It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic that will make your head spin

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?


Valid point, but virtual particles don't strictly come from nothing, they borrow energy to exist...

This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant.

source:wiki

and using Virtual Particles...


We assume that energy is "borrowed..." But then, where does the Zero Point energy come from? What energy is pushing Our universe not only to expand but accelerate in its expansion? Energy is being brought forth into this universe from nothing/another dimension/somewhere else.



At each vertex in a Feynman diagram energy and momentum are conserved.


I here what you're saying about knowing though. If there was a space completely void of any kind of particle or energy, whatever came in to existence must be made up of other things. If there are no other things, then they can't make anything. Sounds good logically, but a small part of me still thinks that something can be created from nothing.

Good old logic though eh, I love it


I am sure things come from nothing in this universe. Virtual particles/"Dark" Energy clearly point to that. Also, there HAVE been cases where things have claimed to have been manifested that cannot be "debunked." So... There is some probability that they were indeed manifest from nothing and some probability that the trick was just not discovered. (I place the latter with a significantly lower probability only because of the intense scrutiny some of these cases have undergone.)

And... Yes. Logic. It's My best friend. [smile]




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
something from nothing happens when we have an idea, having said that that all things are original thought.

you cant go from something to nothing but you can disseminate into something else.

multiple universes can exist the, greeks might not have know that time is not linear infinity is a loop and as such the past and future are intertwined.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You've written a nice proof of how logics can be illogical OR how wrong logical thinking is.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


Chickens lay eggs. If it reproduced by any other means it would not be a chicken. therefore the egg came first.
The first chicken-producing egg was laid by something else, perhaps a bird or dinosaur but it could not have come from a chicken because the egg produced the first chicken.
if the chicken had been born by any other means then it would not be a chicken because chickens come from eggs.

The egg came first, especially if it wasn't a chicken egg.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Virtual particles come from host molecules which use them to transmit forces. The bigger a force, the longer distance a virtual particle exists. The less the force, the less distance a virtual particle exists.

Virtual particles also don't actually exist. They are a creation to help us understand things that are too small to see.

we can detect a something, we cannot see the something. And thus, it does not exist. It is merely the ghosting of something not there.

The zero point energy is just that. zero. It is an instantaneous existent thing that quickly stops existing.

The same reason why a photon interacts with itself on a double slit experiment. The photon, for a brief moment, exists in all possible states.

Energy cannot be extracted from this fact. If you did, the photon ceases to exist in all places but the source you extracted it from. Likewise, extracting energy from a virtual particle would simply suck the energy out of the host molecule.

They are amusingly similar to Tesla's wireless energy thoughts.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
So, things in the universe aren't created or destroyed, they simply change to something new, something we may not even see or detect, but it has gone from something to something else. If everything is energy which is something, 'nothing' is never truly destroyed.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?


We know something can not come from nothing, because a tree does not come from nothing, it comes from a seed. A person does not come from nothing, it comes from a womb. Fire does not come from nothing, it comes from heat. Heat does not come from nothing, it comes from the sun or an external source. Using that logic, they assume that the universe itself must also obey this law.

Something is called "virtual" because it is not real. Like a virtual girlfriend. If from nothing comes a virtual particle, that particle still does not have any reality to it, otherwise it would not be a virtual particle, but simply a particle. They say 'virtual' particle because they can't get around the axiom that nothing comes from nothing. And even if a virtual particle comes into existence, no matter how many virtual particles you add together, you can't have a real particle, in the same way that you can't add imaginary numbers together in the hopes that you will get a real number.
edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Virtual particles sometimes do become real.See Hawking radiation or the Cassimir force. So apparently something can come from nothing provided that something is a set whose sum is nothing.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees


You've written a nice proof of how logics can be illogical OR how wrong logical thinking is.



I am not sure how you meant that but perhaps you missed the OP's point. To me, these are examples of axioms that appear to be true but are not. And there *is* a reason why they are not, there are fallacies in them.

