to develop there was an intention (pre-directed) to produce Shoton, you must show that there is no way for Shoton to be created. The burden of proof is only on you and you did not do that. You just made a claim.
2. That the above could not have been formed by chance and in a facile manner, if certain stages are evolutionarily stable, is it possible that the final stage occurred by chance?
Shmulik, I will try to respond to most of your claims.
First, indeed, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. And I have no problem proving that nature requires planning. There is no lack of positive evidence for planning. One of them is the organic motor flagellum. This sophisticated motor can rotate about 1000 times per second. And an engine, as we know, is proof of design. Even if composed of organic matter or able to make copies of itself.
The claim that an engine requires planning is a scientific claim. Contrary to the opposite claim that it is not evolution.
Intelligent design does state that there are systems that cannot be explained gradually. They are also the ones that distinguish and demarcate between different creatures (apart from as mentioned in bacteria, since they carry out horizontal transfer, where the business is more complicated since it is necessary to trace the source of the transferred genes). As mentioned, one of them is the flagellum. The reason why this engine could not be created gradually is that missing parts of it (experimentally demonstrated) results in biological dysfunction. Hence, if we reconstruct its evolutionary history we will encounter the end of the road.
Think about it this way - what differentiates different car models? In principle, these are different systems, consisting of different components.
mathematical biology,
Part One
The argument is simple: it is not possible to prove, in any way whatsoever, that in advance it cannot be refuted and it is certainly not possible to limit the power of the planner. Trying to reverse the correct order of things will not change anything. What you wrote, cannot be refuted but can be proven, is a false statement. What cannot be refuted does not need proof and it will not change anything anyway. Everything I say will not change: I will not be able to disprove its existence. But if you are allowed to claim things on his behalf, why not me? What information are you exposed to that I am not?
We agreed that the planner is the one who created the intelligent design. In all the links you gave me regarding intelligent design, I did not see a single way to disprove it, since your theory would agree with everything seen around us and any new findings would necessarily be accepted (it is clear to me that you will try to ask the same question about evolution, but in this part of the discussion, I am not referring to her. You are welcome to ask others). What can be refuted is the principle of inextricable complexity and at this point I have three comments:
1. Even if the inextricable complexity does not exist, it would still be possible to claim that intelligent design exists and is even more intelligent than we assumed because it created such a sophisticated mechanism as evolution.
2. The duty of proving that the component is designed, by a designer, is yours and only yours and not my job is to prove it. Indeed, the role of evolutionists is to provide an explanation for how evolution did this, but that is not my role either, and evolution's ability or inability to explain certain points does not contribute any validity to the theory of intelligent design.
3. The limitations that your links tried to claim exist on intelligent design are forced, arbitrary and as if they were created for the question: "How can intelligent design be refuted?" You say here - show me that there was development without intelligent planning and you refuted intelligent planning, but this is not true. You determined, arbitrarily, what is the most basic currency called progress (with you it's a new garden, if I understood correctly), you determined, without telling, what a creature is and when it turns into another creature and you determined, without telling us, what planning is and then you come and ask me To show that there was progress, without planning, without me knowing what planning is or when a being ceases to be the same being. It's like I'm going to create Shmulik's theory of relativity, which is the same as Einstein's, only that Einstein's doesn't work correctly on a material called Jazebin and mine does. Find Jazbin and you can disprove my theory or argue that Einstein's is wrong. That's not how you build a theory. If you ask your robot question again, you will get nothing, a question is not a definition.
Since it is like this, since it cannot be refuted, since it is impersonating, since it does not serve anything, does not offer a single prediction, and it comes with the intelligent planning father, it is forbidden to teach intelligent planning in schools, in science classes, with the exception of how not to build a theory.
Second part
I ask again, what does it have to do with what an intelligent person can do? There are things we have managed to specialize in and there are things we have not yet. The fact that nature does many things better than us, does not mean that in some things, we are not better. What's the problem with that?
What do you mean time doesn't play a role? The past tense helps to explain why it is not so what we see is the result of coincidences. What do you mean the intelligent planner demonstrated that he can't... I don't understand according to what principle you reduce the ability of the intelligent planner and why you think that what was will be, necessarily.
I have already referred to the fact that you are the one who determines everything, including what planning is and including adding principles that evolution does not accept, for example, the claim that every step in evolution must, in itself, be a positive step (where did you get that?) and yet I ask, how can one demonstrate incompetence? And if in the future he finds it possible, you will give up the intelligent planning (but the intelligent planning will remain alive, which cannot be refuted, remember)? In addition, do you really want to tell me that it is impossible to design a creature to turn into another creature and every step in the change will be justified (even though this is not a principle that exists in evolution)? Not even as a theoretical exercise? .
Even if I struggle to understand how you define a creature, I still don't understand why you don't call the creature created as a result of the lateral gene transfer a new creature? What's more, you completely ignored my analog copy argument. Do you want to redefine what the boundaries of the intelligent planner are?
That Mullik, as mentioned, is a general intelligent planner cannot indeed be refuted. This does not mean that it cannot be proven.
"The evolutionary process took place over billions of years, slowly and horrifyingly slowly, and what does it matter what an intelligent person can or cannot do?"
Of course it matters. Evolution as a principle is a natural explanation. And if an intelligent designer is unable to demonstrate the gradual development of a new system, how can one believe that a natural agent can? Since when does time play a role here? According to the above criterion - an intelligent person cannot create a flying car. Hence, in billions of years such a car could be created by itself.
First thing, we can soon if not already and second thing, the intelligent planner can, because nothing limits him. Are you claiming that the intelligent designer is limited in his abilities?
