Is the earth round/spherical?

[Marblehead]

Nice article here http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists on relativity vs. quantum mechanics and latest experiments and so on.

I'm sticking with relativity for now because I don't foresee shooting a particle at two holes just to see which hole it goes through.  But I do rely on gravity every day.

[Marblehead]

Youtube has a Stanford University lecture series on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics by Dr. Leonard Susskind. I started with the quantum, but haven't had the time to finish. Absolutely fascinating!

 

 

I really do subject myself to being inspired to learn more and don't turn the TV off just because they start talking about quantum mechanics.  But so far they have been very uninspiring for me.  Oh well.

[Apech]

I really do subject myself to being inspired to learn more and don't turn the TV off just because they start talking about quantum mechanics.  But so far they have been very uninspiring for me.  Oh well.

 

Before you turn off the TV remember that all the semi-conductors in the printed circuitry rely on quantum effects to work.  It is amazing in fact what scientists have achieved by applying quantum theory but without understanding it philosophically.

[Marblehead]

Before you turn off the TV remember that all the semi-conductors in the printed circuitry rely on quantum effects to work.  It is amazing in fact what scientists have achieved by applying quantum theory but without understanding it philosophically.

But all that stuff worked very well before the QM theories were created. 

 

It is still relative as to whether a particle is a particle or a wave.  Now really, if a particle is a particle it cannot be a wave.  A wave is a wave.  Only one aspect of it has ever been a particle.

 

Yes, I know, you are trying to help.  Thanks.

 

Spooky stuff at a distance.  Right.  I guess Albert didn't like spooky stuff and that's why he trashed his work in the field.

[thelerner]

Flat earth derived from the bible is of course  only as credible as the bible, no more, no less.  But this fact does not absolve those who control science in a pretty totalitarian fashion globally, in case you haven't noticed.

 

As Joseph Stalin once intimated, "it doesn't matter in the least who votes for whom, it only matters who counts the votes."  This fully applies to science, unfortunately.  It doesn't matter who measures what.  It only matters who puts the drill in the textbooks. 

 

Do you know?  I do.  I spent some time specifically following the money, finding out who finances a particular way science is sold to the public.  I don't like those people.  I'm not even sure they're people.   In any event they are not scientists, any of them, anymore than Stalin came to power because someone voted for him.  Or Mao Zedong.  No one voted.  And yet as a result, more people for a longer time than at any other point in history studied sciences that were completely "harmonized" with the party line.  No exceptions.  Not a single one. 

 

You think you live on the special happy island of the "free world" though, amidst the ocean of human and historical irrelevance, the island where these things don't happen. 

For decades Russia cooked the books in Science (and art too);  you went along with the official line or you got chopped.  Staggeringly brilliant physicists literally died of starvation and deprivation there.   During the Cultural Revolution Chinese scientists had it even worse, by definition they were elites to be sent to re-education camps. 

 

Today in the West peer reviewed science is the gold standard.  Doesn't mean they get the money, but things are looked at by there peers.  I don't think in the most of the world science is as 'Our way or you disappear' that you suggest.  Though if you get too radical you may lose funding.  Even there the internet is great equalizer.   Yet there is the danger of watering down real science with pseudo science.  That worries me more then radical scientists getting 'disappeared' by secret government forces, cause those guys may lose funding but that's about it, at least lately.

 

I do feel lucky.  I am privileged and happy to live in a place with great freedoms.  I appreciate that historically this has not been so.  Insulting the government and corporations is so common its ignored.  Matter of fact its complimenting them that brings attention. 

[Apech]

But all that stuff worked very well before the QM theories were created. 

 

It is still relative as to whether a particle is a particle or a wave.  Now really, if a particle is a particle it cannot be a wave.  A wave is a wave.  Only one aspect of it has ever been a particle.

 

Yes, I know, you are trying to help.  Thanks.

 

Spooky stuff at a distance.  Right.  I guess Albert didn't like spooky stuff and that's why he trashed his work in the field.

 

https://www.quora.com/Which-modern-inventions-rely-on-quantum-mechanics

[Apech]

Here's David Icke on 'is the world round' thing ....

 

[Taomeow]

@ thelearner:

 

your worldview used to be mine.  I believed in it, and I fought for it, it didn't fall on my lap, I wasn't born into it -- I chose it and pursued it.

 

The fall from its shining ivory tower smack into reality was painful.

 

Yours will be as painful.  Unless you get lucky to be invited into "them," or already are, and thereby avoid it. 

 

I rest my case. 

