ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 17th February 2016, 09:44 AM   #1
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Maartenn100 general theories of physics & philosophy - Part II

Mod Info This is a continuation from this thread.
Posted By:Agatha





Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
This may belong more to a philosophy forum than a science forum. However, the OP title seems to imply an overlap between science and philosophy. Therefore, I conjecture that you are really want to discuss the boundary between ‘pure’ science (positivism) and ‘pure’ philosophy (phenomenology). So I googled ‘Machs principle’ (physics) and phenomenology (philosophy). What I found was an interesting controversy regarding Mach (physicist) and Husseri (philosopher).

Maybe there is an internal contradiction to your questions that bothers other people. There is supposedly a conflict between positivism and phenomenology. However, there may also be an overlap. The large scale structure of the universe can fit into a reductionist strategy of investigation.

I found an abstract to an article that may help characterize the problem.

Link with paywall
http://link.springer.com/article/10....516-011-9159-7
‘Abstract:
How do we reconcile Husserl’s repeated criticism of Mach’s phenomenalism almost everywhere in his work with the leading role that Husserl seems to attribute to Mach in the genesis of his own phenomenology? To answer this question, we shall examine, first, the narrow relation that Husserl establishes between his phenomenological method and Mach’s descriptivism.

Our working hypothesis is that the apparent contradictory comments of Husserl regarding Mach’s positivism can be partially explained by the double status he confers to his own phenomenology—as a philosophical program radically opposed to positivism, and as a method akin to Mach’s descriptivism.’

I haven't gone over the paywall. However, the abstract is informative enough. I think you aretaking a Husseri-type position while most of the respondents are taking a Mach-like position.

Does this help?
Thank you for your feedback about Husserl' and Mach.
In my opinion it's sometimes difficult to see a pure boundary between some concepts in theoretical physics and philosophy. These days, concepts in physics are also a subject to philosophers. The category 'theoretical physical concept' and the category 'philosophy' are sometimes not so seperated. The answer from theoretical physics (i.c. relativity of time and observers) touches the deep philosophical questions philosophers have about the universe.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Agatha; 18th February 2016 at 04:22 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 10:19 AM   #2
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Can I request that you give me a reference for this assertion? Mach's Principle, although it is not very well defined, and can be stated in many ways, was from the beginning and is now a postulate that refers inertia to the mass-energy of the universe. In every source that I can find from MTW to Wikipedia, from Ciufolini and Wheeler to Rindler, Mach's Principle refers to the origin of inertia and in terms of GR to the gravitomagnetic dragging of frames.
Not in any source that I can find.
If G and c are dynamic variables that depend on the flow of mass-energy in the universe, then aren't we talking about some other theory than GR? Wouldn't that be a tensor-scalar theory?

Yes, but I think Maarten's confusion is not based on any normal interpretation of Mach's principle, but on his ignorance of the meaning of gravitational potential and the predictions of gravitational time dilation. He simply doesn't know how little, according to GR, gravitational time dilation will be affected by the mass of the galaxy or cluster from which the observation is made. He is trying to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies as an observational effect caused by gravitational time dilation.
I already gave references in post # 4806. However, I will copy one of the links that I already presented in this reply. Here is a link and relevant quote.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
’In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. ‘

The metric tensor is more general that merely inertia or time dilation. Einstein may have used it chiefly to analyze inertia. However, inertia is intimately connected with space and time.

Note that general relativity, including Mach Principle, has been used by astronomers to investigate the far reaches of the universe in space and time. So Mach Principle has been used in investigating the flow of energy and momentum in the universe.

As you can see, a weak form of Mach's Principle was used by Einstein as a constraint on his metric tensor. Einstein interpreted the weak form of Mach's Principle as a boundary condition for the observable universe. The boundary condition can also be expressed as a symmetry principle.

Other physicists (yes, real ones) have worked on extensions of Einstein's general relativity using stronger version of Mach's Principle. Bertolli and Barbour (probably mispelled, sorry) did quantitative calculations using the strong version of Machs principle. The result was an alternative to Einstein's GR that treats the universal constants as dynamic variables.

