haha, you do realize that you quoted me saying “frontside back”. It’s like you’re all going out of your way to quote me then to respond to the quote as though you hadn’t even read it.
So are none of you capable of being honest enough with yourself to answer the simple question I’ve repeated like three times.
I read those posts and yet none of them contain a single digit.
no anthem. none of us are honest enough.
will you go away now? we don’t like you.
I missed the bit where I was unappreciative of the wonders of technology and where I inferred anything other than that math’s cannot answer every question and that the ability to perform well with numbers wasn’t a gift from god.
You’re right. I’m tired of running. Here are two answers. Pick the one you find easiest to make fun of.
Nope, can’t do it. You’re right. Outer space is the exact opposite in every way to the environment here on earth. So what?
Sure, I can imagine something more different than outer space. I’m imagining a place where everything behaves randomly and unexpectedly, where some things fall and others don’t under identical conditions, where substances that have identical molecules behave differently under the same conditions; in other words, a place where there appear to be no laws of physics. That seems far odder than outer space, and far more different from Earth.
It is a stupid question. So we cannot live in outer space unaided. We also cannot live underwater unaided. We cannot live within the molten mantle of the Earth AT ALL, which I guess makes it even more opposite than space. So what?
There is a difference between saying “outer space is different than being on the Earth’s surface” (which is true) and saying that “the laws of physics are different in outer space than on the Earth’s surface” (which is false). All you’re doing is continuing to assert something unsupported by easily observable reality and then calling us blind for not agreeing with you, an approach to which mockery is the rational response.
Odd, I missed the part where I asserted that math “can answer every question.” Math can’t answer every question; there’s no equation to gauge my love for lemon sorbet.
But a unifying theory kind of has to be expressed in mathematical terms because everything it would unify is, ya know, mathematical in nature.
…We’re talking about a unifying theory in this thread, right?
I’m imagining a place where the fine-structure constant is 12 instead of 7.297×10−3. It’d be a little different. Or, heck, the center of a star is probably just as different from the environment around my desk as outer space is, albeit in different ways. You don’t seem like a guy who lacks imagination, Anthem, does it surprise you that I can so easily imagine these things?
Do objects with mass repel, rather than attract, each other in space? Are electrons positively, rather than negatively, charged in outer space? Can you provide a single concrete example of all this “opposite” business? The temperature in space (2.7 Kelvin, -454.81 F) is not “the opposite” of 60 F on Earth. Pressure values approaching 0 Pa in space are not “the opposite” of 101 kPa on Earth.
Researchers can cool things to under a Kelvin, right here, on the surface(!) of the Earth. We’ve been creating artificial vacuums, right there, on the surface(!) of the Earth for the better part of a century. Space isn’t a magical alternate reality. We’ve sent people there. We (apparently) know enough about it to even get them back.
Anthem, you are ignorant. Your knowledge base from which your inane theories are built upon is shallow and full of holes. Your assumptions and assertions are rooted in falsehood and your logic with which you reach your conclusions violates the rules of logic repeatedly. The beginning, the middle, and end of all of your posts are all riddled with mistakes that it takes a much longer post to retort with explaining why you’re wrong.
What’s most ironic in this depressing pit of a thread is that your pleas for others to think, ruminate, and digest is the very advice you yourself should be taking. I can literally go through every single line of what you’ve written and explain 3 different ways why it’s wrong. That’s not me going out of my way to disprove you or arguing for argument’s sake. It’s fact. You are wrong.
Any line. Every line.
Oh, and you are a clumsy backpedaler. You went from describing a natural immutable inversion from the inner solar system to the outer to now arguing that the inversion barrier is between the earth and outer space. You don’t move the goalposts in proper arguments much less in a thesis defense of the grand unification theory.
Anthem(0), you have been given an amazing amount of leeway in this thread regarding personal insults and evasiveness. This is probably happening because the mods recognize the entertainment value you bring.
Once again, in your mighty effort to disprove a point which was never being made, you have managed to do nothing more than DEFINE several environments which would be unlike your own environment. Evidently, all you can do IS define.
And in doing so, you have proven my point for me.
In order to even conceive of a place more dissimilar to YOUR environment than outer space, you were forced to change the mathematical equations which describe reality. You can’t even in your OWN mind imagine a place more different ACTUALLY EXISTING.
If you weren’t so busy patting each other on the back, you’d have realized that is the point I’M making. Math is the only thing that doesn’t change when entering outer space. Every single aspect of our perception completely reverses itself, but the math is unaltered. What that SHOULD be telling you is that you’re missing some vital element in your math because clearly these environments are polar opposites of one another. Intellectual laziness has instead translated that into "We live on a big rock containing water, atmosphere, etc – spiraling through outer space So what?" - as though there is absolutely nothing of consequence to be said about the TOTAL dissimilarity of the environments, simply because the same sets of mathematical equations can be used to describe both environments. He casually adds a dismissive “so what”, completely uncaring of the striking contradictions displayed by his own perception and unwilling to devote even a moment to the question of WHY.
This is what happens when you substitute math for thinking, instead of using both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other - WE made that rule up (strictly to keep religion out of the picture, a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with). But now we’re stuck holding the bag, being able to describe a whopping 1-4% of reality because of dittoboxes like you fine gentlemen who trumpet for causes they have absolutely no apparent interest in understanding the why’s of, such as math and particle physics.
“Vastly Different” is NOT the same as “Polar Opposite”.
