yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Off-topic] topolovich:
I admittedly didn't read much of this topic, but I love the idea. I would expand it to mathematics and philosophy though. I believe the two to be very intertwined. Mathematics, in philosophical terms, is the only universal language and for someone like me who is skeptical of religion, etc. serves as a reason for me to have faith. Mathematics is a pure science and by that I mean it would exist even if we didn't. It was there at the beginning of time and will be at the end. I would even go so far as to say it was there before the beginning. That's an obvious contradiction on a literal level, but you know what i mean. In college, during a Psilocybin induced journey into the metaphysical, I was explaining to someone the concept of cardinality. I promise you they were interested (again psilocybin) and were blown away by the conclusions I made from my, for lack of a better word, diatribe. The integers, 1, 2,3, etc. are an infinite set of numbers. The real numbers, 0, 0.1, 0.001, 0.002, 000004, etc. are also infinite. Yet you can fit an infinite number of real numbers between just two integers. Therefore the real numbers are more infinite than the integers. This varying degree of infinite is part of what forms the foundation of my notion of god. The most infinite. The way numbers interact is beautiful at times and it is hard for me to really believe that this system was an accident or mere evolution. It is the most complex system in the world and at the same time simple. Everyone comprehends math on a basic level. If someone was raised by wolves and you could somehow communicate with them i promise you they would understand the concept of 'oneness' or "twoness". They would know that 3 > 1. If we went to Mars we could communicate with numbers. It is universal. I am ranting now so I will stop, but I love philosophy and mathematics. Rene Descartes is my hero. Plato too. So is Alyssa Milano. Maybe that's the direction I should have taken this rant...
[Off-topic] _Variable:
Oh c'mon, its summer vacation!

Sent from the unknown abyss

_______________

She has said it, And you said it again.
[Off-topic] Ichigo:
Summer vacation? :confused: It's just barely spring. :rolleyes:
[Off-topic] _Variable:
In here, Late March to May is "Summer Vacation". Clasees start again in early to mid June.

Sent from the unknown abyss

_______________

She has said it, And you said it again.
[Off-topic] deathnotice01:
anyways,

so, i too am skeptical about religion that's why i don't have one,

but i do believe in a omnipotent and universal force called God,

this is not a place do disscuss such though,

but i believe we are not alone in this universe or this galaxy,

we are not sure whether we are inferior or superior to other races,
[Off-topic] _Variable:
What if... Theres another group of humans far far away?

Sent from the unknown abyss

_______________

She has said it, And you said it again.
[Off-topic] CnC-ROCK:
you dont see archer's post? this is a serious thread, stay on topic.

when one says physics..most people think of motion, astro, quantum physics.....why no body thinks of S.H.M or waves or some other topic?
[Off-topic] roofrider:
Sure there are aliens. Prolly a bit too far away from our sight.
[Off-topic] Thats OK:
^^^^^^^^^^

This is a fact (staying on-topic) many aliens are posting messages right here right now :)
[Off-topic] I r o n M a n:
Dude, on topic please. :p

The numbers of stars, solar systems and galaxies is so astronomically large, that there IS a strong probability that life could have flourished outside our solar system. I'm almost certain life exists out there, but whether they could have technology advanced enough to travel to earth is debatable.

Face it, we are not alone.

Sent from my pet - Megatron™
[Off-topic] 063_XOBX:
Depends how you define "alone". If you just mean simple microorganisms then you're not using it in the traditional sense as in no sentient life. There are few scientists that will say with any certainty that there isn't at least the possibility of simple microorganisms, its only intelligent/sentient/bipedal life that's a widely argued topic.
[Off-topic] roofrider:
Reminds me of Contact. :D
[Off-topic] I r o n M a n:
But, then we must also think about how you define 'intelligent'.

Sent from my pet - Megatron™
[Off-topic] sohamssd:
Exactly.

