Until now he is invited to lecture notable universities in disseminating and proving his theories. Everyone is welcome to debunk him as notable physicists of the world do. If found lacking, academic justice will be served. I repeat his artistry nor his disadvantageous past as you put it will have zero significance on the theory since many discoverers had no academic advantage as you want it to be. Let's debunk him and prove him wrong.Asking questions is understandable, and I'm not against it, for the importance of curiosity is undeniable. However, there's a significant difference between "questioning" and "challenging." The former stems from a lack of knowledge; the latter thrives on a proper understanding of current knowledge and its inadequacy.
Terrence Howard isn't asking questions but is challenging an established body of complex knowledge that has been repeatedly proven adequate for millennia, not due to its inadequacy or his robust understanding, but because of his incompetence.
It's also crucial to understand that misinterpretation of knowledge will always masquerade as difficulty.
I didn't "bank" on his artistry but simply implied his disadvantageous background.
Asante kwa huu mchango wako. Very thoughtful. Ni namna ya kujibu kwa fikra za kisomi na siyo kwa mihemko. Nakushukuru sana na natumaini hata uliyemjibu kama ana opposing opinions atakujibu pia kwa hoja pevu. Asante sana.Asking questions is understandable, and I'm not against it, for the importance of curiosity is undeniable. However, there's a significant difference between "questioning" and "challenging." The former stems from a lack of knowledge; the latter thrives on a proper understanding of current knowledge and its inadequacy.
Terrence Howard isn't asking questions but is challenging an established body of complex knowledge that has been repeatedly proven adequate for millennia, not due to its inadequacy or his robust understanding, but because of his incompetence.
It's also crucial to understand that misinterpretation of knowledge will always masquerade as difficulty.
I didn't "bank" on his artistry but simply implied his disadvantageous background.
Asante sana kwa kunisaidia kusema hili. Kweli hakuna mtu mwenye muda wa kusoma hayo magazeti ya AI.Mnaharibu uzi na magazeti ya AI
Kama huwezi kutumia akili yako kujibu
Kaa kwa kutulia
KUWA MAKINI ( Considerate )...Asante sana kwa kunisaidia kusema hili. Kweli hakuna mtu mwenye muda wa kusoma hayo magazeti ya AI.
Ninaomba tu pia kwa kupanua mazungumzo yetu tujadili na hili: What do we mean by a "point" in quantum physics? Can a point exist out of space? And what do we mean by "nowhere" when we talk about things like "virtual particles" in quantum physics? Tuendelee delete kujifunza . Naelewa humu wapo watu wengi walioelimika vizuri sana na nitaendelea kuheshimu mchango wa kila mtu.
It's true that Terrence Howard was invited to Oxford Union which is a student-lead debating society, not the University itself. He also spoke at Morgan State University during the event of "Day of Conversation." In both cases he was recognised officially as a celebrity and an actor solely like many other guest speakers before him and not as a credentialed academic nor a scientist. Hence, whatever he said had no official impact on the academic world.Until now he is invited to lecture notable universities in disseminating and proving his theories. Everyone is welcome to debunk him as notable physicists of the world do. If found lacking, academic justice will be served. I repeat his artistry nor his disadvantageous past as you put it will have zero significance on the theory since many discoverers had no academic advantage as you want it to be. Let's debunk him and prove him wrong.
OKay, I get your point no need to ask AI and paste everything here. In your own word how 1×1= 1 and 1×0=0?It's true that Terrence Howard was invited to Oxford Union which is a student-lead debating society, not the University itself. He also spoke at Morgan State University during the event of "Day of Conversation." In both cases he was recognised officially as a celebrity and an actor solely like many other guest speakers before him and not as a credentialed academic nor a scientist. Hence, whatever he said had no official impact on the academic world.
As for the "debunking" of his said theory. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has already done that in a YouTube video with over 13 million views. To be clear, Terrence Howard doesn't have a theory, but a hypothesis, it'll only become a theory after peer review and validation ion by experiments.
