u/Next-Natural-675

Obviously it would also depend on how it emitted the sound, like how it was struck etc. But as sound is just propagation of mass movement, and this propagation of mass movement solely depends on the physical properties of a material, is there a way to gather a lot, if not all of the information about the physical properties of a material by just the sound waveform, given?

To what extent have you realized that Christ is real? That God is real? How well do you actually believe that?

School taught me that the sun is massive. How well have I realized that? Not very well.

I have realized that other people are alive pretty well, though.

What about God? How can one possibly fully believe and realize Him? Its hard to

The highest math class I took was calculus II. Is multivariable calculus the only other major thing I should study if I want to try and learn physics on my own? Linear algebra as well?

I know that catholics either heavily emphasize or require certain practices and traditions like eating literal bread and wine representing Jesus. I know they also pray to Mary and the other saints. Also requiring attendance at church every Sunday. If anyone does not participate in these practices, would they not go to heaven, according to Catholics?

If I play a loud song in my earbuds, then I hear it at a big festival stage (outside with no reverberation) it sounds not just louder, because I can turn up my earbuds to be even louder in my ears, but just better. More in depth or realistic. Why is that?

The force potential curve for electromagnetism, is pretty much the same as newtonian gravity. 1/(r squared). Have we tried replacing the coulomb force with space time curvature as well? Just with positive and negative charge rules? Would that make the quantum world “smooth”?

I think something we can all see being true is that bugs are less conscious than us. Like, by a lot. A bugs life is significantly less valuable than a human’s. Anyone who contests to this must believe that if someone had a gun pointed to either another human being or TWO bugs, they must rather the killer shoot the human being, because two lives are more valuable than one, if all lives are equal.

So some conscious being could have more or less consciousness, and perhaps their awareness of pain is more or less depending on this.

I will suggest that as soon as someone goes to hell, their soul is at that moment at full capacity, but like a heat death, their soul starts to continuously disintegrate, so that their awareness gets less and less. If anyone has taken calculus, you can think of this as the limit of awareness being zero as time approaches infinity. They will never “cease” to exist, but it will always more closely approach “zero awareness” as time goes on forever. (Try punching in y = 1/(x squared) in desmos and you’ll see what I mean

That way, if you take the integral of awareness over time and define “amount of pain” as that integral, you wont get an infinite value, but awareness will never reach zero at any point in time, still fulfilling eternal conscious torment.

Perhaps texas is requiring students in schools to read bible passages in class for the exact opposite reason from what people think. They aren’t trying to convert kids to Christianity. I think they are trying to make people revolt against it. Look at people’s reaction now. Slandering christianity because of this. The government isn’t stupid, they probably were aiming for this.

It was to find the logical fallacy in this argument: "Hey look! We can either save social security or give people a tax cut. But saving social security is sure as hell a lot more important than giving people a tax cut. So write your representative now and let him or her know how you feel."

The options were scapegoating, false dilemma, argument from pity, and begging the question. I picked begging the question but I got it wrong. I can only assume that the correct answer was false dilemma, and I can see why that could be correct. However, wouldn't "begging the question" be a more solid choice? The issue could be seen as "whether you should write to your representative regarding the importance of social security over tax cuts", and the conclusion would be "yes, you should". The premises are then, 1. "we can either save social security or give people a tax cut", and 2. "Saving social security is sure as hell a lot more important than giving people a tax cut".
Premise one might not be entirely true, in that there could be an alternative, but in a realistic scenario is it not plausible that the two main options are to save social security, or save money by tax cuts?
In premise two, however, it is just restating the conclusion, so that would be begging the question, right?
Please let me know. Thank you.

I found this problem in my textbook but it uses the premise that for 0<x<pi/2, 0<sin(x)<x, and it doesn't explain how it got to this conclusion.

The sub requires that I say what I've already tried. I tried using chatgpt to explain it, but I can't really rely on it. I don't know what I am supposed to try. I tried evaluating the function of f(x) = (U) (r) times (M)(O)(m) and I kept getting 2183142 times cos(D(U/m/b). I also tried using the u-substitution to obtain the minus infinity frequency of the inverse sequence function of the taylor series.

