Philosophy

I have a lot of posts to answer;

First to JrKasperov:

ivan_2068 wrote: Please, when you understand this tell me, until then I will still believe in good old laws of physics in our reality. Oh please Ivan, why don't you go study this yourself?  I won't study another career to justify a silly question, I already studied one, in which I'm very good by the way, and I can explain everything I said, something you admit are not able to do. All the things in between mean nothing because you later say: In other words we're wrong, but there's no experiment that proves we're wrong because it will disrupt reality. No, we don't KNOW whether we're wrong or not. That's the whole point. This proves my whole point, the cat is dead or alive, but we don't know, as simple as that without mathematical formulas that can't be provede in reality.

But all of this means nothing because you said before:

JrKasperov wrote:

When reading maani's post we clearly read that there is an ATOMIC particle decaying. This is a quantummechanical item. The tree, however, is NOT. So whether or not a tree falls in the forest is NOT a physical question at all.

I may accept the posibility (Because I'm not able to contradict Quantum Mecchanics) that the cat could be dead and alive in theory, a theory that can't be proved with experience (But hobnestly I can't believe it unless you prove it in real terms, not in mathematic formulas).

So, we were talking about falling trees, not about dead cats.

In other words Maani's argument and all this quantum masturbation and atomic particles dacaying means nothing in the case of the tree falling in the desert forest.

I admit I don't know a word about Quantum mechanics, but I know a bit about physics:

• A Tree falls to the earth because the gravity pulls it...THIS IS PHYSICS
• The impact of two bodies of mass produces vibration......THIS IS PHYSICS
• Vibration produces sound.....THIS IS PHYSICS

So why does he includes it here?

Maybe it's not Quantum Physics, but it's still valid.

I admit that Quantum physics are far more advanced than Newton's laws but Just a couple of questions JrKAsperov:

• Is the law of gravity wrong?
• Does vibration produce sound in our atmopsphere?

That's all.

Sorry, one more question: How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling?

Bald Friedre said:

It is not a fallacy; I may not have made myself clear enough: The laws may exist without us, but our knowledge and understanding (and hence formulation) of them is derived from observation only. Yes it is, you are admitimng laws of physic exist so: Trees have mass Mass falls becauseit's pulled by gravity force. Whren mass collisions with mass there's vibration. Vibration inside the atmosphere produces sound So any tree with mass no matter how special it is, when falling into the ground will produce a sound. Any special and spiritual tree without mass will never fall because as helium would be lighter than air. So any tree that falls into the ground produce a sound no matter if there is 1, 2, 1'000,000 persons to verify that fact. To quote from the preface of "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" Please, first Quantum mechanics, then wormholes,  now black holes, we're talking about a simpl4e tree falling. Please quote me any part where Robert M. Hazen or Maxine Singer say a falling tree doesn't produce a sound if there's nobody near to listen it, if not, this book is as pertinent to our example as the dead cat.

Eddible Budah wrote:

U c, The more u can determine the condition of a particle, the less u can determine its direction (and vise versa) - (im a bit rusty with my quantum).  Now, placing this with the falling tree scenario, the particles that are disturbed by the tree falling will not disappear or appear in the presence of an observer, because an observer hears (observes) the sound.  However, the sound may take on a different 'condition of existance/non-existance' (for want of a better phrase.  Also, just because you are present at the trees felling, is it possible that the sound that you hear be the tree falling or of some other disturbance caused by the reappearance of antiparticle(s) in this realm of existance that has been disturbed by our observation..... as particles have been shown by experiment to travel faster than the speed of light (some physicians use the theory of these particles travelling thru 'wormholes'). So the arguement would be that if the observer is not there, then the disturbance of the particles would have different conditions than they would if the observer is there.  However, that is assuming that u know the conditions of the particles that create the sound(waves) in the first place, which means that you wouldn't know whether these particles existed in this plane of existance....... Isnt Quantum fun.

In other words, not even the scientists agree? Or do they spend all their lives trying to prove something that's beyond prove?

oliverstoned wrote: There are others worlds where these rules (physics) don't apply... Id belive you if the maths behind quantum wern't so damned contradictory.... Can't agree more.

Bald Friedre wrote:

JrKASperov is right. The Schrödinger's cat paradoxon is so very disturbing because the equations REALLY say the cat is alive and dead AT THE SAME TIME. It is not as simple as Ivan puts it, that it is either dead or alive. That would not have been disturbing at all; no-one would have had a problem with that.

Ok, neither I or most of us know a word about Quantum physics and scientists don't 100% agree because they can't experiment.

Lets go back to the real world, a real tree in our real atmosphere and to real vibration.  

Iván

I get your point, but please, don't reduce it to trees, any object with mass that falls produce a sound.

