Am I insane?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Quantum Quack, Jun 26, 2010.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    I have been accused of insanity. Not in a general flaming sense but seriously by persons who consider their commentary to be legitimate and in good will.
    Am I as accused and how would you judge the issue?

    In physics I ask a simple question:

    How big is the universe when t=0 [ both the point in time used and duration ]
    is this an insane question?
    Or is it because the obvious answer strikes at the heart of most contemporary scientific thought?

    I also ask that science provide evidence to support it's Photon particle wave duality [Light effect model] independent of matter to which is can not do so.

    Is this an insane request or question?
    Or is it because the outcome of such a request flies in the face of conventional scientific belief?

    In philosophy
    I ask how "a man can not pass through a brick wall by force of will with out changing the wall and himself" and ask, why this is not an objective fact or truth using a definition for those words as supplied.

    Is this an insane question?

    Or is it because the answer strikes at the heart of the philosophical debate over "mind independency" issues.
    So I have been accused of Insanity by those I used to respect as moderators and posters.

    so I ask
    Am I?

    What is the defintiion of insanity afterall?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    You're insane if you believe the answer is obvious. Or the very least not thinking clearly.

    Correction: the comment was given as a reply to this statement:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2570569&postcount=88
    Which also strikes me as irrational (at the very least).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It can't be smaller than a plank length.

    That is an insane request. Photons are a form of matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    well what is the answer besides zero?
    Even JamesR stated the answer as such... is he insane as well?
    if you require a link I'll go into the archives and find it for you if you like...




    why do you think that it is an irrational statement?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    tell that to the special relativists when they talk about relative simultaneity on a Hypersurface of the present [HSP] which is t= 0 duration and moment [ if it were a Planck length then you would have absolute rest which is a no no. would be my contra]


    and how can a massless particle have mass?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    keep selling shit then...! plenty of flies to eat it I bet...
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Lacking any other data you can't say for certain.
    Unless we know the expansion rate (and all [if any] changes in that rate) the size at t=0 could be anything.
    For example if you and I decide to physically meet up and each travel at an unknown [or even known] rate to the meeting place can any tell how far apart we were before setting off?

    Can you tell me how it's possible for a personal perspective to be objective? We already know (for certain) that not everyone sees, for example, the exact same colours when observing an object, or hears sounds in quite the same way.
    Or are you claiming that YOU are correct (objectively) and everyone else is simply wrong?
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    the logic I use stems from a simple bit of rational:

    "How can anything eixst if there is no time for it to exists in" so when science uses t=0 DURATION as they do with sepcial relativity then please provide a reason why the universe can exist when there is no time for it to exist in.

    I'll repeat the question posted earlier:
    at t=0 [ moment and DURATION] how big is the universe?

    note the emphasis on the word DURATION.



    How is this considerded as insane when you have no way of knowing the absolute truth either way. [by your own belief system you have defeated your own argument]
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    It has been proven that 3 out of 4 people have some mental problems of one kind or another, I'd think you are one of those three.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    And is it impossible for something to be a mile across if there is no duration?
    Please show your working.
    You are still making unwarranted assumptions.
    Is it impossible for "whatever it was that came into existence" as time started to start with an actual size?
    Enlighten us, please...

    I see you also fail on logic. How have I defeated my argument?
    By saying that none of us have an objective view that somehow means that all of us are automatically 100% incorrect?
    Wow!
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    but hang on the whole population of theis planet has a mental health issue...not just 3 out of 4 but more like 4 out of 4.

    and yep I guess I must be one of them...:bawl:
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    well show me a one or two dimensional object of substance that is not a mere figment of imagination and I shall conceed my point. Still why the label insane?


    is that a subjective statement or an objective statement?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Sure, what does Steven Hawking know?

    Are you calling yourself static?
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    well let us see...

    (t=0 moment + t=0 duration) = (d = 0)

    as distance (d) is always dependent on time (t) being greater than zero in Einstein/ Minkowski space [ if I am not mistaken ]
    there is a one possible "out" you could throw at me that I know of that would be harder to deal with and I wait to see if you can dig deep and find it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    You're assuming again.
    Where, explicitly, does an object have zero size if t=0?

    I don't need to "dig": you're assuming, on very little evidence.
     
  19. Votorx Still egotistic... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    If you have to ask then the answer should be clear.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    but hey aren't you also assuming that an object CAN exist when there is no time for it to exist in?
    Obviously having no time to exist is a safer assumption for [t=0 DURATION ] and certainly more intuitive than having an object when there is no time to exist in?
    and I am not claiming you are insane or irrational for making such an assumption especially and even though it has been qualified to be incorrect by our very learned JamesR.
    So how does this make me insane in your view?
    It certainly is suggestive of your state of mind more so than mine I would have thought...
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    ha ....how so?

    an "insane" person generally doesn't ask those questions as this is exactly what makes them "insane" in the first place...
    * using a colloquial definition fo the term INSANE. As most thinkers no that the term is a nonsense any way.
     
  22. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Just for the sake of clarification, you were not accused of insanity.
    You were given two possible options, contingent upon a position that you asserted you held.

    Of those two options, one was that you must be insane.

    Oddly, it was this option of the two that you chose to focus on.....

    QED
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    you have clearly stated you have drawn two conclusions. Do I see the words to the effect that offer a choice such as "either /or".

    Am I to presume this is what you meant?

     

Share This Page