Some scientists have even applied the strong version of Mach's Principle to inflation theory. Quantitative treatments. One 'problem' with inflation theory is that it requires some universal 'constants' to be dynamical variables. Slowly varying dynamic variables, but varying none the less.

Whether or not these theories turn out to be valid, it appears that Machs principle is commonly accepted as a plausible hypothesis in science.

Most scientists take a moderately positivist (empirical) approach to their research even when using Machs Principle. Mach himself did experiments on the border of experimental psychology and theoretical physics.

Mach did an experiment, for instance, literally spinning people in a room to show that the perception of spin sometimes varied with the state of the observer. In this experiment, the observer was literally the observer. I suppose that a philosopher would call this philosophical phenomenology, because the experiment was about the subjects consciousness. As a committed reductionist, I would say the opposite. The unaided human body is being used as a sensor, and the unaided human brain is being used to analyze data. So this would make it an experiment in physics.

I have been staying away from deep time cosmology so I don't want to discuss it on a deep level. So I am not going to do a committed google search to find articles that I read in my personal deep past. However, I am very interested in the boundaries between psychology and physics.

There are many problems in practical physics and engineering that involve psychology in some way. Pattern recognition, machine learning, and image processing are all valuable technologies that have arisen by contemplating the way animals perceive physical reality. So in my view, Mach was doing good science when he 'spun' his human subjects. I would gladly take part in a discussion of these experiments that Mach performed.


This is a wildly popular thread. It may be the longest and most visited thread on ISF. The fact that you and i are still discussing it proves that Maarteen did strike a nerve. Face it! So I have promised myself to treat Maarteen with more respect. However, this does not mean I won't disagree with him 97% of the time
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 11:07 AM   #3
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It all comes down to the sort of question you ask yourself.
It's all about a certain question, which generates certain answers:

what is time and space to an observer? (phenomenology)

It's not: what is time in itself and what is space in itself? (physics)
...
So, it's all about: what will an observer measure/see about space and time. (phenomenology)

It's not about time itself nor the study of space itself. (physics)
Yeah, that doesn't really answer the question.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 11:11 AM   #4
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
To be serious for a mo, I am harbouring a slight notion that he isn't even aware that he is doing it.
He has acknowledged that he knows he's doing it, he has claimed more than once that it is due to language issues.
It has become clear that this is quite incorrect.

He is quite aware.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 05:08 PM   #5
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
I already gave references in post # 4806. However, I will copy one of the links that I already presented in this reply. Here is a link and relevant quote.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
’In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. ‘
I don't see anything there that supports your statement 'A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." '

In fact the Wikipedia article specifically states that Mach's Principle is about the origin of inertia: "The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter...Mach's principle says that this [a description of an equivalent to Newton's bucket thought experiment] is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force." This is just what I said earlier. I can provide more references to other good sources such as MTW etc.

Quote:
The metric tensor is more general that merely inertia or time dilation. Einstein may have used it chiefly to analyze inertia. However, inertia is intimately connected with space and time.
Well, yes, but that doesn't tell you what Mach's Principle is - it tells you something about the the consequences of the theory that Einstein developed with one motivation being to satisfy what he called "Mach's Principle". I am still failing to see any source that claims that Mach's Principle is more than the idea that the matter-energy distribution in the universe determines inertia.
Quote:
As you can see, a weak form of Mach's Principle was used by Einstein as a constraint on his metric tensor. Einstein interpreted the weak form of Mach's Principle as a boundary condition for the observable universe. The boundary condition can also be expressed as a symmetry principle.
Yes, but as I understand it, Einstein himself became disillusioned with the idea that GR embodied Mach's Principle when it became clear that initial conditions, or the boundary conditions at infinity would still influence the compass of inertia, even in a Minkowski space.