Do you want to support an intelligent designer who created everything in such a way as to show us that he did not interfere? you are welcome. Just know that most evolutionary biologists support evolution without a designer. At least as far as I know. The whole theory of evolution comes to explain how complex systems can be made without a designer.
mathematical biology,
I didn't get an answer: Do we agree, that in your opinion, the intelligent design (whatever it is) is the handiwork of the intelligent designer, which cannot be refuted?
Regarding the article:
As for the fact that the process is known, I'm happy about that, it means the scientists are doing their job. What was demonstrated is the transfer of genetic material, which cannot pass perfectly, as a principle (as I demonstrated), between different creatures while creating new creatures, not through the intelligent planner (and this is the point). The fact that there is a system on the other side that can receive the genetic material does not change anything, it is always so. As is known (in the light of the article I brought), the genetic material that transfers is transferred without prior planning, allowing the new creature to survive better and, inevitably, the genetic material that transfers will not transfer in digital perfection (do you think otherwise?) which will inevitably create additional changes along the way.
As for what you "clearly spoke", nothing is clear. Do you want to qualify your argument that only the intelligent designer can create new creatures?
ש
Regarding the link you sent, what do you want me to read there? On the other hand, in the article published by the scientist, it is written: "In my research, I tested the ability of archaea of one type to meet archaea that are slightly different from it. I checked if there is a barrier regarding the ability to transfer DNA. I saw that the barriers are very low and it actually raises questions about the evolution of these creatures. During evolution the creature keeps its DNA and lets it develop. If a certain creature has the ability to receive DNA and give DNA to others, it affects the type of evolution it will undergo. It changes the process of evolution completely. If you are not limited with your DNA and can receive whole traits from others, this greatly speeds up evolution"ֿ
https://www.hayadan.org.il/edit-naor-interview-310713/
Regarding what evolution can or cannot do, it is not really important for me to go into details, because intelligent design has to stand on its own merits and a theory does not receive the status of correct, by default.
To your question, "Why can evolution do it easily...and an intelligent person can't..." is a strange question. The evolutionary process took place over billions of years, slowly and horrifyingly slowly, and what does it matter what an intelligent person can or cannot do? First thing, we can soon if not already and second thing, the intelligent planner can, because nothing limits him. Are you claiming that the intelligent designer is limited in his abilities?
I want to get answers to the questions I asked you at the top of my post and thus to the question I asked a long time ago: If I believe what you believe (intelligent design) combined with evolution, do I believe in an intelligent design that is different from yours?
By the way, you said
"Contradicts your claims that only the intelligent designer can introduce creatures with new genetic material"-
not exactly. After all, the same genetic material will not pass without a complex system accepting it. Obviously, I was talking about creatures that do not have a transfer between them. In addition, plasmid exchange is a well-known and well-known process. It is a fact that even the supporters of evolution do not present it as proof of evolution and rightly so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation
Shmulik, the point is that the development of a new system with new components has never been demonstrated, as T.Evolution claims. If you consider the transfer of existing traits between organisms to be something that proves an iota of the above claim, please do. Just know that it doesn't even come close. Rather, if evolution can so easily create a gradually complex system. How is it that even an intelligent person can't?
Spring.
The response is intended for "biologist".
Let's see if he can answer your question.
What is wrong with the theory of evolution following the discovery of the new species?
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/15/2670403
mathematical biology,
Do you disagree with the fact that intelligent design is necessarily the product of an intelligent designer?
I'm not yet getting into the definition of what intelligent planning is and by the way, neither you nor anyone owns any theory. Only after I receive an answer from you can we move forward and start discussing intelligent design.
Regarding the article: Well, then genetic material passes from bacterium to bacterium when the importance of the transferred material is critical to the survival of the bacterium.
Bacterium/bacterium are words in Hebrew that stir up the discussion. Before us are three creatures: one with a certain property and two identical to each other, without the substance that creature A is about to transfer to one of them. After a certain time, genetic material passes from organism A to organism B. Creature B now contains genetic material different from creature A and creature C (creature B is not creature A). Factually, creature B and its descendants will contain new genetic material, which the intelligent designer is not responsible for and this contradicts your claims that only the intelligent designer can introduce creatures with new genetic material. By the way, if you tried to transfer food from plate to plate, you must have seen that it is not possible to completely transfer all the contents of the first plate to the second plate, so if you think that the transferred genetic material was transferred in digital integrity (with error correction, checksum, etc.) then you are wrong, so the transferred material , is necessarily not the same as the original and therefore, you will know what additional effects can arise from such a distorted chemical copy. It is clear that the copying usually succeeds so that the feature is absorbed by the new bacterium, but the point is that there is no chance that the copying goes perfectly and from these mistakes, sometimes residual progress can be created and sometimes not.
Biologist
What is wrong is your understanding of evolution. And not evolution. You still have a lot to learn (even though you are already trying to teach others that evolution is wrong)
That Mullik, as mentioned, plans in general as you draw is indeed irrefutable. But the existing descriptions of the planner are indeed refutable. And hence they have to be taught.
Plasmids can obviously be transferred between bacteria, etc. But according to evolution all the above genes gradually developed from other genes. Whereas the example you gave demonstrates a simple transfer of genes from bacterium to bacterium.
Demagoguery:
That's not what I said. Try again.
Knows what?
In fact, don't try - I'm sorry for the time I spend chatting with you
mathematical biology,
I don't accept the confirmation principle but it doesn't matter and it's not about intelligent planning versus evolution but only about intelligent planning. I repeat again, I did not assert any claim as true due to evolution.
