h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I think, therefore I am" implies, nah, MEANS that because you think, you are. However an interesting idea was put foward (well, ok, mentioned) in Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. No, seriously. Somebody wound up saying (I'll not go into the details) "We are, therefore we am". Ie, the evidence of our existence is the fact that, like it or not, we EXIST. You can see that a rock exists because it is tangable. As with all other things, the reason you can say they exist is because they are right there in front of you.

And another thing - I wasn't thinking of wind resistence I was thinking of gravity. In space no change would occur, but gravity keeps you in the one place if you aren't on a moving platform, so when you jump gravity tries to pull you back to earth. Mebbe only if you were launched into the air off the roof of the train would this be totally noticeable. Depending on how high, the train may not be there when you splat back home. You certainly keep some momentum (something that Newton fella said..). Oh wait - no air. Nothing to slow you down. Gravity just means that you land back on the train...

S***e. So I was thinking wind resistance

But my point about the bird is that if it was, say, flying at 20mph IN FRONT of the train then it would still be going at 20mph until it gets messy, then it's carcass (if it's a lucky bird) moves at the same speed as the train.

Now imagine that there is a window open in the front (IMAGINE!). The bird winds up flying at 20mph inside a train going at 70mph. It needs to fly at 70mph to keep pace with the train or else... a mess is created on the back of the first carriage..

BUT if it drops to the floor, THEN takes off at 20 mph it is moving at 90mph. Of course this is flawed. We are assuming that this takes place without wind resistence. In which case that bird can't, erm, fly at all.
Go on, disprove that why don't ya..

Please go into the details, I've read "Small Gods" but I can't rmember that bit. Do you think it's possible to create gods just by believing in them? It's a scary thought...

It's easy to overlook the fact that science does not explain the Universe. It explains the relationship between the concepts that we use to describe it. In that sense we created it. Our explanations are accurate to the extent that our concepts are.

Whether matter exists or not is unknowable. The theories that explain how we appear to exist, and matter with us, when in fact we don't are perfectly consistent in themselves. However we have a bit of trouble getting our heads around them.

It's not by coincidence that physics has developed a sort of complex perceived relationship with Budhism. The link may be illusion, or wishful thinking, but something made someone start thinking about it.

Isn't it wonderful that the more we learn, or think we learn, about the Universe the weirder it gets. Imagine if this was not the case!

Peter...would you mind activating your homepage so that I may greet you? Thank you...

Did anyone see the Equinox program on the Theory of Relativity about a week ago?

~~A~~

Yes, I saw that, very interesting!

Archangel - I'm a bit new to this but I think I've activated my page. Thanks for the friendliness.

Yup, you managed it!

~~A~~

You're welcome Peter, you have been unofficially greeted
Thanks, Aurora.
By the way, Aurora, I have a wonderful pic of an aurora for you, if you're interested?

Ooh, yes!

~~A~~

Incidentally (I've bin elsewhere for some time), the thought occurs that (getting back to the train analogy) if the train was in a vacuum, then the bird couldn't fly. Or breathe. Hmmm.

And on the subject of "I think, therefore I am". That is the same as "I think, *because* I am", the thinking is a result of the being. And we know that rocks exist, because, well, they like... DO. HENCE rocks do think. But rocks DON'T think, because they are *rocks*, but this then means that they don't exist, we only think that they do, and as a result of thinking that everything else exists, we ourselves exist. We had to think up something to think about.. in order to "am", as it were.

So, evolving this theory... Everything exists because we think it does, everything which does not think does not exist. Plants dont have any detectable thoughts, and so do not exist. If plants don't exist, then WE don't exist.

My conclusion is simply that this statement is WRONG. "I think, therefore I think I am" might be more appropriate, and equally useful to the general population..

Well this is on the wrong board!

oki, best clarify this situation. The message before last, was meant for another discussion, as was the FIRST message. Why it wound up here absolutely mystifies me.


Oh, and it was in the bar where Brutha and the toroise Om went and saw the philosiphers arguing, Didactylos was saying "We think, therefore we am,", some other wise guy said, "Are,". Didactylos apologised, and corrected himself - "We ARE, because we am". "The evidence of our existence is the fact of our existence".

Now to call attention to this on the other board.. humm.

Oh wait - no it WASN'T and everything's ok, please go about your business,

Oops!

You could say 'I think therefore its not your turn' if you really wanted to baffle paoples minds.

On this speed of light thing does it travel at 300,000 meters /sec or at 12,000,000 miles a minute through a vacuum? or thereabouts give or take a few moments in time...

Yes, but we don't really want to baffle peoples' minds.

At least, not to the point where we can't show them how great we are by explaining it.

Light travels.. this first of all says that light is a thing. It bounces too. Which means it can't just continue at the same speed, it must lose some energy into what it bounces off. So, there are little tiny, tiny particles of light bouncing off everything, and slowing down by an incredibly small fraction each time they do so. We see when these particles enter our eyes. Where is the waste? We turn particles of light into information our brain can read, but what happens to the particles then? If they go nowhere, then eventually there would be a backlog of old particles blocking the retina. It is said that things have colour because they absorb light of all other colours, and bounce back the rest. Fine, that's an explanation, but WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? How does it happen? How can an object "absorb" what have just been seen to be microscopic partices. We know they bounce. How does light carry colour.


And it goes very, very fast. And by the above logic (or lack of same), it will eventually (a long ways down the line, of course) stop. Then we blink and are all suddenly blind.


Where is my crowbar?

Ok, I'm into scientific waters way above my head here, but I think light carries colours because it can have different wavelengths. There are only a limited amount of wavelengths our eyes can pick up, so any wave of light with a longer or shorter wavelength that normal light cannot be seen (e.g. microwaves). White light is made up of all colour wavelengths (I think, don't quote me on that).

Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change, so it must follow that our retinas heat up slightly (since it is probable {to me} that the light changes into heat), when light hits our eyes. Is this why you get sore eyes from staring at a computer screen for too long?

Ok, about the microscopic particles - here's something interesting (and apparently true):
Hit the table with your hand. (Yes, it'll hurt, but it's necessary for the experiment).
Did your hand go through the table? No? Well, why is that?
Most people would say "because my hand is solid, and the table is solid, so they can't go through one another."
But if you do chemistry, you realise that every atom is made of mostly empty space, and since your body is made up of atoms, why can't it pass through the table?
The answer (supposedly) is that each atom has negatively charged elecrons and positively charged protons, so the electrons in your hand repel the electrons in the table, and the protons in your hand repel the protons in the table, so they can't go through each other.
And I think it's something to do with the structure of the molecules in a substance that make light possible to be passed through it or not.

I'm rambling, most of my ideas don't make any sense except when half asleep, and this has to be the longest forum I've ever fully typed. So I'll go.

~~A~~

Indeed, if the atoms didn't repel each other, then things would not resist other things, and everything would wind up sticking to stuff as the electron.. nevermind!

The light to heat thing actually makes some sense to me. Not an exceptional amount, mind you, but it does suggest itself as a possibilty. So the kinetic energy from the particles is transferred to heat energy by our eyes (this would be a result of friction), but where do the particles go?


Hold on a second... is light a form of energy or not?

Don't want to be tedious but I think you'll find that light does not bounce off things in that way. Photons are absorbed, the process of which releases another photon. They don't have to slam it into reverse at light speed.

Ah I see.


That clears things up somewhat.

Thanks. I expect I'll endevour to learn slightly more about this topic before I blat on anymore. It's the Irish secondary schooling system I tell ya! The things they think we don't need to know!
-This may be a good time to interject the word "gah!"-