Quote:
Other physicists (yes, real ones) have worked on extensions of Einstein's general relativity using stronger version of Mach's Principle. Bertolli and Barbour (probably mispelled, sorry) did quantitative calculations using the strong version of Machs principle. The result was an alternative to Einstein's GR that treats the universal constants as dynamic variables.
I think it's Bertotti. What would be helpful would be a reference to the notion that Mach's Principle includes the influence of the matter-energy in the universe over the universal constants. While these scalar-vector theories obviously exist, I don't see that they are influenced by a strong form of Mach's Principle - at least not one that was envisaged by Mach himself or by Einstein when he coined the phrase.

Quote:
Some scientists have even applied the strong version of Mach's Principle to inflation theory. Quantitative treatments. One 'problem' with inflation theory is that it requires some universal 'constants' to be dynamical variables. Slowly varying dynamic variables, but varying none the less.
Only if the dynamical variables (normally taken as universal constants) depend in these theories on the total mass-energy distribution in the universe would this be even an analogue to Mach's Principle.

So I continue to contend that the common, almost universal understanding of Mach's Principle is restricted to the origin of inertia in the matter-energy of the universe. As far as Mach was concerned, it was all about banishing absolute space, and hence it is limited to those variables which seem to depend on absolute space.

Quote:
This is a wildly popular thread. It may be the longest and most visited thread on ISF. The fact that you and i are still discussing it proves that Maarteen did strike a nerve. Face it! So I have promised myself to treat Maarteen with more respect. However, this does not mean I won't disagree with him 97% of the time
I commend you for these thoughts. It's a great attitude. But, sadly, I feel the thread's popularity can be ascribed to nothing more than the desire of many posters to refute obvious misconceptions and errors (as indeed is the case with the popularity of many other similar threads with other OPs), and its length to the fact that Maarten must post his ideas in this one thread, and to Maarten's irrepressible desire to communicate, well, something.
hecd2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:08 PM   #6
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I don't see anything there that supports your statement 'A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." '

In fact the Wikipedia article specifically states that Mach's Principle is about the origin of inertia: "The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter...Mach's principle says that this [a description of an equivalent to Newton's bucket thought experiment] is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force." This is just what I said earlier. I can provide more references to other good sources such as MTW etc.

Well, yes, but that doesn't tell you what Mach's Principle is - it tells you something about the the consequences of the theory that Einstein developed with one motivation being to satisfy what he called "Mach's Principle". I am still failing to see any source that claims that Mach's Principle is more than the idea that the matter-energy distribution in the universe determines inertia.
Yes, but as I understand it, Einstein himself became disillusioned with the idea that GR embodied Mach's Principle when it became clear that initial conditions, or the boundary conditions at infinity would still influence the compass of inertia, even in a Minkowski space.

I think it's Bertotti. What would be helpful would be a reference to the notion that Mach's Principle includes the influence of the matter-energy in the universe over the universal constants. While these scalar-vector theories obviously exist, I don't see that they are influenced by a strong form of Mach's Principle - at least not one that was envisaged by Mach himself or by Einstein when he coined the phrase.

Only if the dynamical variables (normally taken as universal constants) depend in these theories on the total mass-energy distribution in the universe would this be even an analogue to Mach's Principle.

So I continue to contend that the common, almost universal understanding of Mach's Principle is restricted to the origin of inertia in the matter-energy of the universe. As far as Mach was concerned, it was all about banishing absolute space, and hence it is limited to those variables which seem to depend on absolute space.



Einstein may have applied Machs Principle only to mass and inertial. However, Machs conjecture is more general than that. Einstein may have focused on inertia. However, other scientists have used Mach Principle in a broader sense. So I will post some links to articles referring to Machs Principle in the broadest sense.

Here is an article that claims that the electromagnetic coupling constant may vary with the total charge distribution of the universe, if Machs conjecture is true in its strongest form.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5661.pdf
Electromagnetic Mach principle
We will introduce a gauge model which an electromagnetic coupling constant and local mass are related to all the charge in the universe. we will use the standard Dirac action ,but where the mass and the electromagnetic coupling constant are a function of the sum of all the charge in the universe, which represent Mach principle for electromagnetic coupling constant. The formalisation is not manifestly Lorentz invariant, however Lorentz invariance can be restored by performing a phase transformation of the Dirac field.


