Post is pinned.
Here are the basic rules of this community:
The content of posts must match the section ("filter") they are posted in, news-type posts must have links, and only moderators may post to the Updates section. If you break any of these 3 rules, you will be warned, and after repeated offenses may be banned.
[
If a member has been reprimanded by a moderator for any reason, and at least one of the moderator's posts from outside of the community then receives even the slightest bit of unwanted activity from that member, then the member will immediately be banned from the community. This rule is in place to prevent unruly members from harassing or hassling vigilant mods.
]
The following is discouraged but allowed: repeated posting of the same content, posting theories about other sciences, and posting about conspiracies. If ever you commit one of these 'acceptable' infractions, you will be informed of the issue any time you do.
Whenever you post in the wrong place, a moderator will move your post to the right place and inform you of the movement. If you are unsure where to place a post, put it in the Unsorted section (in that case you might not be told about the post getting moved). Below you can find the standards for each section.
Sections' Standards:
"Unsorted Posts": If you are unsure where to place your post, then post it here. A moderator will move it to the right place for you.
"Debate Center": This is the main section, where theories about physics are proposed, posted, and discussed. If you do not have a position on the topic of your post, then it should be in the Debatable section, not the Debate Center.
"Debatable Questions": This is where topics of debate may be introduced when you do not have a proposal. If the topic posted already has an established answer and you are not disputing that answer, the post should not go here, rather it should be in the Answerable section, but you will not be punished for not knowing there was already an answer.
"Self-Publications": If you are posting your own official research papers, post them here with a link to the paper. The link must be to a formal scientific document, not simply a written theory. If it is someone else's paper, not your own work, then you may post it to the News/Facts section instead.
"Chat Center": This is a place for miscellaneous content. If you know your post is not about topics within physics (such as: the philosophy of physics, your experiences in the physics community, other sciences, or stuff outside of science), then it belongs here. The purpose of this place is personal conversation and community, talking about yourselves and hanging out, not serious discussion, although it is allowed.
"Community Updates": This is exclusively for moderator use only. You may not post here. This is for moderators to inform people about changes to the community.
"Answerable Questions": This is a place where you may ask about established physics, if you wish to become more informed. If it turns out there is not yet an established answer to your question, your post will be moved to the Debatable section, and there will not be any consequences for the initial misplacement of your post.
"Facts and News": This is a place where you may post the ideas of physics that the wider scientific consensus has currently determined to be fact, to form a sort of repository of established knowledge. This is also a place for sharing news about the broader physics community, including new discoveries. Posts about news should have a reporting tone, and must link to a reputable article or paper. If you wish to report on your own work, your post may not go here, rather it should be in the Debate Center if there is a theory, in the Publication section if there is formal research linked, or in the Chat Center if it is about your personal endeavors in the scientific community.
That's all for now.
The content of posts must match the section ("filter") they are posted in, news-type posts must have links, and only moderators may post to the Updates section. If you break any of these 3 rules, you will be warned, and after repeated offenses may be banned.
[
If a member has been reprimanded by a moderator for any reason, and at least one of the moderator's posts from outside of the community then receives even the slightest bit of unwanted activity from that member, then the member will immediately be banned from the community. This rule is in place to prevent unruly members from harassing or hassling vigilant mods.
]
The following is discouraged but allowed: repeated posting of the same content, posting theories about other sciences, and posting about conspiracies. If ever you commit one of these 'acceptable' infractions, you will be informed of the issue any time you do.
Whenever you post in the wrong place, a moderator will move your post to the right place and inform you of the movement. If you are unsure where to place a post, put it in the Unsorted section (in that case you might not be told about the post getting moved). Below you can find the standards for each section.
Sections' Standards:
"Unsorted Posts": If you are unsure where to place your post, then post it here. A moderator will move it to the right place for you.
"Debate Center": This is the main section, where theories about physics are proposed, posted, and discussed. If you do not have a position on the topic of your post, then it should be in the Debatable section, not the Debate Center.
"Debatable Questions": This is where topics of debate may be introduced when you do not have a proposal. If the topic posted already has an established answer and you are not disputing that answer, the post should not go here, rather it should be in the Answerable section, but you will not be punished for not knowing there was already an answer.
