This thread is for the more intelligent, any intelligent thoughts can be posted here by the more intelligent amongst us.
The thread is dedicated to bosley (bos) who only wants the more intelligent thoughts posted here.

Imagination is more important than knowledge; Einstein

been saying for a long time now that we need more reservoirs, you know more people, more dish washers, new attitudes towards you must 3 showers a day, more bidets, more larger, more natural water (filled with tap water) WE NEED MORE RESSERS, but too intelligent for some. durh!!

Or a French approach to personal hygeine.

Kivver
I can't see how it can help.

well, we need somewhere to dump our insurance write offs.

just a small input


when i was at south east london tech in 1977, we did a thing called the Hopkinson test ( electrical engineering ).

this involved two similar motors, each rated at 100Kw.
one was connected to the other via their drive shafts.
one was powered from mains electricity acting as a generator for the other whos output was fed back to the first....a lesson in perpetual motion....

i can still remember how amazed i was to see 2 100Kw motors running flat out and the only power input was 1Kw. ( from mains electricity ), due to losses wrt windage, resistace, etc

Probably cos of Quantum and the space-time coninuinuinuum.

Al
I think you are properly wrong again in your assumption that it was Quantum and the space-time coninuinuinuum, The fabric of space-time is thought to be "foamy" rather than smooth, that explains the phenomena such as radioactivity and antimatter, and no other theory can match its description of how light and particles behave on small scales. There fore its is of no surprise to see 2 100Kw motors running flat out and the only power input was 1Kw

However it must be wrong.
All theories must be wrong, for a given value of "wrong".
No theory, past or present can predict accurately both the small scale world and the large scale universe.
String theory attempts to, of course, but it relies on the dubious mathematical trick of "renormalisation", where infinities cancel each other out.
There are those that argue the reason no theory can describe everything is down to our inability to understand increasingly complex theories well enough to make the predictions accurately.
For my part, I tend towards the strong anthropic principle that answers the question ; "Why are we here?" with the answer ;"Where the hell else should we be?"
The debate therefore becomes whether the anthropic principle is a dereliction of a scientists duties, or a willingness to accept that the universe is not as mathmatical as we think. I would argue that if the famous uncertainty principle is correct (and the foamy universe relies on this somewhat) then we can never really predict anything from our theories as all the values we apply have to be approximations and where we use an approximation, the result that emits from our beautifully constructed equation has to also be an approximation. The goal of science, therefore has to be finding answers that are less wrong, rather than finding answers that are right.
Alan

MMMmmmm I will have a think on that But you are properly wrong again!!!!

You told Kivver I needed his help!!!!!!
It's you thats stuck for a response!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan

Youre having a laugh stuck for a response, go and sell your BBC.

"Why are we here?" with the answer ;"Where the hell else should we be?"

Al thats probably the most intelligent thing ive ever read , thanks for sharing that , now iv'e just got to sit down and get my head round it ,this could change the meaning of life for me, ,and anything i have ever believed in ..

Al
I have thought about it, I think that the anthropic cosmological principle asserts that the laws, constants and basic structure of the universe are not completely arbitrary. Instead they are contrained by the requirement that they must allow for the existence of intelligent observers, ourselves.
Example: Why is the visible universe about 15 Billion light years in diameter? Because that means the universe is about 15 billion years old. Our sun is at least a second generation star because it contains Carbon, Oxygen, Silicon and other elements. It had to get them from earlier stars that had exploded--they were not available just after the big bang (which could only have produced Hydrogen and Helium). Hence the sun as we know it could not have existed much earlier in the history of the universe. Since we in turn require those elements, we could not have existed in a much earlier phase of the universe. You also have to allow a few billion years for evolution. We see a universe that is 15 billion light years across because the universe had to grow to that size to permit us to exist. We could not, incidentally, observe a universe that was a lot older, since by that time the stars will have burned out and there will be no available energy to support life. Many other examples are discussed in the following references.

There are lots of other facts in physics, astronomy, and chemistry, that can be interpreted in this manner. You can argue that this is all coincidence, and some of these observations have been referred to as "cosmic coincidences". You can also argue that this is obvious--nothing else would be possible. The subject is very controversial.

One aspect of this is that the Principle asserts that there is something special about our place in the universe. The example above shows that we must live in a particular segment of cosmic history. This goes against the general trend of science since Copernicus; that there is nothing special about our place. This makes a lot of scientists uncomfortable, but I think it is hard to dispute, THIS SHOWS HOW WRONG YOU ARE..

The Anthropic principle actually argues that there is nothing special in our place and time in cosmic history. It argues that in a series of universes (either cronographically a series or as the multiverse theory), conditions must arise at some place and time that are suitable for intelligent life like ours and that the intelligent life should not therefore be suprised that the conditions at this point are perfect for them.
The part of cosmic history we reside in therefore becomes irrelevant. It must exist at some point, and that is the only point we could possibly observe, so the only sense in which it becomes special, is that it has observers.
It becomes even less special when you take into account the number of states in which intelligent life, and therefore observers, could exist.
We are not equipped to understand any other dimensions than the 4 we posses, but there is nothing to say intelligent life cannot exist in a greater number of dimensions.
If this is held to be true, then our current position in space and time become even less remarkable, as others may have existed before or after us or in other universes, and we are not, after all, a one off.
Alan

Al
Shall we call it a draw?

Go on then.
Due to the uncertainty principle we could never be sure who had won anyway.
Alan ;-)

:-)

Al, no wonder your posts on the NOP thread are so laconic - you spend most of the day arguing quantum physics on here!!

Its much more fun tearing holes in the fabric of the universe than making money.
Anyway if I make any more money, I will breach the Chandheskhar limit (think I spelled it right) and all the cash in my wallet will rush exponentially into a collapse that will create a black hole, from which nothing, not even the price of a pint, can escape.
Then what would I do????
Alan

Perhaps start taking your tablets again.