A001's Posts
Nairaland Forum › A001's Profile › A001's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 (of 184 pages)
DeepSight:It's obvious you know very little about the history of science. If not, you won't find it difficult to understand a simple matter. Stop quoting me to state whatever issues you have with Krauss. One unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful and multi-award-winning scientist a first-class idiot. Lols. What a silly joke! |
HellVictorinho3:Know what exists? Neutrino or what? If not for key advances in Particle Physics in the 20th and 21st centuries, many particles we know exist today would have been regarded as nothing or non-existent. Still, much more particles and waves that could be in existence that we don't know exist still remain undiscovered till this moment. In the near future, we'll discover them. |
DeepSight:You can stop quoting me. Unless you can say specifically the stuff constituting the origin of the Universe with proofs, don't mention me to engage in this sort of discussion. Based on the current level of understanding of the Universe, I hold that notion, and what's seen as nothing changes with time. Anyone familiar with the history of science will understand this simple fact. |
DeepSight:You clearly don't understand my posts on this issue you've quoting. When something appears mysterious and seem like an empty space, it's right to call it nothing until you know specifically its nature or identity (what it's). Please, read my earlier post on the subject again, slowly: "By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence. We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes. If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent? We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly. In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron. That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino. Thus, we call such a particle nothing." |
NASA launches first dedicated X-ray mission to study the polarization of extreme cosmic objects NASA has launched a mission to measure the X-ray polarization from the most extreme and mysterious objects in the universe. The $188m Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) was launched today from the Kennedy Space Center at 01:00 local time aboard a Falcon 9 rocket. During the probe’s two-year mission, it will study several astrophysical phenomena including black holes, active galactic nuclei, quasars, pulsars and supernova remnants. Following a successful launch and separation, IXPE is now in orbit around the equator at an altitude of around 600 km above Earth. This particular orbit will minimize the X-ray instrument’s exposure to radiation in the South Atlantic Anomaly, the region where the inner Van Allen radiation belt comes closest to Earth’s surface. The mission contains three identical telescopes, which are able to operate independently and that each have polarization-sensitive detectors. The craft will use these to provide simultaneous spectral, spatial, and temporal measurements of cosmic sources with scientists aiming to improve the polarization sensitivity by two orders of magnitude over the X-ray polarimeter aboard the Orbiting Solar Observatory OSO-8, which was launched in 1975. Astronomers hope this will allow them to determine the geometry and the emission mechanism of active galactic nuclei and microquasars as well as find the magnetic field configuration in magnetars. It is an indescribable feeling to see something you’ve worked on for decades become real and launch into space “IXPE represents another extraordinary first,” says Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s science mission directorate. “IXPE is going to show us the violent universe around us – such as exploding stars and the black holes at the center of galaxies – in ways we’ve never been able to see it. [It] will shape our understanding of the universe for years to come.” Developed by NASA’s Small Explorer programme, IXPE is a collaboration between NASA and the Italian Space Agency and was selected in January 2017 with a launch date in May 2021. However, that was delayed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. “It is an indescribable feeling to see something you’ve worked on for decades become real and launch into space,” says IXPE’s principal investigator Martin Weisskopf, who helped to concieve and build the spacecraft. “This is just the beginning for IXPE. We have much work ahead.” Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/nasa-launches-first-dedicated-x-ray-mission-to-study-the-polarization-of-extreme-cosmic-objects/ |
FreeStuffsNG:Why did you quote me in the first place? Don't ever quote me on this forum to spew your parochial political tripe. |
DeepSight:Okay. DeepSight:That's why reality is called an illusion: Some things exist which can't be seen with the naked eye and seem like what they're not (nothing) . |
FreeStuffsNG:APC zombie, you need to take your own advice and learn to read things critically. Before you even dreamt of starting your in career in zombiesm, I had read a number of Wole Soyinka's books. |
tollyboy5:He was. What he said in the below the excerpt applies to almost all books written by or about Nigerian politicians. And by the time you read the book, don't be surprised to find "contradictions between attestable reality and impudent claims, attempts to cover past crimes and dodge responsibilities," as the nobel laureate avers. It's what you would expect in any book written about any Nigerian politician as all our leaders have a skeleton in their cupboard. “There are books whose very handling must be done with heavily insulated gloves since, virtually every page sizzles with contradictions between attestable reality and impudent claims, attempts to cover past crimes and dodge responsibilities,” Soyinka said. |
DeepSight:This comment shows your understanding of Physics is shallow. You need to read books written by prominent scientists on the subject of the universe arising from nothing, with Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing a good example of such books. Some scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Plato who said reality is an illusion didn't state that just to confuse people. It's just the truth.