Neil deGrase "peer 'reviewed'" his "hypothesis" and effectively showed it to be invalid. You should check it out.
He's also appeared in many podcasts with experts, including the Joe Rogan Experience, they've clearly exhibited that he has no idea what he's talking about. His personal, self-proclaimed theory has been widely and relentlessly criticised, labelled invalid by experts in their fields. In all of honest, sadly, "they" are mocking and treating him as a mere joke.
It's true that some "historical discoverers" weren't academics. However, when emphasising the word "historical," you'll realize that time is a significant factor in regard to discoveries. Back then, discovery was of "fundamentals," for it was a starting point, a new age, a low hanging fruit as said by researchers. Today, however, where most fields have already been established upon centuries of complex intertwined knowledge. It's almost entirely impossible for a single individual to come up with a new unknown. You'll have to be knowledgeable in a vast number of subjects. It's the reason you don't hear of a new groundbreaking discovery by some lone genius. Collaboration with thousands of experts from different fields is the only way forward.
This is one of the fundamental reasons why everyone is laughing at Terrence Howard.
That's means, something out of it created it!Singularity haikutokea popote , yenyewe ndio chanzo cha kila kitu ikiwemo na muda na nafasi, hivyo bila singularity hakukua na mahali wa muda .
Kwa hiyo kuuliza ilitokea wapi maana yake hakuta kuwa na maana kwa sababu nadharia imekataa uwepo wa mahali na muda kabla ya singularity.
Naomba wale wenye uelewa tujadili. When time (t) was t=0, and space and matter were not existing, hiyo singularity point ilitokea wapi mpaka kuleta Big Bang iliyoumba ulimwengu? Is it just a mathematical way of explaining things that have baffled human minds? Will our minds ever grasp the mystery behind what we call "existence"?
Singularity haikutokea popote , yenyewe ndio chanzo cha kila kitu ikiwemo na muda na nafasi, hivyo bila singularity hakukua na mahali wa muda .
Kwa hiyo kuuliza ilitokea wapi maana yake hakuta kuwa na maana kwa sababu nadharia imekataa uwepo wa mahali na muda kabla ya singularity.
Primordial singularity inasema ni point moja ambapo all matter,space , energy and time was compressed in a tiny point. Lakini haisemi hizo components zilitokea vipi.
Lakini ndani ya singularity palikuwa na condensed matter. Tukubaliane kwenye hili au unisahihishe.
Anayedai uthibitisho wa Mungu
Hapo ndipo kwenye swali la msingi. Asante. Kama wanafizikia wote wamefikia kwenye cosmic singularity basi tujadili na hiyo condensed matter au energy imetoka wapi. Tusije kuwa tuna elimu za kwenye makaratasi tu (B.Sc M.Sc,PhD,Postdoctoral.........) lakini we still can not answer these fundamental questions.
Mini ni atheist sipo katika mawazo ya imani.
From a purely scientific side, eternity ina tatizo gani?
Kuna kanuni gani ya kisayansi inayokataza eternity?
Yani unaweza vipi kujenga hoja ya kisayansi kuonesha kuwa ulimwengu haiwezekani uwe umekuwapo tu bila ya kuwa na mwanzo?
Hapakuwa na Kabla, Kabla muda haujaumbwa, Yaani neno kabla maana yake linahusisha muda, hivyo unaposema kabla muda haujaumbwa (before singularity) inakuwa haina maana. Ni sawa na kuuliza North of North Pole
Nimekuelewa vizuri. Zipo nadharia pia za blackholes ambapo time either doesn't count. HOW WAS TIME CREATED?
Ukiona unatumia nguvu kubwa kuelewesha watu na kuelewa ujue hata wewe hujui kitu chochote zaidi ya kukariri, hii kitu mbona ina simple explanation.