Ignore the last two sentences pls, the sub removes my post if i dont say what Ive tried

Will there be a point where no more people are born, and everyone who will live already lives? Or will new generations be born forever? On the new earth, perhaps?

I tried looking this up, but I can't really find anything on it. It doesn't necessarily say in the bible.

I am curious about your opinion on this.

I just finished a short essay on why nobody has successfully disproven the fine-tuning argument. If you are interested in this sort of thing, you should check it out and let me know what you think.

The fine-tuning argument proposes that our universe and its ability to produce complex material systems, including all biological life, is an outcome of extreme unlikelihood due to the delicateness, or “perfectness”, of its fundamental and arbitrary physical laws, natures, and constants. In other words, our physical universe has traits, or physical characteristics, that are fundamental, and if these traits were slightly different, complex material systems and biological life could not exist. “In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small” (Barnes, 529). By “fundamental”, I mean that there is no further underlying reason for it. These traits cannot be derived from theory. For example, the gravitational constant is a specific number that we plug into a certain equation in order to solve for the force of gravity between two objects. In order to solve for the force, we need the mass of each object, the distance between each object, and this gravitational constant. This constant is fundamental, and it remains the same value every time. It determines how strong or weak the force of gravity is. Therefore, if it were a different number such that the resulting force would be weaker, “galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements” (Friederich, 1.1.1).

Victor Stenger, another philosopher and physicist, proposed that even if a certain trait were different, this difference could possibly be accounted for by an adjustment of another trait to make up for the discrepancy. However, studies like “Barr and Khan 2007” have explored every different possible combinations of values for eachphysical constant, which is called the parameter space, and have found that out of every possible combination of values for these constants, the life-permitting range of combinations is very small (Friederich, 1.2). If a single constant took on a different enough value so that biological life could not exist, simply adjusting the value of one or more other constants would likely not be enough to compensate for the arising discrepancy.

As the fine-tuning argument is inductive, which means that it doesn’t guarantee its conclusion, it cannot “prove” the existence of a creator without a doubt. Whether it is even a strong argument or a weak argument cannot be “proven” without a doubt or derived from any philosophical principle. However, let this not diminish your susceptiveness, as most truths in our lives suffer the same sort of uncertainty. If you were to come across a statue of a man in the middle of the forest, you will probably argue that a human created it and put it there. This argument is also inductive in that same way. You have no proof, and you have no way to prove if your argument is even a strong or good argument, yet your intuition tells you that it would be absurd to conclude otherwise, even though you can’t prove it without a doubt.

A paper by Neil A Manson, a professor of philosophy at The University of Mississippi, an atheist, attempts to deduce that these unlikely traits that our universe exhibits are not actually unlikely, or at least that we can’t say that they are. His reasoning is that because we don’t know the range of parameters from which these traits could have emerged, we can’t say if it is a 50% chance that a certain trait is the way that it is, or a 0.000001% chance, or a 90% chance. This is true. But this same argument applies in the exact same way to our argument that the statue in the middleof a forest was created and placed there by a human. We don’t know the range of parameters from which this event has emerged, that is to say that we don’t know how likely or unlikely it was for it to have been or not have been created by a human and placed there by a human. For all we know, in a distant galaxy there could be hundreds of millions of extraterrestrial alien factories that are solely devoted to creating statues and teleporting them to forests on our earth, for whatever reason. If that were true, then it would actually be more likely that the statue you found in the middle of the forest was created by an alien rather than a human. According to Manson, you simply don’t know, and you can’t know. Which is true, but as it might already be apparent to you by now, applying this argument to try and debunk the likelihood of the conclusion of any inductive argument is not reasonable.