|
FreeStuffsNG:Your interpretation is wrong. He was referring to the book indirectly. If not, he wouldn't have said the highlighted part of the post you quoted at all in the foreword. But being an APC zombie, you can believe whatever you want. |
In his foreword on the book, Wole Soyinka, Nobel laureate, described the autobiography as “a national gift that could not have been more instructively timed”. “There are books whose very handling must be done with heavily insulated gloves since, virtually every page sizzles with contradictions between attestable reality and impudent claims, attempts to cover past crimes and dodge responsibilities,” Soyinka said. This is the most interesting part of the report to me. |
DeepSight:I still prefer the term and will stick to it. |
HellVictorinho3:Nothing concrete here. It's all vague. |
HellVictorinho3:Check the meaning of each of those words in bold in a dictionary and spot their difference. Something can be existing but is not real to you. Before microscopes were invented in the last century or thereabouts, micro-organisms had been existing, but they became real to humans with the aid of microscopes. Before the invention of telescopes by Hans Lippershey and Galileo Galilee a couple of centuries ago, planets other than Earth and stars other than the Sun had been existing, but they became real to us with the aid of the telescopes. Those examples show how existence is distinct from reality. There are countless other examples as well. HellVictorinho3:I prefer to use the term nothing because I don't regard existence or the Universe as having a beginning and an end. |
JWST: The James Webb Space Telescope
|
DeepSight:By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence. We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes. If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent? We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly. In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron. That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino. Thus, we call such a particle nothing. DeepSight:It's not contradictory if you understand existence, as distinct from reality, has various forms or types with the physical type only one of them. |
DeepSight:It's expanding into nothing, just as the expansion started from nothing. Space and time are mental constructs and don't exist in reality. |
DeepSight:I agree with everything you said except the last part. Whether the Universe is an open or closed system is a controversial issue in Cosmology or Physics generally. If we live in an open system as you say, that means the sum-total of energy and matter in the Universe isn't always constant. That's a violation of the law of conservation of matter or the first law of thermodynamics. It doesn't make sense. Also, if an infusion of energy of a transcendental nature led to the expansion of our universe as you said, that also violates the above laws. Then, where did the infusion of energy come from? What makes you say the universe is an open system? |
DeepSight:No, I don't have to acknowledge it just like I don't have to acknowledge gravity exists. That the Universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating are well-established scientific facts with lots of evidence. |
DeepSight:We might really never be able to know if the Universe has a cause for sure, at least in this realm. Personally, I hold the notion that the Universe is self-created or come from an earlier universe that's self-created, and that space and time exist only within our Universe, but our Universe doesn't occupy any space. That means space is inside the Universe, not outside it, implying our Universe really has no beginning since it doesn't occupy any space. But all these are philosophical ideas, and only key advances in science in the coming years can really help us gain a better understanding of the matter of the origin of the Universe. This post is an insightful take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://www.nairaland.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches/1#107300391 |
![]()
|
Crystyano: A001: |
![]()
|
ANCIENT BUDDHIST CAVE PAINTINGS IN CENTRAL CHINA
|
![]()
|
Pythagoras’ Revenge: Humans Didn’t Invent Mathematics, It’s What the Physical World Is Made Of Many people think that mathematics is a human invention. To this way of thinking, mathematics is like a language: it may describe real things in the world, but it doesn’t “exist” outside the minds of the people who use it. But the Pythagorean school of thought in ancient Greece held a different view. Its proponents believed reality is fundamentally mathematical. More than 2,000 years later, philosophers and physicists are starting to take this idea seriously. As I argue in a new paper, mathematics is an essential component of nature that gives structure to the physical world. Honeybees and hexagons Bees in hives produce hexagonal honeycomb. Why? According to the “honeycomb conjecture” in mathematics, hexagons are the most efficient shape for tiling the plane. If you want to fully cover a surface using tiles of a uniform shape and size, while keeping the total length of the perimeter to a minimum, hexagons are the shape to use. Charles Darwin reasoned that bees have evolved to use this shape because it