We will continue: if it is impossible to disprove this planner, according to what principle do you reduce his abilities? He is not subject to any laws.
Regarding the article: I do not understand your insistence and why you add words and use words to evade (this time you added: the article you linked really does not demonstrate the feasibility of a new system without planning.)
All I am saying is that there is a mechanism in nature that assimilates genetic material in bacteria that was not present in them before. The bacterium with the new genetic material is, according to your principle, a new production. For example, the bacterium now has a new ability to defend itself against a new drug, by genetic material inserted into it.
I mean, we have the creation of new creatures (according to your lingo, because new genetic material has been introduced into them) not by the intelligent designer. In the past you wrote that only the intelligent planner can do this.
Did I write something that is factually incorrect? Do you agree that there are mechanisms that allow the introduction of new genetic material, other than through the intelligent designer?
Shmulik, in such a situation it is indeed impossible to disprove such a planner. But remember that this is about intelligent design or creation versus evolution. And if you insist on a general planner then I refer you again to the confirmation principle.
The article you linked really does not demonstrate the feasibility of a new system without planning. The bacterium simply transfers a gene that codes for an enzyme that breaks down antibiotics (beta lactamase for example). Just like you can transfer wheels from a jeep to a car. There is no creation of a new system here.
Michael, you said: "It is clear that if it turns out that there is no correlation between the tree arising from gene A and the tree arising from gene B (which is what is expected if there is no evolution) then evolution will be disproved"-
That is, if I find a genetic segment in a chimpanzee, genetically closer to let's say a dog than a human, would that disprove evolution for you?
Kishkushology:
The sentence "In terms of real science, evolution has long been disproven as far as I'm concerned" is really interesting.
You should decide whether you are talking about "in terms of real science" or "in terms of you" because there is no connection between the two.
There are real scientists in the world and for them - not only is it real science, but the theory is true beyond any doubt.
Feel free to read this:
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6150
It is clear that if it turns out that there is no correlation between the tree arising from gene A and the tree arising from gene B (which is what is expected if there is no evolution) then evolution will be refuted.
It is clear, however, that the findings are that not only is there a correlation but that it is really high.
mathematical biology,
Scroll up regarding my response regarding the confirmation criterion and regarding evolution, I am not at the level of dismissing it and accept the opinion of the consensus but in the discussion with you, I did not make any claim as correct on the basis of evolution.
Let's do it slowly, without adding too many claims:
You don't understand, I'm not talking about creationism or intelligent planning but about the intelligent planner and that cannot be refuted, not even according to the link you yourself provided. Do you agree with this claim (please don't answer me about intelligent design or creation, they are of no interest to me at this point)?
Regarding the article: you are wrong. According to your opinion, "new creatures" were created because the bacteria are slightly different from each other and transferred genetic material from one to the other, material that one had and the other did not. I have no idea whether the genetic material was transferred in its entirety or only partially, but this is clearly the claim. And, among other things, there is a claim in the next link that this is a way in which bacteria develop drug resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Viruses
Does this article change your mind about the claim that only the intelligent designer can create new creatures?
Michael, in terms of real science, evolution has long been disproven for me. In terms of pseudoscience - indeed, a theory that does not have refutation tests cannot be disproved. And for proof: what phylogenetic finding will disprove the claim to which you linked in the article?
Shmulik, again, therefore creationism is indeed scientific. After all, if you prove that creatures evolved gradually, you will disprove the claim that creationism is correct. So in terms of the criterion that placing creationism as scientific and intelligent design is not. The restriction regarding an inextricable compound is not arbitrary. For no intelligent agent is capable of gradually creating a functional system. You claimed that it would be possible in the future, but this claim is not supported by evidence.
On top of that, do you agree that evolution is not scientific either? After all, if both are not scientific, why is evolution taught in science classes?
By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer regarding the confirmation criterion.
Regarding the article you brought, it is not clear to me what exactly proves evolution there. After all, if it is a transfer of existing genes, then there is no development of a new system here.
mathematical biology,
You keep claiming that the intelligent planning inevitably leads to the intelligent planner, but this is a wrong order of presenting things. The correct order of things: intelligent planner (since he is the source of everything) -> intelligent planning -> the world we see around us.
Since it is not possible, in advance, ever, to disprove the intelligent planner (so also says the link you yourself brought), anything you say he is capable of doing, goes. This is exactly the problem and this is exactly the reason why intelligent design should not be taught in science classes.
I brought up the debate between Miller and Behey as a play for Behey's eye-rolling, when he claimed that Miller was demonstrating that the intelligent designer could and could be disproved. Miller, rightly, explained that he refuted Bihi's examples of inextricable complexity but explained that the intelligent planner himself cannot be refuted, because what can be refuted is that which is found within the natural order of things and not what is outside of it, like the intelligent planner. I repeat again, even if there is no such thing as inextricable complexity, it can still be argued that there is an intelligent planner, the one I proposed, the one known as God who has no limitations.
What is still puzzling to me is the fact that you insist that there are things that the intelligent designer, God, is unable to do something (such as inventing evolution), by an arbitrary limitation that there is no reason to deny.
By the way, here is an article pointing to the creation of new creatures (according to your lingo: a new creature is a creature with new genes)? https://www.hayadan.org.il/edit-naor-interview-310713/
What do you think about the article?
I did say this but I did not detail how these tests should be used and I detailed that in my last response.
Why did you think I was claiming that I wasn't the one who said that?
On the other hand - you are the one who said that there are no rebuttal tests and then you claimed that not only there are, but that they are disproving.
By the way, the article you cited does not indicate at all that the article I cited does not provide a rebuttal test.