Mjue kuwa ulimwengu/universe vimekuwepo katika hali tofauti tofauti kila wakati na pia vimeonwa na viumbe tofauti kwa hali tofauti na hivyo swala la time and space ni la viumbe kuliona kivyao na linabadilika kila wakati na pahali. Hivyo perpetual randomness na relativity ndio vitu vya kuzingatia.
Causality principle
Hii ni moja ya kanuni kuu iliyotamalaki katika sayansi ya fizikia, baiolojia na kemia kuwa "kila tokeo/tukio lina kichocheo/kisababishi"
Kutafuta starting point ya ulimwengu ni kazi ngumu
Hichi ni moja kati ya vitendawili vikubwa ambavyo havijang'amuliwa katika fizikia, hadi leo tasnia ya sayansi haina nadharia inayotoa ubainifu wenye hoja timilifu (logic) zenye kukifu, nadharia e.g. string theory & quantum loop zinapelea maarifa na mnyumbuliko wa hoja
Sure, ni infinite regress fallacy, hapa ndipo wanatheolojia na wanafalsafa walipojenga premises ya nesessary being (first uncaused cause e.g. GOD) na contingency
Kwanza kabisa huo ni uelewa finyu wa fizikia.
Hususan ni uelewa uliojikita katika Newtonian Mechanics. Ukizama katika quantum physics utakutana na quantum loop causality ambayo A causes B but B also is the cause of A and therefore there is a causality loop, huwezi kusema A ndiyo inaaanza kusababisha B au B ndiyo inaanza kusababisha B.
Lakini pia, kama causality ni muhinu sana, na hakuna kitu kinachotokea tu, kila kitu ni lazima kisababishwe na kingine, that is an argument for an eternal universe, it is not an argument against an eternal universe.
Kwa sababu, kama kila kitu ni lazima kianzishwe na kingine, basi ulimwengu hauna mwanzo, chochote utakachosema hiki ni mwanzo wa ulimwengu nacho lazima kitakuwa na kingine kilichokisababisha kwa kufuata kanuni za causality kwamba kitu hakiwezi kuwepo tu.
Umeelewa?
Qur'an 21:30*
"أَوَلَمْ يَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ أَنَّ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًۭا فَفَتَقْنَـٰهُمَا ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ ٱلْمَآءِ كُلَّ شَىْءٍۢ حَىٍّ ۖ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ"
“Je, wale waliokufuru hawakuona kwamba mbingu na ardhi zilikuwa zimeambatana, tukazibatilisha? Na tukajaalia kila kilicho hai kimetokana na maji. Basi, je hawatoamini?”
Hii ni Aya ndani ya Quran tukufu inaelezea muujiza wa uumbaji na inaelekea sambamba na dhana ya sayansi ya kisasa kuhusu chanzo cha ulimwengu (kama vile “Big Bang”). Pia inaonyesha kwamba Allah ndiye Muumbaji na Muweza wa kila kitu.
Ila nachoipenda sayansi ni kuwa haijawa ku claim kwamba inajua kila kitu kuhusu ulimwengu bali inagundua taarifa kidogo kidogo kupitia uchunguzi
Wewe pia unaweza chora cycle , hili ni swali la darasa la tatu b ndio maana sijajibu
Hii ni infinity regress
(i). Je sayansi inaelezeaje sifa za "entities" zilizoasisiwa?
(ii) Je ulimwengu umezihadaa na kujinasua na sifa hizo?
(iii) Je material entities inaweza kujiumba/kujitokeza/kuibuka pasina kichocheo?
Hakuna wakati wowote ule ambapo ulimwengu haukuwepo kisha ukawepo kwa kuumbwa au kujiumba.
Ulimwengu ulikuwepo, upo na utaendelea kuwepo milele.
Sijui kwa nini watu wanashindwa kuelewa kwamba....👇
Kama kila kitu kilichopo ni lazima kiwe na starting point, Hata hiyo starting point ya kila kitu haiwezi kuwepo tu from nowhere.