produces the largest cells to store honey for the smallest input of energy to produce wax. The honeycomb conjecture was first proposed in ancient times, but was only proved in 1999 by mathematician Thomas Hales. Cicadas and prime numbers Here’s another example. There are two subspecies of North American periodical cicadas that live most of their lives in the ground. Then, every 13 or 17 years (depending on the subspecies), the cicadas emerge in great swarms for a period of around two weeks. Why is it 13 and 17 years? Why not 12 and 14? Or 16 and 18? One explanation appeals to the fact that 13 and 17 are prime numbers. Some cicadas have evolved to emerge from the ground at intervals of a prime number of years, possibly to avoid predators with life cycles of different lengths. Imagine the cicadas have a range of predators that also spend most of their lives in the ground. The cicadas need to come out of the ground when their predators are lying dormant. Suppose there are predators with life cycles of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years. What is the best way to avoid them all? Well, compare a 13-year life cycle and a 12-year life cycle. When a cicada with a 12-year life cycle comes out of the ground, the 2-year, 3-year and 4-year predators will also be out of the ground, because 2, 3 and 4 all divide evenly into 12. When a cicada with a 13-year life cycle comes out of the ground, none of its predators will be out of the ground, because none of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 divides evenly into 13. The same is true for 17. P1–P9 represent cycling predators. The number-line represents years. The highlighted gaps show how 13 and 17-year cicadas manage to avoid their predators. Credit: Sam Baron It seems these cicadas have evolved to exploit basic facts about numbers. Creation or discovery? Once we start looking, it is easy to find other examples. From the shape of soap films, to gear design in engines, to the location and size of the gaps in the rings of Saturn, mathematics is everywhere. If mathematics explains so many things we see around us, then it is unlikely that mathematics is something we’ve created. The alternative is that mathematical facts are discovered: not just by humans, but by insects, soap bubbles, combustion engines and planets. What did Plato think? But if we are discovering something, what is it? The ancient Greek philosopher Plato had an answer. He thought mathematics describes objects that really exist. For Plato, these objects included numbers and geometric shapes. Today, we might add more complicated mathematical objects such as groups, categories, functions, fields and rings to the list. Abstract Numbers Visual For Plato, numbers existed in a realm separate from the physical world. Plato also maintained that mathematical objects exist outside of space and time. But such a view only deepens the mystery of how mathematics explains anything. Explanation involves showing how one thing in the world depends on another. If mathematical objects exist in a realm apart from the world we live in, they don’t seem capable of relating to anything physical. Enter Pythagoreanism The ancient Pythagoreans agreed with Plato that mathematics describes a world of objects. But, unlike Plato, they didn’t think mathematical objects exist beyond space and time. Instead, they believed physical reality is made of mathematical objects in the same way matter is made of atoms. If reality is made of mathematical objects, it’s easy to see how mathematics might play a role in explaining the world around us. In the past decade, two physicists have mounted significant defenses of the Pythagorean position: Swedish-US cosmologist Max Tegmark and Australian physicist-philosopher Jane McDonnell. Tegmark argues reality just is one big mathematical object. If that seems weird, think about the idea that reality is a simulation. A simulation is a computer program, which is a kind of mathematical object. McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself. I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance. Mathematical objects provide a structural framework for the physical world. The future of mathematics It makes sense that Pythagoreanism is being rediscovered in physics. In the past century, physics has become more and more mathematical, turning to seemingly abstract fields of inquiry such as group theory and differential geometry in an effort to explain the physical world. As the boundary between physics and mathematics blurs, it becomes harder to say which parts of the world are physical and which are mathematical. But it is strange that Pythagoreanism has been neglected by philosophers for so long. I believe that is about to change. The time has arrived for a Pythagorean revolution, one that promises to radically alter our understanding of reality. Source: https://scitechdaily.com/pythagoras-revenge-humans-didnt-invent-mathematics-its-what-the-physical-world-is-made-of/amp/ |
Crystyano:No, I don't believe those things , and I don't know what things you're talking about. |
LordReed:Lols. You don buy market |
musicwriter:Okay. Thanks a lot! |
musicwriter:Please, any update about the other matter, bro? |
Cool! |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 (of 184 pages)
??