Are you religious?

[StickyEnd]

shurely Schrödinger's cat ;)

however if quantum relates to sub-atomic particles, it would then relate, in a different scale to entities larger than sub-atomic.
e.g. if one has an atomic particle which can be broken down into smaller increments it must consist of sub-atomic particles therefore it would seem reasonable to suggest the a collection of atomic particles might become a larger entity with differing abilities from the original, however retaining the building blocks of sub-atomic particles; the resulting entity would thererfore depend on the environment in which it was serendipitously placed

Maybe there is such a thing as emerging properties. Whadayathink?

[rockape34]

why not? it's sort of like "what came first, Chemistry or Physics?"

[StickyEnd]

why not? it's sort of like "what came first, Chemistry or Physics?"

That is easy. Physics. Chemistry is an emerging property. You can't have chemistry until you have atoms.

[Excognito]

And this from a man who jumps out of planes for a living, without believing in something up there.

Have you actually read any of this thread?

What has that got to do with anything...its basic physics...

Basic? I don't think so. If it was, people would have been doing it for thousands of years.

At a certain level it is basic - air reacts against parachute surface as gravity acts on chute/troop combination to create motion through air. At another level (more complete description) it is complex.

However, it's an interesting example of how something that is so [b]obvious[/] remained almost unnoticed and unused for many thousands of years - nowadays, it's a common children's toy.

[StickyEnd]

And this from a man who jumps out of planes for a living, without believing in something up there.

Have you actually read any of this thread?

What has that got to do with anything...its basic physics...

Basic? I don't think so. If it was, people would have been doing it for thousands of years.

At a certain level it is basic - air reacts against parachute surface as gravity acts on chute/troop combination to create motion through air. At another level (more complete description) it is complex.

However, it's an interesting example of how something that is so obvious remained almost unnoticed and unused for many thousands of years - nowadays, it's a common children's toy.

I agree. The idea of using a large surface area of silk to retard a rate of descent is fairly basic. It is pretty much the same principle that is used for sailing ships.

Aircraft, altimeters, ram-air parachutes etc. are far from basic.

[chieftiff]

Quantum stuff does not apply to anything larger than an atomic particle and you want to describe the universe with it?

Good luck with that!

Are you Schrodinger's cat? :D

If you believe Newtons simple set of equations are a good enough description of our Universe then you can describe all of the movement in the universe, you can predict the exact location of every particle in the universe too - if you had a big enough piece of paper and a long pencil :D It is this very thought that made Einstein realise Newton couldn't possibly be right!

Incidentally if you aren't interested in Descartes et al and their thoughts on alternative reality you may want to read a book called Descartes' Error, I can't remember who wrote it and I don't have a copy myself but I did read it a while ago and it very cleverly reduces each of his (and some other) arguments about how we actually do, rather than could, perceive reality.

Rockape34, your inferred relationship between the atomic and sub atomic was Einstein's biggest worry, we don't have a physical description which can be applied to encompass big and small physics, Einstein called it Unified Field Theory a nice set of equations that related one to the other would currently earn you a very large sum of money!

Dwarf, let me get back to you on the questions, I have to follow God (Mrs Chieftiff) to the great alternative reality of Asda and do an energy exchange - cash for crap, but I'll be back in a couple of hours

[StickyEnd]

Quantum stuff does not apply to anything larger than an atomic particle and you want to describe the universe with it?

Good luck with that!

Are you Schrodinger's cat? :D

1)If you believe Newtons simple set of equations are a good enough description of our Universe then you can describe all of the movement in the universe, you can predict the exact location of every particle in the universe too - if you had a big enough piece of paper and a long pencil :D It is this very thought that made Einstein realise Newton couldn't possibly be right!

2)Incidentally if you aren't interested in Descartes et al and their thoughts on alternative reality you may want to read a book called Descartes' Error, I can't remember who wrote it and I don't have a copy myself but I did read it a while ago and it very cleverly reduces each of his (and some other) arguments about how we actually do, rather than could, perceive reality.

1) I take it that you are hinting to scientific determinism. A concept that got blown away by relativity and quantum.

2) It isn't that I am totally uninterested. It is just that if you want to use an argument from authority, it is more honest to cite the specific statement that is being referred to that just a name. I know it was not you that did that.

[All_I_Want]

This has been a hugely informative thread and I have learned a lot of new things from it,

So have I. I've learnt that there are some fucking lunatics out there who believe in a supreme being who watches over us. A belief that really has no foundation except in some scriptures written by people who lived in a time when gods were as common as muck. The only difference between christianity and paganism is that pagans were mostly wiped out by christians so christianity survived.

And this from a man who jumps out of planes for a living, without believing in something up there.

Have you actually read any of this thread?

What has that got to do with anything...its basic physics...

Basic? I don't think so. If it was, people would have been doing it for thousands of years.

I was thinking more of gravity. People have not understood this for thousands of years.

[Excognito]

...

1) I take it that you are hinting to scientific determinism. A concept that got blown away by relativity and quantum.

How did they blow it away?

[Dwarf]

This has been a hugely informative thread and I have learned a lot of new things from it,

So have I. I've learnt that there are some fucking lunatics out there who believe in a supreme being who watches over us. A belief that really has no foundation except in some scriptures written by people who lived in a time when gods were as common as muck. The only difference between christianity and paganism is that pagans were mostly wiped out by christians so christianity survived.

And this from a man who jumps out of planes for a living, without believing in something up there.

Have you actually read any of this thread?

What has that got to do with anything...its basic physics...

Basic? I don't think so. If it was, people would have been doing it for thousands of years.

I was thinking more of gravity. People have not understood this for thousands of years.

Precisely! Failed parachutes, gravity, terminal velocity, soft object hitting hard ground, etc. It's all basic physics.