Here is an article showing that the gravitational Lagrangian may vary with the mass distribution of the universe, if Machs conjectrue is true in its strongest form.

415649-2.pdf
‘Gravitational Lagrangians, Mach’s Principle, and the Equivalence Principle in an Expanding Universe
Hanno Essén
We start by presenting the gravitational Lagrangians that form the basis of the present formalism in Section 2. A er that we point out how the local equations of motion for a particle will be a ected by the long range interactions with the other particles in the universe. Consistency demands that the only quantities that enter are velocities and accelerations relative to the rest of the universe. is is Mach’s principle. A er that, in Section 4, the long range e ects are calculated by integration over the universe as a whole out to the Hubble radius, where the expansion velocity reaches the speed of light. ‘


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.5608.pdf
‘Gravitational Lagrangians, Mach’s principle, and the equivalence principle in an expanding universe
The gravitational Lagrangian based on special relativity and the as- sumption of a fourth rank tensor interaction, derived by Kennedy (1972), is used to check Mach’s principle in a homogeneous isotropic expanding universe. The Lagrangian is found to be consistent with Mach’s princi- ple when the density is the critical density and inertial mass is suitably renormalized.’

Please note that the Lagrangian describes the dynamics of the system. As I said before, the real physics is always in the dynamics not the kinematics.


http://cds.cern.ch/record/590210/files/0211021.pdf
‘SCALE-INVARIANT GRAVITY: PARTICLE DYNAMICS
by Julian Barbour
….
Nevertheless, Einstein would probably still have had reservations, since in Dirac’s theory (which is a form of Brans–Dicke theory [7]) the coupling constants of the various forces of nature are epoch and location dependent. The strong equivalence principle (SEP), according to which the laws of nature, including the values of coupling constants, must be exactly the same everywhere and at every epoch, is violated.’



http://www.platonia.com/barbour_bert...s1982_scan.pdf
Machs Principle and the structure of dynamical theories
by Barbour and Bertotti


http://www.k1man.com/Lucas130819A.pdf
'In theoretical physics, especially in inertial and gravitational theories, Mach’s Principle is the name given by Einstein to a general principle credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. A very general statement of Mach’s Principle is
Local physical laws are determined by the large scale structure of the universe. [2]
…'

I am not posting all this because I am a champion of Machs Conjecture. I am merely pointing out that the Mach's Principle is often used in a wider context than inertia. I am not trying to be Maartenns champion, either.

Some of the threads here, not just this one, seem to be objections to reductionism in science. Reductionism is the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts. One can always understand a complex system through understanding the interaction of simple subsystems. The whole is the sum of the parts.

However, Machs Principle superficially seems to contradict this. The large scale structure influences the behavior of the subsystems.So how could one use a reductionist strategy if the large scale structure influences the small scale structure.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that 'simple' is not equivalent to small. The large scale structure of the universe as hypothesized by Einstein is actually very simple. The variations caused by the subsystems average to zero.

So actually the large scale structure can be part of the small scale structure. There is a bunch of simple rules that add up to the behavior of the a subsystem. However, the large scale structure is 'part' of the small scale structure.

One can reduce the behavior of the small scale structures to their simpler components plus a simple rule about the large scale structure. So Mach was a reductionist.

His version of reductionism may be a bit sophisticated. However, it is reductionist.

The 'philosophy' of Mach is reductionist, positivist and extremely pragmatic. However, it is also anti-intuitive. It looks weird. Phenomenology is eclectice, hoilistic, mystic and intuitive. Therefore, some would conflate phenomenology with common sense!

So anyway, I hope this critique helps Maartenn, you and everyone else who reads it. I have proposed my philosophical and scientific opinion. Everyone else can dispose it.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2016, 06:31 AM   #7
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,127
Congrats on the thread split Maarten.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2016, 09:24 AM   #8
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
Congrats on the thread split Maarten.

