Evolution: Has it occured to you that the brain of now days men is the same as the one of prehistoric men at the time they invented the fire, the missionary position and better ways to kill and catch food ?
Thanks g... evolution that evolution has gone on for so long - man, was here but just a second.
//
//
@benb.
I became interested in number theory as a result of trying to untangle the Euler or Riemann Zeta function:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
Prime numbers play a huge part in the Zeta function. Along with their mysterious pattern.
The Burton book has a useful reference section containing tables of prime numbers along with squares and cubes.
Zeta(2) is easy enough to sum. Zeta(3) is currently unsolved along with all the other odd numbers. I spent two years on it, along with looking for an elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem.
TBH, I have taken a break from it these days. It can drive you nuts!
I might have another go at General Relativity. A most interesting topic and one that might suit my (somewhat autistic) visual way of thinking which I employ in untangtling loudspeaker filters.
Seems like a plan! Lenny Susskind has a course on Youtube in the Stanford lectures.
I became interested in number theory as a result of trying to untangle the Euler or Riemann Zeta function:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
Prime numbers play a huge part in the Zeta function. Along with their mysterious pattern.
The Burton book has a useful reference section containing tables of prime numbers along with squares and cubes.
Zeta(2) is easy enough to sum. Zeta(3) is currently unsolved along with all the other odd numbers. I spent two years on it, along with looking for an elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem.
TBH, I have taken a break from it these days. It can drive you nuts!
I might have another go at General Relativity. A most interesting topic and one that might suit my (somewhat autistic) visual way of thinking which I employ in untangtling loudspeaker filters.
Seems like a plan! Lenny Susskind has a course on Youtube in the Stanford lectures.
"... that might suit my (somewhat autistic) visual way of thinking..."
Also Einstein could not distinguish between object and concept: The relativity theses are the result.
Also Einstein could not distinguish between object and concept: The relativity theses are the result.
Still no agreed on working definition of evolution Pete.
Why don't you start a new thread? This thread is about cosmology.
Why don't you start a new thread? This thread is about cosmology.
The current discourse in this thread merely substantiates wiseoldtech's earlier view - "I rarely even, very rarely.... click on any post of such lengths, because I know they contain endless babbling..."
The universe is watching us, so let's try harder to stay on topic.
The universe is watching us, so let's try harder to stay on topic.
I find it difficult to visualise the Earth’s orbit around the Sun as a straight path through curved space...
...but found this video helpful after watching it to its conclusion:
Space in Newtonian mechanics doesn't do anything - it remains static.
Spacetime in Einstein's theory is pliable - it can expand, contract and warp (or bend or curve).
I think the video above does an excellent job of visualising this behaviour of spacetime.
Spacetime in Einstein's theory is pliable - it can expand, contract and warp (or bend or curve).
I think the video above does an excellent job of visualising this behaviour of spacetime.
I suggest:
A man is a part of the universe. But he is not in the universe (concept, idea, based on collection of objects).
A man is at most to be located between objects, but not in universe.
A man is not part of space. He is not in space also (concept, idea, based on relation of objects).
Nobody and nothing is able to "expand, contract and warp (or bend or curve)" space (concept, idea;-)
Language is more important than math: e.g. removes the article, never uses an article before "space", always.
A man is a part of the universe. But he is not in the universe (concept, idea, based on collection of objects).
A man is at most to be located between objects, but not in universe.
A man is not part of space. He is not in space also (concept, idea, based on relation of objects).
Nobody and nothing is able to "expand, contract and warp (or bend or curve)" space (concept, idea;-)
Language is more important than math: e.g. removes the article, never uses an article before "space", always.
We don't need to make rocket science so much like.. well.. rocket science. Just point and shoot!
Yes, as you've clearly forgotten not only that but that it wasn't me who brought up the topic, I merely responded to a post.
Umm..let me just ponder for a moment... could it have been your post? Mmyea, yea, er.. YES it WAS!, yes it was.
Perhaps you could start a new thread. I promise we'll all come runnin'. 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.