"Starting point hiyo ya kila kitu" na yenyewe lazima iwe na "starting point yake nyingine" ili huu ulazima wa uwepo wa starting point ufuatwe na vitu vyote kwa wakati wote.
Pasiwepo kitu chochote kile kilicho exist chenyewe tu pasipo starting point. Maana kitazua maswali ya kiliwezaje ku exist chenyewe tu.
Na kama si lazima kwamba kila kitu kilichopo kina starting point, Hata ulimwengu na vyote vilivyomo except man-made things, Havina na havihitaji kuwa na starting point.
Mtu akianza kuweka ulazima wa starting point kwenye ulimwengu, Hata hiyo starting point ya ulimwengu na yenyewe itahitaji ulazima huu huu wa starting point nyingine.
Hivyo kutakuwa na starting points nyingi zisizo na mwisho. Endless pasipo kukoma.
Kwa hivyo si lazima kwamba kila kitu kilichopo lazima kiwe na origin.
Hitimisho,Ulimwengu na vyote vilivyomo except man-made things, Havina muumbaji na wala havikuumbwa. Ulimwengu haujaumbwa.
Ulimwengu ulikuwepo, upo na utaendelea kuwepo.
Tatizo linalowakumba wengi ni kufikiria ''time'' wakati wanapo-discuss singularity. Ukishaweka au kuwaza ''time'' ni lazima ukwame. ''Time'' haikuwepo hivyo huwezi kuhoji zilikotoka components..
Aiiiiiiiiiiiight, majadiliano mema, i'm out
The big question is, je kuna other intelligent being in the universe? If the universe is infinite why only human are intilligent and only on earth what about other planets and stars?? Are there super intelligent being that sees human the way we see chicken??
Zaidi,
Inawezekana dhana nzima ya chanzo katika muktadha huu ni potofu, inabidi tuitazame upya, tunaisema kwa anthropic bias. Ni kama tulivyokuwa wadogo tulikuwa tunafikiri ukitembea saaana utafika mwanzo wa dunia na ukiendelea utaanguka nje ya dunia.
Tunautafuta huo mwanzo.
Wakati dunia ipo kitufe zaidi na unaweza kutembea sana ukarudi ulipoanzia.
Ukisoma sana quantum physics utagundua kuwa kuna mambo mengi sana hatujayajua vizuri, dhana kama ya causal quantum loop, inayosema kwamba unaweza kuwa na A ambayo inaisababisha B wakati huo huo B nayo ikawa inaisababisha A kwa namna ambayo kati ya A na B huwezi kusema nini kinasababisha nini, inakuwa very counterintuitive tukiifikiria kwa scale yetu na models zetu za classical physics ambazo tumezoea kuona kuna mama anazaa mtoto, na mama ndiye anasababisha mtoto awepo.
Sasa hapo ukiambiwa kwenye quantum physics kuna kitu kama mama anazaa mtoto na mtoto naye vile vile ndiye aliyemzaa huyo mama, inachanganya.
Sasa kama quantum physics tu hatujaieleea vizuri (watu wote wa dunia bado hatujaielewa vizuri) hatuwezi kisema tunaeleza chanzo cha ulimwengu ni nini.
Yani hata dhana nzima ya chanzo , dhana yenyewe, hatujaielewa bado.
Tunaielewa katika classical physics tu. Tukienda katika quantum physics hatuelewi chanzo ni nini.
Zile virtual partickes zinazotokea out of the vacuum of spacetime hatujui chanzo chake ni nini, hatujui kama zinahitaji chanzo au zinaweza kuibuka tu randomly.
Hatujui chanzo cha quantum entaglement ni nini, inakuwaje particles zilizo million of light years away ziwe zinageuka pamoja kama mapacha alnost instanltly defying the soeed of light limit. How does this work?