Do we get 2 to 1 for our thread invesment now (returns have been sparse but dividends have been up lately)?
__________________
"Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 01:48 PM   #9
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
New model in cosmology without a Big Bang!

This is the proof that you don't have to accept what a socalled expert tells you. Think for yourself about the unverse, cosmology etc.

Because a totally new model in cosmology is been published: a model without a big bang this time.

This time, the experts tell you, the laymen, that you must fund research for a theory without a Big Bang.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
Edited by jsfisher:  ...snip...
Edited for compliance with Rule 4 of the membership agreement.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...verse.html#jCp
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by jsfisher; 7th March 2016 at 02:23 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:02 PM   #10
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,052
I don't think you actually understand what's being proposed. They are not proposing that the universe hasn't been expanding from a hot dense state.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:05 PM   #11
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
It's about the fact that we, the majority of the people, have to accept from the socalled experts that the universe has no beginning and no end, based on their mathematics. Yesterday we had to accept that it had a beginning and an end.
What will it be next time?
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 7th March 2016 at 02:07 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:09 PM   #12
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's about the fact that we, the majority of the people, have to accept from the socalled experts that the universe has no beginning and no end, based on their mathematics. Yesterday we had to accept that it had a beginning and an end.
What will it be next time?
Originally it was about:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is the proof that you don't have to accept what a socalled expert tells you. Think for yourself about the unverse, cosmology etc.
...
..... so, the opposite of what you're saying now.

What will it be next time?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:13 PM   #13
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
And above all: this is proof for the fact that the socalled experts don't know it at all (with or without their mathematics).
One time their math says: their is a beginning.
Another time their math says: their is no beginning.

Don't trust the math of the expert is the big lesson we have to learn here. Trust your own thinking as a layman.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 7th March 2016 at 02:14 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:15 PM   #14
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
And above all: this is proof for the fact that the socalled experts don't know it at all (with or without their mathematics).
Hiliteby Daylightstar
Getting educated would be a prerequisite though.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
And above all: this is proof for the fact that the socalled experts don't know it at all (with or without their mathematics).
Hilite by Daylightstar
In that case, you can be understood to know nothing at all.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:19 PM   #15
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
And above all: this is proof for the fact that the socalled experts don't know it at all (with or without their mathematics).
One time their math says: their is a beginning.
Another time their math says: their is no beginning.

Don't trust the math of the expert is the big lesson we have to learn here. Trust your own thinking as a layman.
Hilite by Daylightstar

Since you edited your post again: I'll interpret the above to mean a declaration of incompetence with regard to learning the relevant math.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:19 PM   #16
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,360
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves........
No, it isn't.

This is you confirming your own bias. Funnily enough, there's a term for that.

What you are doing is absolutely classic: you don't like what one group of scientists are saying, so when someone in another group says something different, without having any personal knowledge or ability to discern who has the greatest weight of evidence in support of their argument, you just jump in and assume that the latter group is right, and the former wrong...............and nya, nya, ne nya, nya..............you wongos should all think for yourselves, like wot I do.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:23 PM   #17
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
One time their math says: their is a beginning.
Another time their math says: their is no beginning.

Don't trust the math of the expert is the big lesson we have to learn here. Trust your own thinking as a layman.
Let's put it like this:

One time your post says one thing.
Another time that same post says another thing.

Don't trust the message of such poster is the big lesson we have to learn here.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:24 PM   #18
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
This thread could easily be merged with the op's mega thread part II.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 02:25 PM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,052
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
Good idea. You should try it some time.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 03:58 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,361
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
There is little evidence that you are thinking for yourself with the vague nonsense that follows, Maartenn100.
It seems to be a derail into cosmology where the math in standard cosmology has always said that an expanding universe will have a beginning (singularity).

An ignorant person has to trust the experts.
A smart person tries to educate themselves so that they can evaluate how expert the experts are.
A deluded person tries to became an expert in every subject under the Sun and quickly has a nervous breakdown !