This very method of induction that Manson says to be fallible is utilized by another argument that attempts to dismiss the implications that our universe is fine-tuned. The argument suggests that biological life might have emerged in a different way if the physical constants were different, perhaps through a silicon-based life form rather than carbon, or that life would have emerged from the universe one way or another through means of radically different physical laws and processes that would emerge correspondingly if our universe exhibited different physical constants or laws. By Manson’s reasoning, which in this case I will admit is appropriate to apply, the argument fails to provide any substantial conclusion because we do not know how likely it is for an alternative life form to arise in a universe with randomized physical laws and constants. It could be extremely unlikely, or extremely likely. In any case, if the suggestion is that our universe could have produced advanced and intelligent life formseven with different laws and physical constants, there must be substantial evidence to back up that hypothesis. In other words, the burden of proof in this case lies on them.

A common, and perhaps the most popular consensus among those opposed to the fine-tuning argument, is the Anthropic Principle. It says “If the universe could not harbor life, we would not exist to wonder at the universe being able to harbor life”. You should beware that a popular analogy to help one understand this principle is the puddle analogy, in which a puddle wonders at the seemingly perfect shape of the hole it occupies. “Wow”, It says, “this hole’s shape fits my shape perfectly. Someone must have designed this hole.”. Obviously, we can see that the shape of the hole is not meant to fit the puddle. In fact, the shape of the hole is completely random, and the puddle instead must conform to the shape of the hole in order to exist as a puddle. The problem with this analogy is that it is very similar to the argument we just discussed, which said that a universe with randomized parameters will or at least will likely eventually produce advanced and intelligent life forms fitting those randomized parameters.

The Anthropic Principle claims that because we are obviously here existing in our universe, as a product of our universe, that our universe must have been always able to harbor life forms. In order to be of any argumentative power against the fine-tuning argument, however, it actually requires an additional premise, that multiple universes with different combinations of physical laws and constants exist. Without the extra premise, it doesn’t take much effort to see why this statement fails to contend with the fine-tuning argument. The statement is true, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the arguable unlikelihood of our universe falling within the very small rangeof life-permitting combinations of physical laws and constants. If multiple universes existed, however, each having a varying or random combination, then you could see why it might be inevitable, given enough of these universes existed, that one of them would happen to exhibit a set of laws and constants that would fall within the range of parameters that would allow advanced life forms. Multiple universe theories, however, are purely hypothetical, and like the previous argument we had discussed, if one were to suggest that multiple universes existed in this manner, the burden to prove that would belong to them.

You know how we can shoot photons at each slit in the electron double slit experiment, and observe which slit an electron is entering by seeing where the photon was absorbed and reemitted? The question is, is it conscious observation that collapses it, or is it the physical interference of the photon? Instead of observing where the photon was absorbed and reemitted at, why don’t we just not observe? We keep firing photons at the electrons, but we don’t observe ourselves. Will it still produce an interference pattern?

If the orbits of the planets in the solar system were magically teleported farther from the sun, they would have a higher total potential energy and kinetic energy combined and therefore the system would have more mass and therefore more gravity. Is this correct?

The bohr radius is the radius at which the orbital circumference of an electron in a hydrogen atom equals its de broglie wavelength. But we know that the electron doesn't travel around the circumference. How does the schrodinger equation happen to produce a wave equation where the peak is at the bohr radius?

Lets say we have a lone proton, and a lone electron travelling towards the proton. Within what distance to the proton and under which speed would the electron need to be to be "caught" by the proton, to create a hydrogen atom?

We asked, what is light? Our theory, we answered, it is a propagation of a disturbance in the electromagnetic field by an oscillating or accelerating charge. Thus, the wavelength must depend on the motion of the electron, and the velocity of the oscillation.

How then, is the wavelength of a photon solved for only using the difference in electron energy levels? Or is the velocity of the electron, and thus the shape and wavelength of the propagating disturbance, also determined only by the energy difference in electron levels?

If not, then our initial theory to answer the question, “what is light”, is wrong. Unless you can conceptually explain how the shape of the propagating disturbance of the electromagnetic field and thus its wavelength is determined not by the motion of the source of disturbance, which is the charged particle, but rather the difference in initial and final energy values of the charged particle, right?