Ihave got a few books on quatum mechanics which are up to date maybe I have missunderstood.
Anyway my dictionary says;"QUANTUM 1.Physics, a minimum amount of a physical quantity(such as energy)which can exist in a given situation."2...A theroy of physics based on the assumption that energy exists in indivisable units."
Posts by sleepy
-
22Can you answer this?(scientific question)
by sleepy inhere is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.
if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.
if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.
-
-
sleepy
-
22
Can you answer this?(scientific question)
by sleepy inhere is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.
if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.
if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.
-
-
sleepy
Perhaps I am mistaken but is not quatum theory the idea that energy and things come in packets.They are granular in nature.
According to what I have read quatuam machanics is used to get round the problem of infinities by breaking thinks up into particles including energy -
22
Can you answer this?(scientific question)
by sleepy inhere is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.
if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.
if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.
-
-
sleepy
Here is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.
Can things really move?
If you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.
One of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.There is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.
The same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .Eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.
In the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.
So what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.But what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?
If we put some figures on it it may make it easier.
If to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.
So like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.Made up of definate jumps though very tiny.
If this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?
If this is true it raises so very interesting questions as to the nature of things the stucture of the universe and time itself.
So when we move are all our parts really moving or are they jumping from one place to another?Sorry if I havent explained it very well I've tried my best.
-
15
16 reasons to doubt the divinity of the bible
by bboyneko in1)the old testament must have been written nearly two thousand years before the invention of printing.
there were but few copies, and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.. 2) the written hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, anyone can test this for himself by writing an english sentence, leaving out the vowels.
it will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone.. 3) the books composing the old testament were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known.
-
-
sleepy
bboyneko
Exactly what I thinkItsJustMe
I hope you can find just one Bible prophecy that can be shown to have come true.
You need to show
1 when it was written.
2 what it means.
3 when and how fullfilled.
The prophecy will have to be unambiguous and not rely on controversial interpretation. -
29
How does anyone know matter didn't always exist?
by D wiltshire ina few days ago i was told matter didn't always exist.. i was told this by several persons who spoke with much certainty.. they said matter came from a singularity.. this as you know raises more questions than it answers.. have they any proof that singularities even exist?.
how come people state things as a fact, that they have no solid proof for, and expect others to just beleive them.. and if you don't accept their beleif, you are said, not to be intelligent.. isn't that a case of attacking the straw man?.
instead of the argument?.
-
-
sleepy
JanH
"The laws of thermodynamics, for one. Heat energy goes from a warmer to a colder object until both have the same temperature. If the universe had always existed, everything would have the same temperature."I dont think thats quite right.This only works in a closed system without energy going in to it.
To prove this applies to the known universe would imply knowledge of what is outside.Which no one has.
If you think of it if this were true there would never be a universe in the first place as it would never have got different energies in different places.
Also this is an statistical phenomenon that applies to the above quantum world.In the quatum world according to current understanding random fluctuations occour meaning that in the "real"world the laws of thermondynamics do not always have to happen.Just most of the time it does .
It was such a random fluctuation that physicists belive caused the universe. -
2
Jehovahs witnesses ,in the divine purpose?II
by sleepy inhere are some more quotes from the divine purpose book .. i'd like to see what you make of them.. still in the chapter"reorganising for active service";.
"little did gods people in 1919 know the significant part the instrument the golden age , was to play in exposing the unholy combine of nazi-fascist-catholic building.
in the years that were to follow, numerous and powerful were the death dealing blows that were to be dealt to this combine by articles and cartoons appearing in this courageous journal.".
-
-
sleepy
Right on old chap.
They gave old Hitler a jolly good bif on the nose.
Splendid work expatty in exposing the cover up .
They never did tell the real reason Blighty won the war. -
2
Jehovahs witnesses ,in the divine purpose?II
by sleepy inhere are some more quotes from the divine purpose book .. i'd like to see what you make of them.. still in the chapter"reorganising for active service";.
"little did gods people in 1919 know the significant part the instrument the golden age , was to play in exposing the unholy combine of nazi-fascist-catholic building.
in the years that were to follow, numerous and powerful were the death dealing blows that were to be dealt to this combine by articles and cartoons appearing in this courageous journal.".
-
-
sleepy
Here are some more quotes from the Divine purpose book .
I'd like to see what you make of them.
Still in the chapter"Reorganising for active service";
"Little did gods people in 1919 know the significant part the instrument The Golden Age , was to play in exposing the unholy combine of Nazi-Fascist-Catholic building. In the years that were to follow, numerous and powerful were the death dealing blows that were to be dealt to this combine by articles and cartoons appearing in this courageous journal."
Have I missed something from my history books?
According to the watchtower their articles were "Death dealing"
So they caused death to the Nazi-Fascist-Catholic combine.
Funny I thought it was the American-British-Russian alliance who brought it down.
I must be mistaken. -
66
Is it all Rutherfords fault?
by sleepy init has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
-
-
sleepy
Maddy apostate I was interested in this quote from the 1884 Watchtower;
"Another matter also has been considered: Two or more who had already contributed to the funds of the society, suggested that as age was coming on and opportunities for earning a living decreasing they could not now give more largely without endangering penury and leaving themselves a burden on their friends, which they could not see to be the Lord's will; yet they are desirous that in some way they might be able to put the Lord's money (consecrated to Him) into His work. This naturally suggested the idea that there might be many others similarly situated and with similar ideas. Such moneys or other property donated by "Will" to the society it might be unable to receive or dispose of, unless it had a charter. "It sruck me that if he was refering to himself as one of the two who were to be left short of money if they carried on useing there funds to run the society ,that it was very soon that he ran out of money.
About 5 years.
Here's a wild assumption off the top of my head.
Russelll starts the Bible society runs quickly out of money , he then has to rely on others for his income and does this throught the watchtower society .
This means that doctrines have to change when not fulfilled as to keep a loyal following to keep him housed and fed.
What do you think? -
15
Watchtower style architecture
by sleepy inso was it just me or are the architectual designs of kingdom halls absolutely bland and uninspiring?.
i suppose it just like the pictures in the mags middle of the road and all that.. if there was a new system and the watchtower society had control on thing i wonder if they would insist on standardised designs .. 3 or 4 designs for each country to chose from.. if you think that is far fetched that is exactly the policy they have today for kingdom hall design.
there are several predesigned stadardised halls to chose from.
-
-
sleepy
What do halls look like in the States?
I wonder if they are different to Britian.
Most of the ones I've seen in Britian have been red or orange brick with very small windows and very plain usually white walls inside.
Plastic flowers at the front and a wobbly rostrum made by a local brother. -
66
Is it all Rutherfords fault?
by sleepy init has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
-
-
sleepy
I'd like to see these pictures of Russell in Eygpt if they exist.
Why did they go there?
The society always seems to put the pyramid idea into a minor role in the history of the society.But was it such a minor thing to Russell.
At the time there were many writers speculating about the pyramids at Giza and a lot of interest in the subject.
I think there was a guy called Edgar Case or something similar , who was very big in the feild but he claimed to hear vocies from the grave whom he claimed were ancient egyptians.
Exactly what part did the pyramid play in Russells beliefs?