For example, any variation of Zeno's paradox makes the mistaken assumption that because any extent can be infinitely subdivided, the SUM of those subdivisions is greater than the extent itself, This is clearly wrong. It's just a trick of logic (sleigh of hand, intentional or not)

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Here is an interesting one

If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raivan31

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


Chickens lay eggs. If it reproduced by any other means it would not be a chicken. therefore the egg came first.
The first chicken-producing egg was laid by something else, perhaps a bird or dinosaur but it could not have come from a chicken because the egg produced the first chicken.
if the chicken had been born by any other means then it would not be a chicken because chickens come from eggs.

The egg came first, especially if it wasn't a chicken egg.


The egg clearly came first because, if we are to agree that a chickens attributes come from its DNA, then the "DNA switch" only happens at the moment the egg is conceived. So presumably a "non-chicken" laid the first chicken egg.

What makes tricky the chicken and egg is that we forget that "Chicken" is a human construct, loosely defined around a set of characteristics. The keyword here is "loosely".

Since darwinian evolution happens (for the most part) incredibly smoothly, the difference between the first "non chicken" to the first chicken was probably so small that various people would likely disagree on which one was the true first chicken. Maybe the first chicken was green? would it still be a chicken if it was green? or would we say that it is not a chicken until the colors are inside the set of colors we accept as "chicken colors". Maybe the first chicken was much bigger, but do we include the peak weight as a species defining attribute? It is entirely up to biologists to decide that, there is no universal book that says "THIS SHALL BE A CHICKEN"

Just because humans use words like "chicken" or horse" does not mean there exist a universal "horse" or "chicken". A chicken is an exclusive member of the "chicken" category once it meets a whole bunch of distinguishing details determined by people that separate it from any number of egg laying tasty creatures.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one

If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift


only if "Omnipotence" can be given up. It would no longer be omnipotent if it did that. If omnipotence has to be "everlasting" then omnipotence would be impossible, because the answer would have to be no, which would make god not omnipotent as well as omnipotent.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one

If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift


Yes, it is your free will. You must lift it and carry it yourself.

When you find out why, it will no longer be a millstone around your neck.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raivan31

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


Chickens lay eggs. If it reproduced by any other means it would not be a chicken. therefore the egg came first.
The first chicken-producing egg was laid by something else, perhaps a bird or dinosaur but it could not have come from a chicken because the egg produced the first chicken.
if the chicken had been born by any other means then it would not be a chicken because chickens come from eggs.

The egg came first, especially if it wasn't a chicken egg.


Correct, the egg came first - and I'll tell you from exactly what. Evolution comes about from creatures adapting to their environment over millenia. Changes also come from mutation replicating itself in the future gene pool of that creature. If it's a detrimental mutation the animal and strain will die, but if it's beneficial it will replicate and spread through the gene pool. So a certain strain of animal evolved slowly but sure over thousands of years, mutating slightly over hundreds of generations until one day this extremely chicken-like creature laid an egg and through a mutation strain a chicken was born. Consequently the egg certainly came before the chicken.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
reply to post by filosophia
 


So in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. So in theory we are not something, but nothing. As nothing we can never have something. Something can only be had by something which we are not.

Now if this train of thought is correct, we are nothing, then there is a flaw in the physics because if we are nothing, then even our communication is impossible because it is something.

Or is nothing capable of only nothing which is in reality something. But because we are not capable of understanding nothing, we have to exist as something until we can comprehend the true value of nothingness.

I quit. I like it better now that I had this conversation. I will never answer the question; What are you thinking about? with the answer nothing, because that topic confuses me to the point of a headache.


We could be part of a triple universe where besides this universe, there is another universe composed of antimater and another universe composed of negative energy. When they all finally coalesce we return to nothing.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Virtual particles come from host molecules which use them to transmit forces. The bigger a force, the longer distance a virtual particle exists. The less the force, the less distance a virtual particle exists.