Huo muda wenyewe hatujaweza kuu define vizuri.
Suala la chanzo ni suala la muda. Lakini muda ni nini?
Ukiondoa vyote katika ulimwengu, muda utakuwepo bado? Utakuwapo vipi?Muda ni relation ya vitu, unapimwa kwa movement ya vitu. Ukiwa huna kitu katika ulimwengu huna muda, au hata uki freeze kila kitu huna muda. Au kwa kitu kinachokwenda at the speed of light muda unasimama.
Sasa kama hatujaweza kueleea hayo mambo mengi vizuri, tutasemaje tunaelewa hata dhana ya chanzo maana yake ni nini na ni ya msingi kwa kiasi gani?
Kwa nini ulimwengu katika upana wake wote usiweze kuwa ulikuwepo tu daima na sisi tunaposema hapa ukimwengu ukianza, kwa mfano kwa Big Bang Theory, pasiwe ni cycle moja ya sehemu moja tu ya ulimwengu? Kuna sheria gani ya kisayansi inayozuia hilo?
Nothing banged.
No God.
The Earth is self-existing.
Nafikiri zipo kanuni ambazo hatujazifahamu bado ndio maana tunahangaika na jibu la kipi ni chanzo cha kila kitu!, na siku tukija kuzigundua hizo kanuni nahisi zitatushangaza sana na nyengine inaweza kuwa ngumu sana kwenye kuzielewa!.
Maana akili ya binadamu huwa inaathiriwa na mazingira yake!, naweza sema huwa tunakariri kutokana na yale mambo ambayo yametuzunguka kila siku mfano hivyo tunavyofahamu ya kwamba kila kitu lazima kiwe na mwanzo!.
hii huenda inapatikana kwenye mazingira yetu tu lakini ukute upande mwengine huko wa ulimwengu una kanuni za tofauti kabisa!.
Vilevile nimeshaandika mara kadhaa humu kwamba huenda pia tunamfikiria mungu ktk namna ya tofauti sana, aidha baada yakufanya kazi yake akaacha vitu vijiendee kwa vile alivyopanga wala sio kama vitabu vya dini vinavyooelekeza, mungu kukaa kuangalia matendo ya binadamu!. by the way hizo ni hisia zangu tu mimi ni agnostic sijui kama kuna Mungu ama hakuna lakini haiui mimi kufikiri hivi au vile!.
Nafikiri tunakazi sana kwenye kufanya tafiti ili hichi kitabu "ulimwengu" tupate kukijua zaidi na zaidi alasivyo watu mtaendelea kukwidana humu mpaka basi...
NJAA! ndiyo inayosababisha binadamu kuumiza kichwa, ili ajirahisishie namna ya kupata kipato! ......
Na sio kukurahisishia wewe maisha!....
Maana maisha yanarahisishwa kwa pesa yako uliyoipata kwa kuumiza kichwa!.
Period!.
Swali zuri na gumu sana. Mimi nimeshasoma hizi theories zote za mwanzo wa universe lakini hakuna hata moja niliyoona kama inaleta matumaini. Ninachoweza kusema ni kuwa pengine binadamu yuko chini ya upeo wa kujua mwanzo hasa.
Kuna ile theory (siyo theory ya starting point ya universe) inazungumzia kuwa universe ipo kwenye super massive black hole na ile sehemu ya universe tusiyoiona ndio ndani ya black hole, na ile great attractor inayovuta galaxies (super cluster) huenda ndio event horizon
Wapo ila hatuna teknolojia ya kuwasiliana nao. Observable universe ina solar systems zaidi ya bilioni. Kusema ati kati ya hizo solar system bilioni moja hakuna inayofanana na na dunia ni UPUMBAVU.
Majibu yote mtayapata hapaAsante sana kwa kunisaidia kusema hili. Kweli hakuna mtu mwenye muda wa kusoma hayo magazeti ya AI.