People wouldn't be so excited even scientists find microorganisms as aliens, wouldn't they? They'd still think we are alone which is wrong.
[Off-topic] iamareebjamal:
If we apply a certain special frequency on a special object, it will render it MASSLESS
[Off-topic] deathnotice01:
if we pound atoms to a degree we could change it's composition to whatever element
[Off-topic] iamareebjamal:
not atoms... it is incorrect :)

If we really can change no. no electrons and protons as such to create a stable entity, we will be able to make whatever element we want

---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

The faster you travel, the more slow you become

Einstein Speed Time Postulate
[Off-topic] m0cha5hake:
Humans? No. Reptilian humuniod? Yes.
[Off-topic] saket_oo:
no u cant just create anything.

look at the binding energy curve... everything tende to go towards atomic mass 56 (iron). atmost we can break bigger elemets into smaller ones

and join smaller one to get biiger one. but u can never cross the peak where iron sits...unless u pump in hordes of energy which will be non feasible for whatever u wish to attain(uranium cannot be fissioned to get titanium or titanium fused to give gold)

also since the process is so rapid and energy release is exponential (this energy may again lead to futher reactions, or the it may even undergo beta decays to form even more stable products)u cannot really control the products formed....
[Off-topic] CnC-ROCK:
the iron part is correct. it is the main reason of the so called death of gaint stars.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

can you explain?:confused:
[Off-topic] CnC-ROCK:
a bump to dead the thread
[Off-topic] _Variable:
[MENTION=4817418]CnC-ROCK[/MENTION] le bump! :angel:

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Sent from a dark and unknown place

Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 P3100
[Off-topic] dexter93:
Physics fact of the day: according to quantum mechanics, if you try to go through a wall, there's 1 in 10^38 possibilities you might make it
[Off-topic] Dirk:
If i'm fired from a cannon at short range, there's a 1:1 chance that i will make it!

:p
[Off-topic] iamareebjamal:
Exactly, it's like kicking a ball and it being split into 100s of parts and adopting different locii and then reconciling at a single point

PHYSICS IS AWESOME

A must read - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

I read it somewhere here. I can't remember which part though

http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2013/03/common-criticism-part-9.html?m=1
[Off-topic] veeman:
Entropy?
[Off-topic] Ichigo:
Ehrlich
[Off-topic] Ichigo:
More physics!
[Off-topic] scutariusilviu:
Humanity Could Fit In A Sugar Cube

Remember when you learned all about the basic structure of the atom – protons, neutrons, electrons? You might recall there was a lot of empty space, and you’d be right. Most of atoms is just empty space, so much so that if you gathered the entire human race together and removed the empty space of all the atoms that make them up you would be left with something no larger than a sugar cube.

That Sugar Cube Would Weigh Five Billion Tons

Why? Because all that empty space doesn’t have any mass, so the sugar cube of humanity would be extremely dense. It’s the same principle behind why 1kg of bricks and 1kg of feathers weighs the same, but a box of bricks is denser and has more mass than an equally-sized box of feathers.

Interesting... Since the atom is almost empty space we can almost say that the matter really does not exist. So... how do we work? I mean from where comes the mind, conscious and unconscious? Do we have any clue?

Galaxy S4 i9505 with Tapatalk 4

---------- Post added at 12:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 AM ----------

So there is a chance that with the right speed we can make our atoms split and let the wall's atoms go through our body with the luck that they not stop inside of us or vice versa. Anyway, worthless since even the speed of light can't go through our body. It's too dense or what!? :D

Galaxy S4 i9505 with Tapatalk 4

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 AM ----------

Yes, but try to go through without moving any molecule of the wall. :banghead:

Galaxy S4 i9505 with Tapatalk 4

---------- Post added at 01:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 AM ----------

Well, philosophy... Did you thought about the life of a fish? Trying to live it's ephemeral life in a crystal bowl, in it's everyday water, all alone with same food. Maybe he doesn't realise the sadness of it's life, or maybe the bless of being all alone in a world full of dangers and hearthless friends. Depends on the point of view I think.