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th March 2016 at 04:01 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 05:45 AM   #21
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-the...-big-bang.html

I agree. A relativity of time (age) is not compatible with an idea of a fixed age of the universe.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 8th March 2016 at 06:04 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 06:05 AM   #22
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,360
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

I agree. ........
I'll bet the authors are absolutely delighted to have your endorsement. However, they would probably more welcome something other than a cheerleader. Maybe someone who could add to their work, or who could check it and find fault with it, or confirm its findings. As you can't offer this, you'll to settle for just being a cheerleader.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 06:13 AM   #23
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,052
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-the...-big-bang.html

I agree. A relativity of time (age) is not compatible with an idea of a fixed age of the universe.
Wrong again, as usual. The age of the universe depends upon the reference frame, that's true, but there's a reference frame in which that age is maximal. And that's the frame that cosmologists use, namely the co-moving frame. If the age in the co-moving frame is finite, it must be finite (and shorter) in all other frames. If it's infinite in the co-moving frame, it's infinite in all other frames.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 06:53 AM   #24
steenkh
Illuminator
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,981
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-the...-big-bang.html

I agree. A relativity of time (age) is not compatible with an idea of a fixed age of the universe.
That does not make sense.

Think of it in this way: if the age of the universe was infinite, then time would never have reached the present time. There would have been an infinite amount of time to pass until the present. It is just like you will never be able to able to reach a place that is infinitely far away, no matter how much time, and what means of propulsion you have.

To put it another way: infinity does not mesh well with physics.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 08:09 AM   #25
Steve
Master Poster
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
That does not make sense.

Think of it in this way: if the age of the universe was infinite, then time would never have reached the present time. There would have been an infinite amount of time to pass until the present. It is just like you will never be able to able to reach a place that is infinitely far away, no matter how much time, and what means of propulsion you have.

To put it another way: infinity does not mesh well with physics.
It has always been the present time. No other time has ever existed.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2016, 01:18 PM   #26
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,361
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-the...-big-bang.html

I agree. A relativity of time (age) is not compatible with an idea of a fixed age of the universe.
That is almost a lie, Maartenn100. There is no "fixed age of the universe" in cosmology. As I think you know there is the age of the universe that becomes more accurate with every measurement.

The article itseef has a bit of bad information, " In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
This suggests that GR breaks down at t > 0. However the existence of the singularity is the breakdown of GR. GR is valid as t tends to zero and breaks down at t = 0.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2016, 06:26 AM   #27
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,761
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is evidence for the idea that people must think for themselves.
And above all: this is proof for the fact that the socalled experts don't know it at all (with or without their mathematics).
One time their math says: their is a beginning.
Another time their math says: their is no beginning.

Don't trust the math of the expert is the big lesson we have to learn here. Trust your own thinking as a layman.
What a load of crap.

The next time you need a dentist, a doctor, a lawyer, a pilot, etc. you will not be using a 'layman'.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2016, 06:39 AM   #28
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,127
As a layperson, I expect that Maarten will design his own cell phone, computer, vehicle, television, refrigerator, etc. Why on earth would he trust the math of the expert?
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:25 PM   #29
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
A crucial question about the collapsing of the wavefunction

Robert Lanza wrote a book about biocentrism. He claims that consciousness is been proven the cause of the collapse of the wave function.

He says:

"Of course, physicists also wondered whether this bizarre behavior might be caused by some interaction between the whichway QWP detector or various other devices that have been tried, and the photon. But no. Totally different which-way detectors have been built (reference?), none of which in any way disturb the photon, yet we always lose the interference pattern."

Is this true? Which experiments exclude the idea that the interaction between measuring device and photon caused the collapse of the wavefunction.

Further in his book, he says:

"In 2002, scientists showed that particles of light “photons” knew – in advance – what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey – it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened – and across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects."