Really, I don't think You grasp virtual particles. We're not talking carrier particles - the particles that impart the strong, weak, EM and G forces. We're talking about particles that spring from nowhere in pairs of matter/antimatter. In their annihilation, they add energy to the universe.

Again, I provide a link:

www.scientificamerican.com...


Virtual particles also don't actually exist. They are a creation to help us understand things that are too small to see.


Yeah. Read the Scientific American article I linked to to see that You really aren't clear on the concept.


we can detect a something, we cannot see the something. And thus, it does not exist. It is merely the ghosting of something not there.


If We can detect something but cannot see it it does not exist? Is that what You're saying here? And something that's not there (an oxymoron) can "ghost?" Gor, My friend... Stick to things You grasp.


The zero point energy is just that. zero. It is an instantaneous existent thing that quickly stops existing.


Again, You are unclear on the concept:

www.wingmakers.co.nz...

www.panacea-bocaf.org...


The same reason why a photon interacts with itself on a double slit experiment. The photon, for a brief moment, exists in all possible states.


That has nothing to do with virtual particles and plenum (Zero Point) energy.


Energy cannot be extracted from this fact. If you did, the photon ceases to exist in all places but the source you extracted it from. Likewise, extracting energy from a virtual particle would simply suck the energy out of the host molecule.


Except... You have force-carrying particles mixed up with virtual particles. There are no associated molecules (or atoms or already-present particles).

And I KNOW the energy can be extracted through electrogravitics. So on that score I know you are wrong too.


They are amusingly similar to Tesla's wireless energy thoughts.


And there is a very good reason. Tesla was approaching the same phenomenon.

Here's something that has been presented here but I'll link again:

peswiki.com...:_Claus_W._Turtur:_Zero_Point_Energy_Converter_in_the_Kilowatt_Range



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


So, if you know that energy can be extracted from zero point by means of virtual particles, how do you know that this energy is not subtracted from elsewhere?

It is not a science question but a philosophical one: One cannot assert an unrestricted negative. So, yes, maybe energy can be extracted from the zero point field, but this energy might have come from somewhere you are, as of yet, unaware of.

It's a bit like that CD club I was briefly a member of. I kept getting free CD's from them until one day they sent a bill


-rrr
edit on 19-9-2011 by rickyrrr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia
 


It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.
edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)


I agree, all of these theories are fanciful and logical enough, but are all assuming that the human mind is even capable of comprehending such powerful notions.

Imagine trying to explain the law of physics to your dog, no matter how smart your dog is, its mind does not perceive notions in the same manner as ours. Perhaps our minds lack the complexity to fully understand incomprehensible principles.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Can you elaborate on your knowledge of electrogravitics? how is electrogravitics associated with virtual particles? (not a rethorical question, there really isn't a solid body of *public* knowledge that thorougly explains electrogravitics) That is a subject that I am really interested in. You might u2u since I realize this might be OOT.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
#'s 3 and 4 are nothing but algebraic (sp?) equations that only prove that if you overthink and overcomplicate something enough, you can disprove that it exists. Like movement. Every time someone types something into the text box and hits "reply", they are disproving the Greeks' movement theory by moving their fingers.

Algebra can try to dispove reality all it wants, but when reality rears its head once again, it shows those types of equations for what they are: A thinking mans folly.






posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

#'s 3 and 4 are nothing but algebraic (sp?) equations that only prove that if you overthink and overcomplicate something enough, you can disprove that it exists. Like movement. Every time someone types something into the text box and hits "reply", they are disproving the Greeks' movement theory by moving their fingers.

Algebra can try to dispove reality all it wants, but when reality rears its head once again, it shows those types of equations for what they are: A thinking mans folly.





When you type on the keyboard, your fingers move up and down. They move down, then up. Down, then up. It's not really movement, it's more like a circle. If you go from your home, to the store, and then back home, did you really move? Or was it you expelled energy while moving in a circle?




top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join