Galaxy S4 i9505 with Tapatalk 4
[Off-topic] DekinGBar:
Ahh Philosophy,I like it! :) Well I would basically focus more on the philosophy itself...

Now I got a question for every single one of you in this thread.Can somebody please explain me scientifically,how thr universe was created,if your answer is going to be a Big Bang theory,than I still have one more question for you there,how something was created out of nothing.If someone here can philosophically or with physics explain to me something like this without the interuption of God,than I guess you are a truly remarkable person.Think!

DeKinGBar {Anagram}
[Off-topic] scutariusilviu:
Well, you want just a part of the real thing. I will explain it to you later but I'll let you know that these are just theories like the evolution one and I'll bet that no one knows something for sure. These are just to lean on when you don't have something touchable. Scientifical. Spiritualy there are alot of things that science can't explain and at the beginning of the time even the Bible say for example that was nothing. But how all was created from emptiness is the real thing. I doubt that at a future point the science will know something about it. Tell me I'm wrong, but this is my opinion despite the achievements of the science in the past 10, or even 20 years.

Galaxy S4 i9505 with Tapatalk 4
[Off-topic] DekinGBar:
I totally agree with you!Science will never be able to discover the beginning of everything,though philosophy is there to imagine and create theories about it,science is there to "catch it and test it".What I personally think about big bang,is that it is true.Universe as we know shrinks and expand,well now what if that process is true,and we actually had multiple "Big Bangs".It expands to the point where is no more and than starts to shrink,it shrinks to the point where is no more shrinking,heated gas and matter,cannot hold it anymore,annnd Baaaam here we go again.But of course it is just a theory.It is weird and heavy theme to discuss indeed.It always makes me think about the God,no matter what you are calling It,but there is something that created us,or this whole big bang process,scientifically or biblical.Or maybe this one,we invented a time machine,got back in past so far,that there was no time and space,and you know humans were first matter,there,put some kind of explosion,and there you go.Now this is some theory....right?
[Off-topic] LoopDoGG79:
Please don't confuse a general use theory with a scientific one. In every day use, yes a theory means something is uncertain or speculative. A scientific theory is far from that. In simple terms, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has with stood repeated experimentation over long period of time. Hence it's used to explain and predict natural phenomenon. A scientific theory is nothing to sneeze at. The theory of aerodynamics is used to build jet liners. Next time you fly in a plane, you can thank a theory that you made it to your destination safely.
[Off-topic] veeman:
A lot of what we know about how things work in the universe are theories...
[Off-topic] xaccers:
The great thing about science is its ability to say "We don't know"

That is what science is all about, trying to understand that which we do not know. It is why we use the term theory properly and why the world doesn't end when new data shows an old theory to be wrong.

Even when theories are disproved they can still be useful as they work for a certain set of circumstances such as Newtonian physics. You wouldn't use them to plot a course to Mars but you could use them to teach school kids about force and momentum.
[Off-topic] LoopDoGG79:
I beg to differ on your view point of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is still used to predict the movement of the planets. Every satellite and manned space flights have used Newtons laws to plot a course. We're Newtonian physics falls apart is in the very small. Quantum physics is a much better model in this regard.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
It fails on the very large and very distant too.

The time to the moon or the distance from earth of satellites make the errors in Newtonian physics insignificant.

The Messenger mission to Mercury on the other hand had to take into consideration that Mercury wouldn't be where Newtonian physics said it would be at the end of the 1,260 day journey there.
[Off-topic] LoopDoGG79:
After reading up on the general theory of relativity, I understand your point.

Here is an excellent explanation of the relationship between relativity and Newtonian physics.

http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/relativitytheoryd.html
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Excellent link!
[Off-topic] roofrider:
Link's not working for me. :|

Ok, working now. :| Somewhat. :|
[Off-topic] LoopDoGG79:
Works fine on my Nexus 7.
[Off-topic] roofrider:
Prolly my awesome internet!
[Off-topic] Dirk:
That's how i feel about a lot of modern Physics. Some of this 'Theoretical' stuff may pan out but i'm assuming that 99% will just get tossed out eventually. This is why we need bigger and better projects like the LHC, because at this point everything is waiting for empirical answers to progress; and it's getting harder and harder to test for the answers we need.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
That's what science is, assumptions, someone assumes certain things, then sets about trying to disprove them. If they succeed, then they move onto their next hypothesis.