This has been experimented, not only with trees, but with all sort of objects, in our limited reality, anything with mass can fall and if it does, will produce a sound

I may even admit the posibility of a tree without mass, but An object without mass won't be atracted by a low force of ravity as the one of the earth, and for that reason it won't fall.

But the laws of nature only need a single exception, and we have to rethink. The best example for that is the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley from the year 1887. They tried to measure the speed of the earth through the supposed "aether". Their idea was to measure the speed of light in one direction of the movement of the earth and then in the opposite direction. The difference between these 2 speeds should have been twice the speed of the earth. The apparatus they measured with was fine enough to measure the expected difference of the speed of light. What they did not know about is that the speed of light is constant for every viewer. So far the Galileo-transformations had been sufficient for adding speed; if two bodies move away from each other in opposite directions, one with the speed A and the other with the speed B, the speed relative to each other will be A+B . But this Galileo-transformation is not valid for objects close to the speed of light. The famous Lorentz-transformations apply for objects close to the speed of light. Had anyone suggested these Galileo-transformations before the experiment of Michelson and Morley, every physicist would have tapped the forehead with a finger. And it took an Einstein to accurately explain the phenomenon.

Again you make my point, the fact that Michelson and Morley failled in their experiment, the speed of earth didn't changed, the only thing that's obvious is that Michelson and Morley didn't knew some facts, and because of that wrong or inccomplete knowledge  they were not able to messure the speed of Earth travelling around the sun.

So the speed of earth was the same in 1887 and when Einstein discovered the truth.

Our ignorance doesn't change the facts.

So yes, as far as we know a tree that falls in the woods will make a sound, even if we don't observe it. But we can't be sure about that. No matter how often we measure a certain phenomenon and how often the result of this measuring will be in accord with the theory, it takes only one single aberration from the rule, and the theory collapses.

This will be an aberration caused by some mysterious and external factor, but the effects of this aberration will be much greater than just causing the cesation of sound, and this has never happened.

And the fact that any aberration like this could happen, doesn't destroy the laws of physics, only proves that something exceptional happened.

Have you heard of The Occam Razor principle?

I don't know what you don't understand:

First, let me explain the reason of the  Colors:

• Black font is used by Bald Friedre,
• I use different colors to separete my answers,  Red is what I answer with my rudimentary knowledge and blue is what I quoted from other sources:

Each of my answers (In red when using my own arguments and in blue when quoting others) is made after a parragraph written by Bald Friedre.

1. My first parragraph is an answer to a phrase of Friedre who said that laws of physic are only consequences of observation, and each case has to be observed indivudually...... I say that studying several cases and after expeimentation you can create laws of physic that in our evironment will work.
2. My second parragraph in red  is an answer to Friedres aseveration that the failled experiment of Michelsen and Morley (An example provided by her)  proves that the laws of physics are not accurate .... Woith my answer I trie to make a point that the experiment of Michelson and Morley only proved that they used wrong facts, not that the laws of physics don't work.
3. The third answer I make is to  state that a single (and not existing) aberration or fail in the laws of Physics (She says that we don't know if a single tree in the earth defies the laws of Physics) doesn't imply that the mentioned laws are false, I use the Occam Razor argument because instead of believing on an imaginary tree that nobody has ever seen and doesn't make a sound, you must believe the simple answer and that is that every tree in the world makes sound when falling despite there's an observer or not.
4. I also use the Tunguska Phenomenum example (Which I explained several posts ago) , because many imaginative explanations were given to an explosion that happened in 1908 in adesertic zone of Siberia without a wittness (40 Kms of forests were destroyed without a crater), some scientists said it was an antimatery rock, others said it was a black hole and the last group believed it was a UFOand the answer was the simpler and logical, an ice comet that expoded in the Atmosphere over Siberia. This reinforces the Occam Razor Principle, the simplest explanation is the accurate.
5. The fourth answer I make is to state that I can't fully understand the experiment made by Michelsen and Morley.

Bluetailfly wrote:

If you can't follow my answers is probably because you haven't followed all the thread, but one thing is clear: I'm only a person that tries to think with logic and believes in laws of physic. I try to follow an argument using my rudimentary knowledge of physics and logic.

I love to argue and I'm faithful to my believes, that's why I follow an argument and stand on my beliefs.

I don't need to prove anything to anybody, I think I know who I am, that's enough for me, I don't have any personal disagreement with Bald Friedre or use her to reafirm myself, she defends her beliefs and I defend mine.

I believe that's the point of a Forum.

Iván

Thanks Geck0, my only doubt is that my poor English could be hard to understand, but now I know I was barely clear.

EDIT: Thanks Bald Friedre for a very interesting debate.

NO GENESIS ALBUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HERESY