In fact you pretend to point to another rebuttal test (! I remind you that you do this after claiming that there is no such test!).
There is no refutation here because it is a different method for analyzing the tree of evolution that is still not clear if its results are reliable (as the researcher himself points out and as you make sure to plaster).
Michael, you are the one who said: "If the number of genes is N then only on the basis of the idea presented here it has 2 to the power of N rebuttal tests"
Before you cling to other claims like the ones you made, do you retract this claim?
Shmulik. Let's go to your method for a moment. The inextricable complexity test is actually more compatible with creationism. This is because according to creationism all animals and plants evolved as is. So if you find a way to prove that life evolved gradually, the theory has been disproved. Or alternatively, as I said, it is very easy to prove that there is an intelligent planner for the natural world. Indeed, this can be called a fact and not a theory. Regarding Bihi's discussion with Miller: Miller brings as a rebuttal the ttss system, which includes several parts in common with the flagellum. What he doesn't show (and what should have been shown actually), is that there are indeed gradual steps between the ttss and the flagellum. Refutation of his claim - both the cell phone and the watch have batteries, a monitor, wiring, etc. But there is no gradual transition between a watch and a cell phone.
Eric, I refuted the claim about olfactory genes in dolphins. I didn't see how you reconcile that with Coyne's claim. Show you more mistakes that appear in his book?
mathematical biology,
Here is the root of our whole discussion, in a public debate between Beehee and Miller. You are welcome to watch for about 5 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mzrQMYoFIvc&t=1421
good books:
'The fish within us'
'Why evolution is true'
At the end of the books there are sources and a lot of material for further reading, highly recommended.
mathematical biology,
Thanks for the link. He answered my question as to whether it is possible to disprove the intelligent designer. From the article:
It's true that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists.
What else is there to argue here?
As soon as I cannot disprove the existence of the intelligent designer, which is the fundamental basis of the theory of intelligent design, since someone had to carry out the intelligent design (do you claim otherwise?), this explains why it is strictly forbidden to teach this theory in science classes. This answers my road question and the answer is, unequivocally: even if evolution is able to produce a shotton, it will not disprove the existence of the intelligent designer. Hence, there is no way to produce arbitrary, irrefutable restrictions on an intelligent designer, as you do (when you claim that the intelligent designer is incapable of producing a system that will evolve). The concept of an intelligent designer which cannot be disproved is called in everyday language: God.
Beyond that, the article was not convincing regarding any of its claims (I don't have the strength to argue about its logical level, but it's easy to do. It's full of logical errors. The section on astronomy was weird):
1. Nowhere in the article does it say that intelligent design will collapse if evolution can produce a shotton, but what will collapse is Behe's inextricable complexity claim.
2. The assumption that in evolution every step in itself must be justified, it is yours and only yours and it is not true. Not every step in evolution has to be justified. There isn't some god that immediately kills a creature that seems to be a little less suited to its environment according to some algorithm that it runs. The evolutionary process is gradual and terribly slow, and along the way, genes that were neutral at a certain stage can turn out to be the basis for creating useful and good abilities.
How about the following article? https://www.hayadan.org.il/edit-naor-interview-310713/
On another thought - it seems to me that no one has yet tried to place the troll in the evolution tree.
Interesting subject for research!
By the way, of course the intelligent planning (if there was such a thing) would not indicate any intelligence of the "planner" who gave ostriches wings, who caused snakes and whales to develop degenerate legs under the skin, who gave birds disabled genes for teeth and - I almost forgot - who made creatures like this programmer possible "Mathematical Biology"
And a little more (three out of hundreds of links that you get when you search for the topic on talkorigins):
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Kishkushology in Baltic:
You said there are no rebuttal tests, so now you're trying to refute?
This means you lied when you said there was no rebuttal test.
Since this is a statistical phenomenon, its examination should also be done statistically, even if there is a deviation here and there - when the majority matches, you get confirmation that the chance that there will be any match by chance is simply zero.
Regarding the Shoton - I'm surprised: you don't even look at Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
Shmulik, when you manage to show how each step is useful, you will disprove the claim of intelligent planning. So far, no one has. And as far as we know this is impossible.
Regarding the rebuttal test, see here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html
And true, if your theory is proven then it is an existing fact. For me and in terms of the scientific evidence, intelligent design is indeed an existing fact.
mathematical biology,
Yes, we can gradually create a car:
1. When every step is useful
2. When some of the measures are beneficial and the rest are neutral
3. When some measures are beneficial, some are neutral and some are harmful.
We will be able to do anything and our level of control will be at the atomic level if not below that. If we can, why not the planner who planned us?
There is no such thing as a confirmation test: if your theory is proven, it is no longer a theory but an existing fact, but in science there is no such thing as a proven theory but hypotheses of one or other levels of strength. It is clear that a claim that cannot be refuted is not and cannot be a scientific theory and such a claim does not deserve to be taught in science classes.
Some unanswered questions:
1. Please provide a link to the article that states as an axiom that the intelligent designer cannot produce a system that will undergo evolution. The fact that Bihi said this (as he wrote: "according to his understanding", does not make it correct. He did not understand correctly. To me it sounds like an arbitrary decision that is not backed up anywhere, except in the old link you gave, unless you show me, in a mathematical sentence , that at the most principled level, it is not possible to design a system that will undergo evolution, and improbability, however extreme, is not a barrier or limitation to an intelligent designer.
2. I don't understand your refutation test: why, if evolution is capable of producing a schooner, would that disprove the existence of the intelligent designer? If I can get from Tel Aviv to Haifa via road 4, does that mean that road 2 does not exist?