Is it true that scientists came to that conclusion, based on that experiment? Which other experiments confirmed these observer-dependent effects?
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 5th April 2016 at 11:40 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:45 PM   #30
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 4,509
Systemic interactions collapse wave functions, iirc. No need for observation by any neural systems at all. That's how we got from the BB to now without any primates to help. Me, I'd toss that Lanza book and buy a physics text for physics, and a neuroscience text for the brain.
__________________
Please use your own words for foundational concepts and main argument; I do not wish to debate a disjointed quote machine made of foreign parts that jerry-rig on command. I am happy, however, to debate an identifiable set of statements of your clear authorship that are intended to hold together.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:48 PM   #31
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,360
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Robert Lanza wrote a book about biocentrism. He claims that consciousness is been proven the cause of the collapse of the wave function...........
As both your title and this line assume that the collapse of the wave function has actually happened, perhaps you could A/ define what the wave function is and B/ show how we know that it has collapsed. Maybe you could chuck in a C/ and explain the definite article "the" (in other words, how do we know that there is only one wave function?).

Once we know what we're dealing with, maybe the conversation can be a little more focused than otherwise.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:06 AM   #32
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
MikG, you can't show a link to the experiments, Robert Lanza is referring to?
MikeG, do you claim that Robert Lanza is a liar?
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:08 AM   #33
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,360
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
MikG, you can't show a link to the experiments, Robert Lanza is refering to?
MikeG, do you claim that Robert Lanza is a liar?
I claim nothing. I simply want the terms defined, and the question that is begged in the title and the first line of the OP resolved. Let's get the simple stuff (definitions and logical fallacies) out of the way before we start discussing the claims, OK?
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:21 AM   #34
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
The 'collapsing of the wavefunction' can be defined as a disappearance of the probability-state of a photon. The location is determined.
(by the act of observing)
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 6th April 2016 at 12:31 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:26 AM   #35
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,344
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Robert Lanza wrote a book about biocentrism. He claims that consciousness is been proven the cause of the collapse of the wave function.

He says:

"Of course, physicists also wondered whether this bizarre behavior might be caused by some interaction between the whichway QWP detector or various other devices that have been tried, and the photon. But no. Totally different which-way detectors have been built (reference?), none of which in any way disturb the photon, yet we always lose the interference pattern."

Is this true? Which experiments exclude the idea that the interaction between measuring device and photon caused the collapse of the wavefunction.

Further in his book, he says:

"In 2002, scientists showed that particles of light “photons” knew – in advance – what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey – it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened – and across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects."

Is it true that scientists came to that conclusion, based on that experiment? Which other experiments confirmed these observer-dependent effects?

Have you read the book?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:29 AM   #36
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
I'm reading it. But Robert Lanza is not giving any references. So, that's why I'm asking which experiments he is referring to.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:31 AM   #37
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,360
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
When observed, it acts like a particle.
When not observed, it acts like a wave with an interference pattern.
What's "it"?
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:32 AM   #38
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
The 'collapsing of the wavefunction' can be defined as a disappearance of the probability-state of a photon. (Copenhagen interpretation)
The location is determined.
(by the act of observing)
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 6th April 2016 at 12:34 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:37 AM   #39
Roger Ramjets
Master Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,938
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Is it true that scientists came to that conclusion, based on that experiment?
No.

Observer (quantum physics)
Quote:
In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured.

Ever since 1903, when Prosper-René Blondlot 'observed' N rays (which didn't actually exist - his mind was playing tricks on him), physicists have been leery of using themselves as the measuring device.

To detect photons an experimenter may use photographic film, or a photomultiplier tube, CCD camera or some other device. He certainly won't use his own eye, because it has neither the sensitivity, accuracy, reliability or bandwidth to be of any use in most quantum experiments. Plus it is much easier to use an electronic instrument when you want to collect a lot of data and feed it into a computer for analysis.

By the time the results of an observation reach the experimenter they have have gone through a chain of processing which may have involved billions of largely random quantum interactions. But even if for some reason the experimenter never saw the results so his mind was not even tangentially a part of it, the observation would still have occurred - no consciousness necessary!

Robert Lanza is either an idiot who doesn't have a clue about quantum physics, or a con-artist. I don't think he is an idiot...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 12:40 AM   #40
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Ok, thank you!
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.