Does remind me of a meeting where someone said "assume" and a female colleague wrote on her pad "ass u me" before passing it to our boss. The looks she got :D

Of course she meant the old adage "never asssume. it makes an ass out of u and me"
[Off-topic] Archer:
???

Science is about proving or disproving things. It's about facts, not assumptions. Yes, you start with an assumption, but if you can't prove it's correct then you shouldn't go making further assumptions from them.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
It's always a presumption until it's proven incorrect.

You can rarely prove something is correct, instead you have to assume that your theory is correct because it matches observed results.

We assume certain theories are correct, even though they may not totally work, so we assume that there is dark matter, or dark energy to explain the discrepencies, and set about trying to disprove those assumptions.
[Off-topic] Archer:
Absolutely, but to then make assumptions based on dark matter's existence, is just silly. You either prove (as much as you can) or disprove point a before you make assumptions based on it. That's where it stops being science and starts to become fantasy.
[Off-topic] Dirk:
Perhaps we've stumbled upon the point at which Science becomes Philosophy? When it's all Blue Sky thinking with no practical means to test, surely that's Philosophy, not Physics at that stage?

I've said before, i miss the days where a Telescope and some advanced Math were all you need to prove a theory. Look how important the Theory of Relativity was, and how easy it was to test!
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Theoretical physics :)

Quite often we don't have the technology or funds to go hunting for things like dark matter, so the proof has to be done on the blackboard.

If the maths works out then rather than hold everyone up until technology/funding catches up with the need, they run with it, as it can lead to other breakthroughs.

Theory of relativity hasn't been proven, it just has been shown to fit the observed results, there could be a new set of results where it doesn't fit, or another theory which fits just as well, which is why science is best guesses and margins of error*, which confuses a lot of lay people, especially when an older theory is subsiquently replaced by a new one, due to their lack of understanding the great unwashed get the impression we don't know what we're talking about.

It's that science/media/public divide.

Look at the hysterier over the LHC with people believing it would create a new big bang, or a black hole that would suck us all to oblivion. Or the loonies latching onto the "god particle" label.

*Or chaos theory if you want to really infuriate me.
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
Alright:

h0: The universe is infinite

h1: The universe is finite

As per our powers of observation, so far, we have not been able to prove h1, despite our attempts.

The very fact that most physicist (barring religious ones) tend to agree that the Big Bang is the most prominent and acceptable "start" of the universe, a further examination of the fundamental of the theory states that in the Big Bang event, the creation of matter won over anti-matter and the "universe" has been expanding since.

Since the universe is constantly expanding, therefore the boundaries of the universe is also constantly expanding. And since there are no boundaries, therefore the universe is infinite.
[Off-topic] Archer:
Huh? How can the boundaries be expanding if there are none?

Anyway, you don't need boundaries for things "inside" to spread out, which would be viewed as expansion.
[Off-topic] :
NERDSSSS!

That is all :cool:

-How cruel is the golden rule, when the lives we live are all golden plated-
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
Mr Pot callin' 'em kettles black. It ain't no right thang t'do, man...
[Off-topic] Dirk:
You just contradicted yourself. A boundary is still a boundary, even if it is moving...hence the word 'Boundary' i.e bounding, to bound, encompass :p

Mathematical Infinity is one thing, but physical Infinity is quite another. You could say that counting linear numbers is infinate as you can always add 1 to the preceeding number. The universe is by definition the 'whole' thing; everything there is and everything contained within, therefore finite.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
And not all infinites are the same size, no I don't understand it either, but there was a radio program about it on Radio 4.
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
Well, what can I say? I constructed that hypothesis in 5 minutes, in a gadget forum over the internet while fending off my boss.