"Self-Publications": If you are posting your own official research papers, post them here with a link to the paper. The link must be to a formal scientific document, not simply a written theory. If it is someone else's paper, not your own work, then you may post it to the News/Facts section instead.
"Chat Center": This is a place for miscellaneous content. If you know your post is not about topics within physics (such as: the philosophy of physics, your experiences in the physics community, other sciences, or stuff outside of science), then it belongs here. The purpose of this place is personal conversation and community, talking about yourselves and hanging out, not serious discussion, although it is allowed.
"Community Updates": This is exclusively for moderator use only. You may not post here. This is for moderators to inform people about changes to the community.
"Answerable Questions": This is a place where you may ask about established physics, if you wish to become more informed. If it turns out there is not yet an established answer to your question, your post will be moved to the Debatable section, and there will not be any consequences for the initial misplacement of your post.
"Facts and News": This is a place where you may post the ideas of physics that the wider scientific consensus has currently determined to be fact, to form a sort of repository of established knowledge. This is also a place for sharing news about the broader physics community, including new discoveries. Posts about news should have a reporting tone, and must link to a reputable article or paper. If you wish to report on your own work, your post may not go here, rather it should be in the Debate Center if there is a theory, in the Publication section if there is formal research linked, or in the Chat Center if it is about your personal endeavors in the scientific community.
That's all for now.
Post has shared content
Dear Opinionated meddlers in physics and math,
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
Cheers!
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
Cheers!
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
ok, listen up: if you were reprimanded by a moderator, you may not go to that moderator's profile and spread your activity to their posts (without their permission). in every future instance, any member here who attempts to stalk a mod in even the slightest way will immediately be banned.
Post has attachment
The issue of this evidence (nothingness does not produce) is bigger than terrestrial life, so it is not related to Darwin's theory. We can summarize by saying that "the effect indicates a cause" doesn't mean that every effect indicates God directly but rather, that the chain of effects and causes must end up at an original (old, eternal, and self-existent) cause, because nothingness does not produce. This cause is God Almighty and life on this earth is just a small link in this chain. Consequently, any debate to refute this evidence must be about the origin of matter and proving that it came from nothingness, or nonexistence, This has not been proven by anyone. Actually, scientists have more or less proven that the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe. As a matter of fact, there was a cause behind the big bang. As such, the sequence of causes will continue after it until they end at the original cause, which is God Almighty. God willing, we will discuss next the standard model or the big bang, and how it demonstrates the existence of God.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
Post has attachment
The issue of this evidence (nothingness does not produce) is bigger than terrestrial life, so it is not related to Darwin's theory. We can summarize by saying that "the effect indicates a cause" doesn't mean that every effect indicates God directly but rather, that the chain of effects and causes must end up at an original (old, eternal, and self-existent) cause, because nothingness does not produce. This cause is God Almighty and life on this earth is just a small link in this chain. Consequently, any debate to refute this evidence must be about the origin of matter and proving that it came from nothingness, or nonexistence, This has not been proven by anyone. Actually, scientists have more or less proven that the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe. As a matter of fact, there was a cause behind the big bang. As such, the sequence of causes will continue after it until they end at the original cause, which is God Almighty. God willing, we will discuss next the standard model or the big bang, and how it demonstrates the existence of God.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
Post has attachment
However, the selfish gene theory cannot explain the sacrifice a person is willing to make in order to save a stranger, nor can it explain when someone gives the food or water they need to others, because in such cases, if it results in the demise of the altruist-or at the very least, the inability to multiply his own genes, or it diminishes his chances-then the genetic loss is greater than the gain regarding the genes he shares with one he rescued or fed, or favored, in general, over himself. To explain this further using numbers: my life is equivalent to a one hundred percent transfer and survival of my functioning genes, whereas the life of a stranger is equivalent to the transfer of a portion of my functioning genes, the genes we have in common, which is about five percent, so losing my life clearly means a greater loss of survival of my genes. Therefore the selfish gene theory is not able to explain these types of altruism in which genes of the altruist lose in a significant way. The explanation for this type of altruistic behavior cannot be based on gene selfishness. In addition, reciprocal altruism is not genuine altruism. Since it is a favored evolutionary strategy, it is expected to become prevalent when there is a need for it, as is the case with some animals that groom each other, or vampire bats regurgitating food for their neighbors, because the gene pool that carries its genes will be favored by selection and will inevitably prevail. The gene pool that does not carry this type of reciprocal altruism will leave the competitive race because the fate of the members of its species will be extinction. For example, vampire bats cannot survive more than two days without food, and reciprocal altruism is a lifeline for the numerous individuals who do not find food on a given night. Because of this, reciprocal altruism is a lifeline for the species as a whole, so it is certainly favored by natural selection. Generally, reciprocal altruism is well accounted for by science.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
new rule: posts which link to one's own research, no matter how official they seem or are, shall no longer be allowed to be posted to the news/facts center. instead, they may be posted to the new Self-Publications section i have just created to distinguish these posts, from both the news of others' research in the news/facts section, and the pure untested theories in the debate center. i will soon move the relevant posts to their appropriate sections, make a list of such location changes in a comment on this post, and address the rule changes in the guidelines either through edits, a comment, or a new post.