You were warned about obnoxious, insulting comments like these. This is an official warning, and if you continue doing this you won’t be posting here much longer.
We know why, Anthem.
Listen, you’re hardly the first or the twelfth or the hundredth person to pop in here with a new and exciting theory about something. And every time, we point out the obvious holes in the theory and the person insists that we’d agree with them if only we’d see and clearly it’s our subpar intelligences and hiveminds that are preventing our amazement at this wondrous new theory we are being presented with, rather that the fact that the theory is crap.
Scientists, especially university lecturers, are constantly bombarded by these sorts of theories. I once received in the mail a lengthy screed from Morocco, not very dissimilar to yours except that half of it was in Arabic, expounding on the important similarities between the Earth’s magnetosphere and the “human alimentary canal” (there were diagrams!). And I bet scarcely a year goes by without a couple of people claiming to have disproved Einstein’s theories or inventing perpetual motion sending their manuscripts off to Important Scientific Journals. Usually these are not stupid people (well, the alimentary guy was pretty nuts); sometimes they produce some rather sophisticated mathematics. But these are people who are so emotionally committed to being the One Who Came Up With The Theory That Changed The World that they can’t accept that their theory is wrong. They can’t let go of their chance to “be somebody”, even though that chance is an illusion.
We know what space is like, Anthem. We know all the gradations of the atmosphere from the ground all the way up to the top of the sky and on to the moon and beyond. We’ve been there. And yes, space is a harsh environment. And yes, we know why. And no, that doesn’t change anything about the laws of physics, no matter how much it means to you that it should.
Don’t be that guy, Anthem. Let it go.
Any discussion worth having is based in mutually understood definitions. Do you not know this?
Glad someone is doing something to help your “point” limp along…
The sun exists. I mentioned it and I think the point was valid; it’s terribly different there than it is here and you don’t to change a single law. It’s been pointed out to you several times- I think it is worth noting- that environmental differences have little to do with physical laws. I’ve yet to see you address this point.
And what you refuse to acknowledge is that this remains wrong. No, “aspect of our perception completely reverses itself”, in space. People have flown through space. People have lived in space for months. You’d think they’d have radioed down to the base if their, “perception reversed itself”, whatever the hell that even means. How do astronauts press buttons if they can’t perceive them? How did they fix Hubble?
Meanwhile at NASA:
“Mission Control… I can’t repair the satellite because… I’ve become unable to differentiate between IN and OUT… pressure is inverted and all the wires are the opposite color they’re supposed to be. I’m tripping balls here, guys.”
…of course, they never got the message because he couldn’t perceive the radio to use it properly.
Not for prevailing definitions of the word “opposite.” Hey… are you posting from the wrong side of an infinity!? Because that would explain a lot.
Well, you’re certainly not using math. Doesn’t seem much like you’re thinking either, honestly.
::sigh::
This thread is a drug. More accurately, the feeling of unprecedented superiority intellectually over others that I get from correcting others is a drug.
Anthem
Listen up.
The laws that govern atmosphere do not change between the surface and space. In fact, it’s unbelievably uniform. The layer of gas that envelops the earth is held in by gravity. The closer to the surface, the more gas because the pull of gravity is stronger. The farther away from the center of the earth, the weaker the pull, the less gas. That’s why it’s harder to breath in higher elevations and people who scare ultra-high peaks like Everest need oxygen tanks. There is no magical barrier between “on earth” and “off earth” or “inside” and “outside” as you claim. It’s a spectrum. I hesitate to use the word spectrum because I don’t think you understand what I mean by that.
Sound does not travel at any set speed. Sound is the transfer of energy by vibrations through a medium. It would transfer at one speed in air, and another speed through metal, and another through the ground, a desk, etc. That’s why native americans put their ears to the ground to listen to buffalo. It not only travels faster, but more clearly because the molecules are closer packed. In space, there is no medium so there is no sound.
Heat is another form of energy transfer. The same rules apply for sound as for heat. No medium, no transfer. That’s why some poster above said that vacuum is a great insulator.
You must, MUST learn to crawl before you walk. The fact that I actually have to type this out and correct your perception of the world around you means you are woefully undereducated in physics. You can’t just bypass all of these basic, proven facts and jump straight into theoretical astrophysics. Well, you can but don’t expect to be taken seriously.
You claim that the existing laws only describe 1-4% of reality and that is ignorant of us. Fair enough. However the problem is that you don’t even understand the laws that govern the 1-4% and yet want to tackle the other 99% without any training is laughable. It’s absurd. To adopt your own condescending tone, it’d be like expecting a chimp to author the next great American novel.
No it isn’t. It merely lacks a few of the things we need to survive - it’s different, but not ‘opposite’. I’ve a feeling that’s where your idea started out, but it’s not a factual observation, therefore, everything you’ve built upon it is unsound.
A vacuum chamber here on Earth is just as hostile to an unprotected organism as is the vacuum of space - and this happens, quite obviously, without any kind of inversion or mirroring.
I think I could walk away from this happy if Anthem acknowledged even this much reality. Pressure ten miles under the ocean is not “the opposite” of pressure at sea level any more than pressure at sea level is “the opposite” of pressure ten miles up in the air.
The problem lies more with the “opposite of outer space” idea than in the “opposite of earth” idea. It’s not difficult to concieve of outer space as being near one end of a continuum (what this would prove is another question.)
But its opposite is not Earth. Its opposite is the center of a neutron star (or whatever the most-dense pre-black hole stellar object currently is).
Or, more tellingly, “polar.”