3. If I believe in a designer who is able to do what your designer can and also design evolution as scientists describe it, do I believe in an intelligent designer, who is not your designer?
Thanks
The courts relied on the testimony of scientists. I have not seen a court that relied on astrologers….
My father and I thought to Tommy that matters of science are discussed between scientists. Are courts an authority in matters of science? good to know. what is the next step? Next, when there is a scientific debate, will we turn to insurance agents?
Micha, the article you linked to is based on a study from 82. Since then, a lot of water has flowed in the Harding estuary and it was a miracle, findings were found that contradict what was said in the article:
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
Since you determined yourself that each garden constitutes a rebuttal test in itself. And since this article brings several hundred contradictions, or as he put it:
"I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,"
After all, evolution is refuted squarely by squarely by squarely....
Shmulik, I ask again - can a designer create a car gradually when each step is effective on its own? And what about the confirmation test? do you accept it
mathematical biology,
I did not receive any answers
I don't understand your rebuttal test. Why, if evolution is able to produce a shotton, would this disprove the existence of the intelligent designer? If I can get from Tel Aviv to Haifa via road 4, does that mean that road 2 does not exist?
Please send a written link that claims that intelligent design will be disproved if Shoton is created in a lab. Bihi said this and he worded it carefully: he said: "Intelligent design, as I understand it..." Is this a basic principle of intelligent design and where can you get a written explanation (because it is not written in Wikipedia) for the reason for this strange and arbitrary limitation, which is applied to The intelligent designer And with this background I ask again: if I believe in an intelligent designer who is able to produce evolution as we understand it, is my intelligent designer different from your intelligent designer?
Pathetic bibliography:
Evolution has and has refutation tests. In fact - if the number of genes is N then only on the basis of the presented idea HERE It has 2 to the N power of rebuttal tests
Mathematical Biology. Wise and important people than me have repeatedly stated legally that intelligent design is creationism in disguise or creationism in a politically correct way. No amount of grammatical quibbling will change that.
Well, first I'll start by saying that I'm not talking about creationism. So finding a kangaroo fossil does not belong to rational and religious planning, nor does it belong to creationism. Lions for example lived in Israel. But as far as I know, their fossils have never been found in Israel. He is what I said - there is no rebuttal test for evolution.
to eric-
Today, even the greatest supporters of evolution are very careful with the word "pseudogenes". There are many reasons for this. Among other things, they discovered that much of what is considered pseudo is very important in gene control and expression. And see it's a miracle:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19211-how-does-a-bowhead-whale-smell-quite-well-actually.html
As for the proposal of the knowledge site to the Ministry of Education - I suggest that they initiate a national petition. Maybe a lot of the minister's voters will motivate him to make a change as promised.
Successfully
bio
Just sample questions:
What's the reason according to your fancy theory: Dolphins have air-sniffing genes like mammals out of water (even though they're in water) and not water-sniffing genes like fish. And these genes are pseudogenes that are silenced by mutations. What is the 'planning logic' behind this?
Shmulik
I don't understand what is complicated here. Look at the evidence in the world and look at our knowledge of the chemical and biological sciences. Now - let's look for an explanation for what we see based on what we know. and …. wait for it... Let's choose the only explanation we found and continue to develop it. We will check with him explaining all the observations. We will check if the explanation does not contradict something from another field. We will try to disprove the explanation.
so that's it …. Have already done this and found that Darwinian evolution is the explanation we were looking for.
Now - to come up with a new explanation, you need a very good reason. And "because that's how it is written in the Torah" is not a good reason.
mathematical biology,
I don't understand the rebuttal test. Why, if evolution is able to produce a shotton, would this disprove the existence of the intelligent designer?
If I can get from Tel Aviv to Haifa via road 4, does that mean that road 2 does not exist?
Another small thing that I would love to get a detailed answer to: I believe in an intelligent designer who is able to produce evolution as we understand it. Is my Smart Planner different from your Smart Planner?
Regarding your question, we can do it in as small steps as we like, atom by atom or in coarser steps. If we can do this, as a species that is an intelligent designer, why not the designer who created us?
Mathematical Biology
What is this nonsense "Pay attention again - the principle of confirmation is just as important as the principle of refutation."
??
Mathematical Biology
The example of the bacterial rod was debunked years ago...you don't really go back to that, do you?
Bihi himself talks a lot of nonsense and he (and Dembski) twist laws in physics to promote their Christian agenda.
If you are a believing Jew - stay away from them. Choose another charlatan for you, Amnon Yitzchak like this...
Here on the site this is constantly proven. Calling yourself "mathematical biology" and proving in every response that you do not understand anything in either biology or mathematics can, apparently, only be religious.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427
Mathematical Biology
According to what we know according to the theory of evolution, marsupials never lived in our area. According to the Jewish religion they did live here.
This is me….
Shmulik
There are studies that have an inverse relationship between intelligence and religious belief. This does not mean that every believer is a fool. But the connection has been proven
Definitely. That's why I claimed that this is what the the intelligent This is her rebuttal test. You are welcome to refute it and you are welcome not.
"If we can make such changes already today, changes in the future will be much more dramatic, which will be made automatically, without human intervention, "-
Do you mean something Transformers style? And what technology is required for this? In addition, is it possible by small steps?
mathematical biology,
When I wrote that I wanted a link, I meant a written link and not a video.
I don't understand his claim, that the formation of Shotton in the laboratory, contradicts the existence of intelligent planning. If Shoton was created in a laboratory, by way of evolution, why would this disprove the existence of the intelligent designer? Maybe in the past, in practice, the intelligent planner is the one who created the shotton and evolution can do it too. What's the problem here? In any case, do you agree with me that the intelligent planner I am presenting was not hidden by the creation of Shotton in the laboratory?