the about section is being changed. for the sake of keeping records, below are the current and future versions of the about section:
currently:
"Hi, welcome to Physics Debates!
This is a place primarily for anyone to examine anyone's theory concerning any field of physics, regardless of experience or credentials!
While the main focus of this community, is the pursuit of both solving the unknown functions of our universe, and to a lesser extent disputing the known ones, we also have (little-used) areas for refreshing yourself on established scientific knowledge. Enjoy!
additional note on 2018/2/24: btw, this is NOT a conspiracy theory community at all. this community was created to encourage discussion and critical thinking about the concepts involved in physics, the most encompassing field of science.
(Community created on 2014 April 21-22.)"
soon:
"Hello, welcome! Here you may propose any theory about physics, and have the opportunity to examine any other's theory, regardless of your experience or credentials (or lack thereof).
While our focus is to theorize and debate on how our universe functions, we still have other activities, including posting news and established facts in physics, and having general conversations.
Do read the rules, linked below: you will be warned if you commit infractions, and repeated infractions may result in a ban.
Anyway, have fun here!
(Community created 2014 April 21.)"
currently:
"Hi, welcome to Physics Debates!
This is a place primarily for anyone to examine anyone's theory concerning any field of physics, regardless of experience or credentials!
While the main focus of this community, is the pursuit of both solving the unknown functions of our universe, and to a lesser extent disputing the known ones, we also have (little-used) areas for refreshing yourself on established scientific knowledge. Enjoy!
additional note on 2018/2/24: btw, this is NOT a conspiracy theory community at all. this community was created to encourage discussion and critical thinking about the concepts involved in physics, the most encompassing field of science.
(Community created on 2014 April 21-22.)"
soon:
"Hello, welcome! Here you may propose any theory about physics, and have the opportunity to examine any other's theory, regardless of your experience or credentials (or lack thereof).
While our focus is to theorize and debate on how our universe functions, we still have other activities, including posting news and established facts in physics, and having general conversations.
Do read the rules, linked below: you will be warned if you commit infractions, and repeated infractions may result in a ban.
Anyway, have fun here!
(Community created 2014 April 21.)"
Post has shared content
Since thus far there is no scientific theory that explains abiogenesis with an acceptable, scientific explanation supported by conclusive evidence, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, goes to the extent of discussing the possibility of a quasi-miracle occurring, like when lightning strikes a person at the very moment they expected, or when lightning strikes the same person seven times as documented in the Guinness Book of World Records. Dawkins says that what is considered miraculous in a short period of time isn't considered miraculous over a long period of time-in other words, when sufficient time is available. This means he assumes the emergence of the cell to be a miracle, but a miracle relative to time. To refute this, it is sufficient to say that the probability of a self-replicating organism arising is almost nonexistent within the time limits we are familiar with. In fact, even if he wanted to calculate the probability at the level of the entire universe, the number of planets potentially suitable for this occurrence wouldn't support it.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction : www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction : www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins
Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded
