Thread: What if?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46
    ☬Ξητσρζ Ζσ♍βε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Spark View Post
    Who's to say that there isn't a pattern in particle emulation? Born's rule of the uncertainty principle allows us to predict a range of probabilities, we simply don't know whether there is a pattern between two similar particles. What is your example where you say "we have seen different in our own"?
    You mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal?

    You have no idea what this principle is based off of. When you observe a quanta, it is forcibly affected. Even photons affect these particles, which means at any given money or any reason, these particles can and will RANDOMLY change velocity and/or direction of movement. This principle basically says when you measure the velocity of a quark, you will get the distance as well as velocity, however those variables will change. The only way to properly measure te particles velocity is in a particle accelerator with zero human interference, and even then scientists still must use thought-experiments rather than physical due to imprecise calculational output from said experiments.



    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    EDIT: I found what you are referring to and it is simply theoretical based on the inability to prove such calculations have any affect from the entropic nature of quanta.

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Also, that "law" is based off if predetermine calculable climates, you need a specific wave length, as well as the observable Hermian operator which is not observable in this context, the entire law is based around a controlled environment where the multiverse definitely is not controlled in any way shape or form.

  2. #47
    Drake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Belgium,Oost-Vlaanderen
    Posts
    12,685
    Reputation
    1801
    Thanks
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post
    I thought about this once, while tripping. Then I came to the conclusion that multi-dimensional mimicry is impossible due to the randomization of particles in the universe, it must be the same for the omniverse unless a higher deity had control over this.
    Yeah , i was thinking the same thing ...

  3. #48
    ~Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    543
    Reputation
    38
    Thanks
    26
    My Mood
    Relaxed
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post


    You mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal?

    You have no idea what this principle is based off of. When you observe a quanta, it is forcibly affected. Even photons affect these particles, which means at any given money or any reason, these particles can and will RANDOMLY change velocity and/or direction of movement. This principle basically says when you measure the velocity of a quark, you will get the distance as well as velocity, however those variables will change. The only way to properly measure te particles velocity is in a particle accelerator with zero human interference, and even then scientists still must use thought-experiments rather than physical due to imprecise calculational output from said experiments.



    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    EDIT: I found what you are referring to and it is simply theoretical based on the inability to prove such calculations have any affect from the entropic nature of quanta.

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Also, that "law" is based off if predetermine calculable climates, you need a specific wave length, as well as the observable Hermian operator which is not observable in this context, the entire law is based around a controlled environment where the multiverse definitely is not controlled in any way shape or form.
    Not really, the uncertainty principle finds a range points in which a particle could be. You are mixing it up with the observer effect. Remember the equation?

    it compares the standard deviations of of the position and the momentum of a body with planck's constant, which can give incredibly accurate results sometimes. Even gravitational wave interferometers work off of this estimation. The only downside being that if you know where the particle is, you probably don't know its momentum. And no, it doesn't only work in conditioned environments, all you need is enough similarly interacting particles to get your standard deviation.

    All of the maths behind this is an approximation, borns rule uses a continous random variable normalization to estimate the location of a particle. It uses the spin of a particle to find its wavefunction, not wavelength...

    But yes, if you're trying to tell me that my quoting of the uncertainty principal is wrongful because it is an inaccurate way to determine whether particles angular momentum and randomization are linked or not, you should probably stop quoting from the observer effect, it is 100 times worse for making approximations and failing to come to actual answers! Observer effect is like someone took a piss on uncertainty principle, stripped it of all its statistical value and gave it a new name. Give me some maths to look at so I can understand your point clearer.

    Besides, we are going very far off the point.

    At the end of the day, neither of us are right. Theoretically, your ideas make more sense. But I doubt you can put any mathematical proof to those claims. Mine has fairly considerable proof, but is missing some key aspects. Isn't physics fun.
    Last edited by ~Spark; 12-10-2012 at 05:53 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to ~Spark For This Useful Post:

    Lehsyrus (12-10-2012)

  5. #49
    ☬Ξητσρζ Ζσ♍βε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Spark View Post
    Not really, the uncertainty principle finds a range points in which a particle could be. You are mixing it up with the observer effect. Remember the equation?

    it compares the standard deviations of of the position and the momentum of a body with planck's constant, which can give incredibly accurate results sometimes. Even gravitational wave interferometers work off of this estimation. The only downside being that if you know where the particle is, you probably don't know its momentum. And no, it doesn't only work in conditioned environments, all you need is enough similarly interacting particles to get your standard deviation.

    All of the maths behind this is an approximation, borns rule uses a continous random variable normalization to estimate the location of a particle. It uses the spin of a particle to find its wavefunction, not wavelength...

    But yes, if you're trying to tell me that my quoting of the uncertainty principal is wrongful because it is an inaccurate way to determine whether particles angular momentum and randomization are linked or not, you should probably stop quoting from the observer effect, it is 100 times worse for making approximations and failing to come to actual answers! Observer effect is like someone took a piss on uncertainty principle, stripped it of all its statistical value and gave it a new name. Give me some maths to look at so I can understand your point clearer.

    Besides, we are going very far off the point.

    At the end of the day, neither of us are right. Theoretically, your ideas make more sense. But I doubt you can put any mathematical proof to those claims. Mine has fairly considerable proof, but is missing some key aspects. Isn't physics fun.
    Actually I had entirely forgotten about Born's rule when you mentioned "Uncertainty Principle".

    The only issue between us both is that this is all still theoretical physics. I personally do not like Born's rule as it puts a limit on Quantum Mechanics (in a sense), where in some cases it is useful, however in a non-regulated situation the amount of random variables is far too great to make a complete calculation to the possible outcome.

    Good chat.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Lehsyrus For This Useful Post:

    ~Spark (12-10-2012)

  7. #50
    ~Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    543
    Reputation
    38
    Thanks
    26
    My Mood
    Relaxed
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post


    Actually I had entirely forgotten about Born's rule when you mentioned "Uncertainty Principle".

    The only issue between us both is that this is all still theoretical physics. I personally do not like Born's rule as it puts a limit on Quantum Mechanics (in a sense), where in some cases it is useful, however in a non-regulated situation the amount of random variables is far too great to make a complete calculation to the possible outcome.

    Good chat.

    You too, very rare to meet someone on the internet with that level of knowledge on quantum mechanics.

  8. #51
    noob555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    o.O
    Posts
    8,235
    Reputation
    511
    Thanks
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post


    Heisenberg
    DING DING DING DING DING.....

  9. #52
    ☬Ξητσρζ Ζσ♍βε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Spark View Post
    You too, very rare to meet someone on the internet with that level of knowledge on quantum mechanics.
    I honestly fell in love with Quantum Mechanics on an acid trip. Actually, that seems to be how I became interested in learning at all. I was watching a documentary on it with my friend who was in college (I was only fifteen) who was majoring in Physics. His homework was based around theoretical Physics so we decided to drop some acid and check it out, needless to say it was a mind-altering experience.

  10. #53
    666HiddenMaster666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    14,461
    Reputation
    953
    Thanks
    1,854
    My Mood
    Cynical
    Found it


    @Lehsyrus @~Spark

    Top comment: "If the Multiverse Theory is correct, there is a universe where the Multiverse Theory is incorrect."
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravagant View Post
    The problem is that we're people. People are shitty beings, you just gotta keep that in mind.
    "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." - Richard Dawkins
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post
    Troll nomination. Allah and Muhammad for 1400 years of bullshit.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to 666HiddenMaster666 For This Useful Post:

    Lehsyrus (12-11-2012)

  12. #54
    ☬Ξητσρζ Ζσ♍βε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666 View Post
    Found it


    @Lehsyrus @~Spark

    Top comment: "If the Multiverse Theory is correct, there is a universe where the Multiverse Theory is incorrect."
    Which means incorrect = correct and vice-versa, the multiverse is a confusing mistress indeed /mhm

  13. #55
    666HiddenMaster666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    14,461
    Reputation
    953
    Thanks
    1,854
    My Mood
    Cynical
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post


    Which means incorrect = correct and vice-versa, the multiverse is a confusing mistress indeed /mhm
    Mother Nature and her daughters
    ...
    Women...
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravagant View Post
    The problem is that we're people. People are shitty beings, you just gotta keep that in mind.
    "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." - Richard Dawkins
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Lehsyrus View Post
    Troll nomination. Allah and Muhammad for 1400 years of bullshit.

  14. #56
    ☬Ξητσρζ Ζσ♍βε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666 View Post


    Mother Nature and her daughters
    ...
    Women...
    I fucked mother nature once.....

    Let's just say we can now consider Poison Ivy an STD.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Lehsyrus For This Useful Post:

    666HiddenMaster666 (12-11-2012)

  16. #57
    666FoundMaster666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    100
    Reputation
    10
    Thanks
    2
    My Mood
    Cynical
    Quote Originally Posted by gamerboy667 View Post
    i like to think we are all the same person just living a different life, so if we rape someone we just raped another version of ourselves, same with killing etc.
    "The Egg" by Andy Weir?

  17. #58
    gamerboy667's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Your gunna need a map for this one buddy
    Posts
    745
    Reputation
    13
    Thanks
    42
    My Mood
    Amused
    Quote Originally Posted by 666FoundMaster666 View Post
    "The Egg" by Andy Weir?
    actually yes. but didn't know the name or author.
    War does not determine who is right- only who is left.


    Skype User ID: cadet.colegrove

  18. #59
    Obey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Gender
    male
    Location
    The Magical Mushroom
    Posts
    24,734
    Reputation
    878
    Thanks
    3,451
    My Mood
    Buzzed
    Yea, there is always that 'what if'. But normally it always just comes back to Science.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. What would you look for in a game hacking tool kit?
    By Dave84311 in forum General Game Hacking
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-02-2015, 07:34 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 01:57 PM
  3. What happend to Channel 1?
    By Dave84311 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2006, 11:36 AM
  4. What would you do?
    By Mortifix in forum General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-14-2006, 07:44 AM
  5. What type of games
    By djraziel127 in forum General Game Hacking
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-30-2005, 04:22 PM