What I mean to say is that the boundary of "known" and space capable of being measured is infinite, especially considering that we include the lack of anything and everything measurable part of the universe. I'm talking about space.

Therefore, if we include "space" as part of the universe, we'll never run out of universe because we'll never run out of space.
[Off-topic] Dirk:
In other news, the Ig Nobel winners for this year have been announced:

http://xdaforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=18078456

"In the humanities, the Ig Nobel peace prize went to Arturas Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania, for showing that the scourge of illegal parking by people who own luxury cars can be solved by the simple act of crushing the cars with a giant armored tank."
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
That's kinda hard for me to wrap my head around too. How about an M sized infinity then? Or XL, if you're feeling claustrophobic?

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

As a man who have taken the pains of parking his car properly, in a legal spot and out of people's way, ALL THE TIME...

I would have voted for that guy. And let him kiss my babies if/when they are born.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Me too, and I was driving at the time so was lucky not to have an accident!

It's all about sets, such as the set of positive integers is infinite, the set of even positive integers is also infinite but smaller.

Now my head hurts. I'm sure it's the same damn mathematicians who revel in chaos theory. Barstewards the lot of them.
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
I posit that infinite is not measurable. Just like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat.
[Off-topic] Archer:
I agree. That just sounds like rubbish to me. Infinite is without size, so there cannot be different sizes of infinity.

Also, to say that there are less -ive numbers than +ive is just ridiculous.

I do think that some scientists & mathematicians just make crap up to sound clever.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
I posit with enough weird mathematicians you can measure anything (and maybe also set up a t-shirt design business in the process).
[Off-topic] Archer:
Mathematicians talk a load of crap sometimes, just so they can pretend something exists. Like "Okay, so we know that there's no square root of -1, but let's pretend that there is".
[Off-topic] xaccers:
I agree, that is ridiculous, it'd be fewer not less, but I still don't think it's the case.

With the sets I mentioend though, the set with only positive even integers is smaller than the set with all positive integers, that's the point the mathematicians are making.
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
teaching my sister how to use the Desire:

Sis: how to sync my phone to my laptop

ME: Watcha wanna sync?

SIS: dunno...

ME: Exactly.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
I know! And it makes me so grrr.
[Off-topic] Archer:
:confused:

That's not true though. Numbers are probably one of the only things that we can say are truly infinite, so you can't make smaller subsets of them unless you apply limits (1-10, for example).

There aren't less positive even integers than positive integers, because neither of them has an upper limit.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Fewer not less, me being pedantic and I apologise, but it's less of one thing, fewer of many things. :) (please don't hit me)

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum and if you don't get a headache you're doing better than I am.

It's been 14 years since I covered this in further maths A level, and our lecturer was crap, often making a mistake in his working and then making another mistake to get the right answer before dashing out every 5 minutes to smoke his pipe.
[Off-topic] Archer:
The thanks is for the cardinality link - not for being a pedant ;)

I'll have a read of that later.
[Off-topic] huggs:
So where do indirectly confirmed hypotheses end and assumption begin? We all know that just because the math supports a hypothesis doesnt necessarilly mean that the hypothesis is valid, so where is the line between theoretical physics and physics, or the line between theoretical physics and philosiphy?
[Off-topic] sakai4eva:
Everything goes back to philosophy: http://xkcd.com/903/

read the sub-text.
[Off-topic] 4silvertooth:
We are all assuming that we just have 3 dimension and making universe infinite what if we have more dimension than just x y z. Lets says the time dimension, if we travel in the universe and at some point the time dimension takes us back to from where we started than that makes the universe finite. (A spherical or oval time dimension over the universe makes it finite)

What does everyone think of grandfather paradox.
[Off-topic] Dirk:
A nice thought experiment to tie your brain up in knots, but time travel belongs firmly in the realms of H.G Wells type fiction imo.

In the news today:

Nobel Prize for Physics announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371