If I believe in an intelligent designer, who is capable of developing a system that would evolve without him, does that mean that I believe in the theory of intelligent design, which is different from the theory you believe?
We, as a species that is an intelligent planner, can already today implant new genetic material in various creatures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism
Does introducing new genetic material into different creatures make them different creatures, according to you?
It is clear that before long, we can really run wild with these abilities. If we can make such changes already today, changes that in the future will be much more dramatic, that will be made automatically, without human intervention, why couldn't the intelligent designer make this, after all, he created us and it is much, much more complicated than just making glowing fish?
Shmulik, check out this short video from Michael Behey himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
And it is very unpleasant for me to add, but when I was dealing with time returns I saw things that were "deleted" on the subject
It is very unpleasant for me to say, but if the intelligent design speaks to you, then this will be "proof" that it exists
mathematical biology,
I don't want to talk about evolution. For that matter, I'm with you. There is no such Torah.
An arbitrary limit, because there is no reason to assume such a limit, especially in view of the engineering achievements of mankind, as intelligent planners (more on this later).
1. Please show me one link that claims this rebuttal test.
2. Please explain to me why to set such a limit and why you yourself accept this arbitrary limit? Why not simply release the intelligent designer from this strange limitation and say: he can create everything: beings that do not change and beings that do. Isn't it simpler?
3. If I believe in an intelligent designer who is able to develop a system that would evolve without him, does that mean that I believe in a theory of intelligent design that is different from what you believe?
Engineering wise, a 5D printer will be able, very soon, to take raw materials and make a car out of them. Already today, printers take raw materials and build them into devices with moving parts. Wait another XNUMX years.
Humanity, if not already today, will be able in a few years to go wild, and make changes at the nanometer level if not below that, to any material you choose and with the help of this ability and sophisticated algorithms, robots (not only in computer simulations) will be able to program other robots that will be different from the original robots as you wish. They will become other creatures. There is no engineering limit to this. Is there a portion for the intelligent planner who created us?
By the way, this is exactly how a car is built - robots build the car from the ground up to the last component (mirror?). What is this example trying to say?
What is arbitrary here? Proponents of intelligent design have proposed this rebuttal test. Even you, as an intelligent agent, are not able to create a complex system gradually. Take for example a car. The simplest car requires a number of components to function: wheels, engine, axles, etc. It is something that can be tested, that is, empirically.
On the other hand, I would like to see you refer to the principle of confirmation. and even offers a rebuttal test for evolution.
mathematical biology,
I did not understand why.
Where do you derive this arbitrary limit from? Show me one link to this rebuttal test.
We, the human race, will be able in 10 years to produce robots that will program themselves to become things we never thought of (and if not in 10 years then in 20 years), including other creatures, including incorporating organic elements into them and what not. So here is an example of intelligent design, which allows for unlimited evolution. You are welcome to think that we are not there, but there is no engineering limit to this and we are racing towards it at a dizzying pace. If we can do that, why didn't the designer who created us, what information do you have, that I don't, that tells you that the designer could not have designed a system that performs evolution?
Well, that's pretty easy.
Here is a replicating robot. Does it indicate planning?
The reason why the creature that develops a complex system will disprove the intelligent design, is because according to the intelligent design there are no functional steps in the formation of such a system. So if you can demonstrate otherwise, the theory will be disproved. Note again - the principle of confirmation is no less equal than the principle of refutation.
B.M
You assume the desired
Mathematical biology, your assumptions are very general, to produce science you need to give an accurate prediction. As Shmulik wrote to you, what looks like planning does not really mean that it is planned,
mathematical biology,
A system that indicates planning–> planning, this is in the eyes of the observer
The word complex - is in the eyes of the beholder
Does not matter.
What I didn't understand is why, if it turns out that production can gradually develop a complex system (whatever that means), it would disprove intelligent design. Is the intelligent design not intelligent enough?
Shmulik, the intelligent design can both be refuted or confirmed and also offers prophecies. One prediction, for example, is that we will find systems that indicate planning. A prophecy that has come true again and again. Another prediction is that a creature cannot gradually develop a complex system. As soon as you disprove the above, you will disprove intelligent planning. Note that these are the criteria proposed by the theory. Please do not confuse with creationism.
mathematical biology,
I'll grant miracles, if he wants to explain about the kangaroo fossil.
I ask three simple questions and let's see how hard you will twist to not answer them:
1. Does the intelligent design offer its refutation, that is, how can the intelligent design be refuted?
2. What exclusive predictions does intelligent design offer, i.e. are there predictions that evolution provides and intelligent design provides other predictions?
3. What things are not possible under the intelligent design. Are miracles and wonders possible under intelligent design?
The truth is, if you don't have the time/power/desire, I'm mostly interested in the answer for question number 1.
Miracles:
I have no idea how to answer your question because I can only use my personal assumptions and anecdotes and the most convenient thing I thought of is to go to the wiki... (how unintelligent and evasive of me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Shmulik and Nisim-
First, why would a kangaroo fossil on the Harrett Mountains disprove evolution?
Second, intelligent design can be classified as science because it has scientific evidence. A scientific theory can offer not only the refutation criterion but also the confirmation criterion. Is the claim that a replicating clock requires planning unscientific?
It is true that if it were true, intelligent planning would not have involved you in the planning, and you would have lived in a bubble - therefore, scientifically, you would not have had the scientific tools to check it, except external things that are similar, such as the development of computers and their evolution and the semi-random progress of their evolution, and in addition They "computers" were not aware of this. Thanks
Intelligent design is not in consensus not because of the opinion of scientists but because this theory has been disproved, it is full of contradictions and it involves something that has no reason to exist.
I haven't read the article, but I have an opinion on it.
People who are prisoners of their opinions, what doesn't add up and even if it exists and is true, will impose their opinion by force, you can talk nicely about the word science, but what is not in consensus, will not be investigated even with "scientific" methods
Skeptic
Without going too deep into the debate you are having, if they shut him up, his words probably don't have much weight.
And the fact that they let him teach others is only a result of Western pluralism.
Besides there are professors who also believe in aliens. Of course, all this does not mean that the professors adhere to the truth, but that even professors can study and memorize academic material and still adhere to their superstitions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_does_eric075081.html
Here is uncensored information about what Eric Hadin (probably a physics professor) did in his philosophy of science seminar (the seminar was called "The Limits of Science"). This is the seminar that was maligned in the article here. Arik Hadin allowed the students to form positions independently, when he brought before them literature published by those in favor of "intelligent planning" (an abbreviated name for intelligent planning is ID). Arik Hadin himself rarely participated in debates and did not take a position except in situations where clearly unfounded arguments were made. Participants were able to obtain for themselves quality material against intelligent design arguments, which are easy to obtain courtesy of Richard Dawkins and his associates.
All the participants in his seminar were excellent students, i.e. capable of thinking for themselves. According to what I understood - this is a permission seminar, therefore those who went to the seminar were mentally prepared to hear unacceptable opinions and even wanted to hear such opinions.
Since many followers of evolution are unable to argue on a level. They are only happy to argue with a weak opponent (like Shingo) it gives them the good feeling that they are on the winning side and that they don't have to put in any effort to win. But when a strong opponent like Professor Eric Hedin appears in front of them, they run away from a real debate by shutting him up.
Machel
I wouldn't want to wonder about Hingoe's jar (of course Molk or Nisim would) but I liked your logic :)
And regarding your response about natural selection: In my opinion, natural selection is to reproduce ignorance for the next generation.
Simply, for the multiplying generation - the tools to 'minimize' the ignorance. (but out of ignorance they don't know how to use them)
The nickname of the idiot you are talking about was xianghua
Use Google to wonder about our jar
Shmulik
I don't know Shinogawa……
But I have a question for you (and only you): Is there a connection between intelligence and religious belief?
Miracles,
Remember Shinogawa (or whatever he was called)? Is biology its incarnation?
Biology,
I've already written about the expected embarrassment on your part and here you come and prove me right. Do you accept the fact that intelligent design is not a scientific theory?
Expected response: evasion and instead of an answer, I will ask if I accept the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory. I asked first.
Mathematical Biology
Evolution is certainly being argued for refutation. Find a fossil of a kangaroo in the Ararat mountains and disprove evolution.
And what exactly is the idea of a cat turning into a dog?
the missionary,
Your very name is problematic, because your name indicates that you come with an agenda instead of an open mind.
modesty? The evidence shows that not everything has to do with the human race, but says that we are one more species, one of many that exists on a planet that is stuck on the edge of the galaxy, one of many (in a universe where visible matter is about 1% and the rest is dark matter and dark energy) and that the evolution of bacteria here on our little planet is taking place In front of our eyes even without our help and without us, while you claim that everything revolves around us while quoting Descartes as if he proves something and I'm still getting a lesson in modesty from you???
Feel free to be sophistic and ego maniac all you want, I'll stick with the facts.
By the way, modesty is a very problematic value and I personally prefer solidarity. The human race did not survive because it was humble but because of the solidarity it developed
the missionary
Descartes didn't say that!!!! He wrote - I think, therefore I exist.
The truth is that evolution is both a belief and does not meet the principle of scientific refutation. And hence not exactly scientific. There is no verifiable way to disprove evolution. Even if a cat suddenly turns into a dog, evolutionists will claim "it's a fact that it happened". After all, there are countless parallel universes and everything is possible. Blessed is the believer.
And they fail to understand what is being read at every turn.
Even to quote, they do not know or do not understand the huge difference between the claim "if a then b" and the claim "if not a then not b"
Let me take the idiot's "logic" and turn it against him.
Only humans think there is evolution. This is a fact. That's why you can write: "If you think there is evolution, you are human"
Now let's take the missionary's illogicality and derive from it the claim "If you don't think there is evolution you are not human"
The missionary named
If there is no thought, you do not exist, said Descartes
In conclusion, I will know what was before and guess as if you were there, where we will be a little more modest.
Safkan
come on,
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it is not disprovable and it is independent of evolution, i.e. it doesn't really matter what you think about evolution (correct, incorrect), every scientific theory must stand on its own, provide predictions and allow its refutation and intelligent design does nothing from which If you feel like it, assume that evolution is incorrect and does not exist, does this advance intelligent planning by a millimeter? Does the intelligent design provide any one prediction? Does the intelligent design explain to you what needs to be done to refute it? Absolutely not, and therefore intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Why is it difficult to understand this?
Expected response: whining about evolution but again, it's not related. two wrongs don't make a right, and if the professor discusses intelligent design in a science class, except as an explanation of why it is forbidden to teach intelligent design in science classes, it is good that he was ordered to stop teaching intelligent design.
the missionary,
Evolution exists with and without spiritual thought (whatever that means). You see it in bacteria, every day in countless laboratories and they did it before man existed or before he thought and coined this word. What's so hard to understand?
as usual
- People deny evolution without understanding at all what it is about, so they talk nonsense.
Bon Ton - I'll start with you...
A camera is the result of intelligent planning and there are several signs of this (ignoring the manufacturer's name prominently engraved on it for a moment).
First - it is built for a specific purpose. The basic assumption in planning is that it has a purpose. The camera planner has a meter. No one has yet found a purpose for the life planner. And no one found the machinist himself, to be honest.
Second - a camera is built from a (relatively) small number of simple parts that each have a specific role. This is a clear sign of intelligent planning. This is not true for living creatures.
Third - the parts of the camera are made of a homogeneous material that is suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. Another clear sign of planning. In a living body it is not like that.
Let's look for a moment at a simple example from life. If someone designed the vertebrates then it would make sense that the tail would have a purpose. But the situation is not like that - the tail is used for at least 10 different uses. It really doesn't imply planning.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no reason to think that life was planned, or that the world was planned. If you come with a religious attitude and decide in advance that there is a God, then there is no point in talking. You've already made up your mind, regardless of the evidence.
And a final point - anyone who says that there are things that evolution cannot explain is simply not being honest with themselves. To date, they have not found anything even close to it.
Intelligent design is not science, it is religion. You don't have to believe me (to believe - speaking of religion...). This was determined by a judge in the USA quite a few years ago when he had to decide on the issue. But even science is not exactly what it seems. Because science does not provide proof of the truth of claims but only support for hypotheses. And hypotheses are considered true until proven otherwise. But we have already seen many theories that have become close friends and even been refuted, so there is no confidence in today's hypotheses that they will not change tomorrow. And if you ask physicists what is the basic theory that is accepted today, you will not get a single answer. So even science has limitations and whoever says otherwise is no different from a religious priest who asks for our faith.
Those who want to hear more about the subject, are welcome to watch my lecture at the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr3NEJZHyOA
The evolution of thought
Spiritual thought created evolution - and without thought there would be no theory of evolution, which is a sentence in the thinking mind
- Intelligent planning is thought + technology and a product called life, life is a creation of intelligent art of intelligence and thought.
Gagging the "religion of evolution" towards those who think outside the box.
According to the little that is written, Professor Eric Hadin taught a course in the philosophy of science. As part of this course, he discusses an alternative theory to the theory of evolution, which cannot be ruled out outright, that is, he discusses the theory of intelligent design, he probably also discusses the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. According to what I understood, he did not discuss at all the possibility that an intelligent being that controls the universe requires concrete requirements for the behavior of humans, so it is impossible to see his philosophy course as religious preaching.
What will be the next step of the religion of evolution? Will they rule out all theories of the existence of extraterrestrials, arguing that this is also a religion? It is clear that they will not do this because such a demand would justify those who demand it.
But - what is the big difference between theories about extraterrestrials and theories about extraterrestrials that control evolution on Earth (ie intelligent design)? The difference is only microscopic.
If there is a new monkey trial, and Gura loses, I would recommend that she simultaneously teach the rest of the creation stories of all religions. Let them break the religious heads alone.
Levon Ton,
This is a superficial question that shows you don't want to understand at all, study biology and understand the difference
The opponents of intelligent planning demonstrate so much ignorance and stupidity that it takes away any desire to argue with them.
It is hoped that natural selection will take care of the traits that allow their existence over the generations.
Levon Ton - You are right. There is no difference between a camera and a biological system such as the rotating mechanism of the ATP synthase engine for example. Evolutionists claim that the main difference is that a camera is made of inanimate matter and does not reproduce. Hence it cannot be compared to living beings. That is, according to this logic, if we find a camera made of organic material (wood for example?) and also contains DNA and a mechanism that replicates it. We have to conclude that the bell evolved on its own. And hence a duplicating camera or a duplicating watch or a duplicating robot (monkey?) is not required for a creator.
Evolution has been disproved, and I, as the editor of a science website for 17 years, have not heard about it? And why is it only written on church websites?
And why is a camera an intelligent design and a functional biological system is not an intelligent design? Someone bother and give an intelligent explanation. Perhaps the evolutionary processes originate in reason.
According to this logic - even quazo crystals were not acceptable to the scientific community. Hence quazo crystals do not exist.
What's beautiful about science is that it is possible and desirable to disagree on existing theories. Otherwise it is not science. I happen to have been following the thread and the exchange since Coyne brought it up. The funny thing is that Coyne himself presents claims that were refuted in his book. For example from this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/return-of-evolution-220313/
"We can predict when (that is, at what time in the past) common ancestors appeared (for example, the discovery of the "Dagregel", a fish with leg buds in the skeleton, Tiktalik, in 370 million year old rocks, described in chapter 2),"-.
are you sure jerry Because the last time I checked, they found a fossil of a terrestrial reptile about 19 million years before Tiktallik even existed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm
Let's move on to your next claim Jerry:
"Every DNA molecule we sequence, every organ system we dissect - all support the idea that biological species develop by evolution from common ancestors."-
are you sure jerry Because the last time I checked there were some pretty serious molecular contradictions. For example, in a study published in 2009 in genome research, a group of 20 different genes from armadillos, elephants and humans were examined. The phylogenetic test revealed all the possible contradictions:
According to a certain group of genes it turned out that the armadillo is closer to the elephant than to humans, according to another group it turned out that the armadillo is closer to humans than to the elephant, and according to another group it turned out that the elephant is actually closer to humans than to the armadillo. In short, not a coated tree but a whole salad, which, in a rather funny way, is actually predicted by the creation theory.
"It is true that there is, in principle, an infinite number of possible observations that could prove that evolution is not true, but so far not even one such observation has been discovered."-
As said above. This is simply not true. It turns out that evolution was also disproved according to the criteria that Jerry himself brought. So laugh or cry?