[Nungali]

Seriously ?

 

A prediction of his suffering , followed by a suggestion that he may already be 'one of them' ......   

 

and you rest your case on that ?

 

Seriously ? 

 

[Marblehead]

Here's David Icke on 'is the world round' thing ....

I'm still not convinced but thanks for the effort none-the-less.

[Apech]

I'm still not convinced but thanks for the effort none-the-less.

 

No problem

[Taomeow]

@ Nungali:

seriously, quit trolling already. 

[Apech]

More stuff on Gobekli Tepe and other sites:

 

[Nungali]

[Marblehead]

A particle could just be a type of distortion in our instrumental readings brought on by wave dynamics.

My knowledge does not go deep enough to be able to be critical.  However, logic dictates that it be one or the other, not both.

 

My chair is a chair.  It has never been an airplane.

[Marblehead]

With that certificate and a $1.75 you can get a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

[Apech]

My knowledge does not go deep enough to be able to be critical.  However, logic dictates that it be one or the other, not both.

 

My chair is a chair.  It has never been an airplane.

 

I agree with you.  But the issue is not that I think.  The issue is that the behaviour of actual light as observed cannot be adequately described by either particle or wave.  And so it must be something else which sometimes looks a bit like a particle and at other times like a wave.  When we realise what exactly it is it will be a facepalm moment because it's so obvious that we have been staring it in the face without seeing it.  It will not be something weird it will be logical and make sense.  A bit like Newton and the apple it will be a 'of course!' moment.  And your chair will not be an airplane.

[Marblehead]

Excellent post Apech.

 

(Although Steppenwolf did take me on a "Magic Carpet Ride" once.)

[Basher]

I believe Light to be more akin to Silly String !!

That's My Theory & I'm Sticking To It !!

(a bit like the Silly string)

[Marblehead]

I believe Light to be more akin to Silly String !!

That's My Theory & I'm Sticking To It !!

(a bit like the Silly string)

String Theory actually does have some logic supporting it.

 

Yeah, most of the time we stay with what is comfortable for us.

 

Yes, Light is a valid concept.  I prefer Energy, prior to Light.

[MooNiNite]

@ Nungali:

seriously, quit trolling already. 

 

The three of them troll me in completely different threads. 

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/39580-did-the-usa-really-kill-osama-bin-laden/

[Taomeow]

The three of them troll me in completely different threads. 

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/39580-did-the-usa-really-kill-osama-bin-laden/

 

 

TTB has no policy against cattle-prodding dissidents back in line.  No wait...  there's no dissidents anymore.  Now there's only conspiracy theorists. 

 

How do they tell the difference?  Oh, that's easy.  If it doubts what CNN says, it's a conspiracy theory.  If it's not on CNN at all, it's a conspiracy theory.  And if it's on CNN but is happening elsewhere and is color coded (e.g. Green) or has a season assigned (e.g. Spring), then it's a revolution.  Elementary, Watson. Your information is not color coded, is not assigned a season, and is not on CNN.  Ergo it's a conspiracy theory.  Ergo the cattle prod.  Any questions?

[Jadespear]

News Flash: the earth is round.

 

Go skydiving. You can see the curvature of the earth as the horizon if you get high enough.

[Taomeow]

News Flash: the earth is round.

 

Go skydiving. You can see the curvature of the earth as the horizon if you get high enough.

 

Thank you. 

Here's another news flash:

 

what you see is bundles of photons which your iris directs to the lens in your eye, which focuses them onto the retina, which transforms them into electrochemical impulses and, via the optic nerve, sends them to the visual cortex, which occupies a few cubic centimeters of space at the very back of your brain, in the occipital lobe.  You see what that little thing in the head tells you to see, and it tells you to see what looks like the "outside world," which it isn't -- the only thing you see is what the electrochemical impulses that charge your neural cells to emit neurotransmitter molecules across the synaptic gaps to hit the receptors accomplish when assembling the illusory "picture" for you as best they can.  As best they can -- for they have never seen it.  That's because the occipital lobe where it is assembled is in complete darkness at all times -- like the rest of the brain for that matter:  the skull is not permeable to light.  Your brain that sells you the "picture" of what the "outside world" "looks like" has never seen it.   

 

If this tells you (the generic you, not just you personally) nothing about relying on your senses toward massive conclusions as to the nature of reality, I can tell you about your sense of hearing.  Smell.  Space.  And so on.  Do I proceed?.. 

[Miffymog]

Taomeow - do you then agree that your above post leads to the Socratic stance that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing?