All Activity
This stream autoupdates
 Past hour

I am not sure if I understand you. You agree that consciousness at least for certain animals was advantageous (specially human animals)? I'd have no quarrel if you did. This is, IMO, broadly accurate and largely synonymous with calling it an emergent phenomenon (as I previously described it many times here and elsewhere). You should have a quarrel with it. I think I already gave the argument against it, in one of our previous discussions (it was about an article on free will). Writing about mental phenomena would be selfcontradictory: explaining that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, i.e. consciousness is caused by the brain but in itself causes nothing, can not account for an article that explains consciousness as epiphenomenon. A philosophical zombie, an organism that works and behaves exactly like us, but really has no consciousness, would never write an article in which it tries to explain consciousness: it does not know what it is, per definition. There is also a related huge problem with epiphenominalism: in what metaphysical domain does this consciousness exactly exist? If it is our normal material world, it cannot explain how some subsystem is causally effected by the brain, but has no causal effects in itself. The only way out is to propose a domain that is not material, but then you are back to dualism. My viewpoint is clear: the brain does does not cause consciousness, a class of brain processes is consciousness. The capability of an organism to picture its environment, its place in that environment, and evaluate how both can change dependent on its possible actions is consciousness: it needs a form of imagination. So there is no separation between 'me' and 'my brain'. That means also there is no 'me' that can be coerced by the brain, because 'me' is exactly that brain. Both extreme forms of incompatibilism, libertarian free will and hard determinism only make sense in a dualistic world view. That is the point where a neuroscientist, saying humans have no free will, goes astray: his view is still dualistic.

I should have have included the 3rd approach, Of viewing every thing as either self ( identity, ) or environment ( the conditions we have ) Comments made by Eric H and others including myself seem to indicate that reduction is not always a result of faith. But the idea of blocking or shielding seems to hold. If conditions are subjective limitations, over come through recognition and response, I'm going to say purpose gives direction (or dimension) . Direction and purpose are inherent to biological identity for its integrity. Much of its condition is also inherent, which affects Response. So maybe accepting or taking in conditions beyond the self , Conditions Response. Redirects response and purpose to upholding integrity of the secondary identity, and the conditions its founded on. The most beneficial manifestation of 'Faith' in the Religious sense, could be to block that secondary conditioned response. Keep it open to diverse direction, and ability of response. Still gives me some concept of what a multiverse might be. Needless to say, mathematics are not my strength and might explain why I have so much trouble untangling and expressing the values I need @Strange

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
swansont replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
! Moderator Note No model, no testable predictions, no support, despite multiple requests. IOW, closed. Don't bring this topic up again. 
swansont started following My Theory on dark matter

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. We require some sort of model, testable prediction and/or evidence for this discussion, as per the speculations guidelines.

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
Strange replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
The fact that you think it is impossible is irrelevant and, given that we can measure the effects, a little childish. As you keep posting more nonsense with no attempt to provide a model or any evidence, I will request this thread is closed.  Today

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
beecee replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
Again the many observations and model determine that you are wrong. And with regards to time, have you heard of time dilation? Time will run slower wherever gravity caused by spacetime warpage in the present of mass/energy is strongest, as seen in an outside frame of reference.. 
Derivation of neutrino mass from neutrino scattering...
Orion1 replied to Orion1's topic in Speculations
Affirmative, revision complete. Derivation of neutrino mass from neutrino scattering: [math]\;[/math] [math]\theta[/math]  scattered neutrino angle [math]\phi[/math]  electron recoil angle [math]E_{\nu i}[/math]  initial neutrino total energy [math]E_{\nu f}[/math]  final neutrino total energy [math]E_{e}[/math]  electron total energy [math]E_{\nu}[/math]  neutrino total energy Scattered particles rebounding with relativistic momentum have total energy: [math]E_{e} = \gamma_{e} m_{e} c^{2} \; \; \; \; \; \; E_{\nu} = \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} c^{2}[/math] Where [math]m_{e}[/math] and [math]m_{\nu}[/math] are the particle rest masses. [math]\gamma_{e}[/math] and [math]\gamma_{\nu}[/math] are the Lorentz factors. (ref. 1) [math]\;[/math] Observational measurements of both particle total energy and velocity, it is possible to calculate the particle rest masses [math]m_{e}[/math] and [math]m_{\nu}[/math]: [math]\boxed{m_{e} = \frac{E_{e}}{\gamma_{e} c^{2}}} \; \; \; \; \; \; \boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{E_{\nu}}{\gamma_{\nu} c^{2}}} \tag{0}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]E_{e} \sin \phi = E_{\nu f} \sin \theta \tag{1}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]E_{e} \cos \phi + E_{\nu f} \cos \theta = E_{\nu i} \tag{2}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Isolate [math]E_{e} \cos \phi[/math] from equation (2): [math]E_{e} \cos \phi = E_{\nu i}  E_{\nu f} \cos \theta \tag{3}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Divide equation (1) by equation (3) for an expression for [math]\tan \phi[/math]. [math]\;[/math] [math]\tan \phi = \frac{E_{\nu f} \sin \theta}{E_{\nu i}  E_{\nu f} \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}  \cos \theta} \tag{4}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Acquire a substitution for [math]\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}[/math] to eliminate [math]E_{\nu f}[/math]. Use the Compton equation, which can be rearranged to yield [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}[/math] in terms of [math]\lambda_{\nu i}[/math] alone. [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} \tag{5}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} = 1 + \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{e}} \left(1  \cos \theta \right) = 1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} c^2}{\gamma_{e} m_{e} c^2} \left(1  \cos \theta \right) = 1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \left(1  \cos \theta \right) \tag{6}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Substituting equation (6) into equation (4) and eliminate [math]E_{\nu i}[/math] and [math]E_{\nu f}[/math] in favor of [math]m_{\nu}[/math] alone. [math]\tan \phi = \frac{\sin \theta}{\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}  \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \left(1  \cos \theta \right)  \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{\left(1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right)\left(1  \cos \theta \right)} \tag{7}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Utilizing a trigonometric identity produces the desired result, specifically: [math]\frac{1  \cos \theta}{\sin \theta} = \tan \left(\frac{\theta}{2} \right) \tag{8}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Substituting this trigonometric identity into equation (7) results in: [math]\left(1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right) \tan \phi = \cot \frac{\theta}{2} \tag{9}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Solve for neutrino rest mass [math]m_{\nu}[/math]: [math]\tan \phi + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \tan \phi = \cot \frac{\theta}{2} \tag{10}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \tan \phi = \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2}  \tan \phi \right) \tag{11}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Electronneutrino scattering neutrino rest mass: [math]\boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{\gamma_{e} m_{e} \cot \phi}{\gamma_{\nu}} \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2}  \tan \phi \right)} \tag{12}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Nuclearneutrino scattering neutrino rest mass: [math]\boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{\gamma_{n} m_{n} \cot \phi}{\gamma_{\nu}} \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2}  \tan \phi \right)} \tag{13}[/math] [math]m_{n}[/math]  nuclear rest mass [math]\;[/math] Electron interaction neutrino scattering angle [math]\theta[/math]: [math]\boxed{\theta = 2 \operatorname{arccot} \left(\frac{\left(\gamma_{e} m_{e} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} \right) \tan \phi}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right)} \tag{14}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Neutrino interaction electron recoil angle [math]\phi[/math]: [math]\boxed{\phi = \arctan \left(\frac{\gamma_{e} m_{e} \cot \frac{\theta}{2}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}} \right)} \tag{15}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Nuclear interaction neutrino scattering angle [math]\theta[/math]: [math]\boxed{\theta = 2 \operatorname{arccot} \left(\frac{\left(\gamma_{n} m_{n} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} \right) \tan \phi}{\gamma_{n} m_{n}} \right)} \tag{16}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Neutrino interaction nuclear recoil angle [math]\phi[/math]: [math]\boxed{\phi = \arctan \left(\frac{\gamma_{n} m_{n} \cot \frac{\theta}{2}}{\gamma_{n} m_{n} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}} \right)} \tag{17}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread? [math]\;[/math] Reference: Wikipedia  Lorentz factor: (ref. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor Wikipedia  Compton scattering  Derivation of the scattering formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Derivation_of_the_scattering_formula Physics 253  Compton Scattering  Patrick LeClair http://pleclair.ua.edu//PH253/Notes/compton.pdf Orion1  Neutrino mass from FermiDirac statistics...: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90189neutrinomassfromfermidiracstatistics/ Science News  Neutrinos seen scattering off an atom’s nucleus for the first time: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/neutrinosseenscatteringatomsnucleusfirsttime 
Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
FreeWill replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
That is what I can not really grasp. The recognition you shared is meaning, that mass can impact the fabric of spacetime, which we can recognize as gravity. If space can be impacted by mass than time is impacted by mass. Time gives the age of the Universe, so that fundamental information could be impacted, through gravity by mass. I think that is impossible. Gravity I speculate what happens to Energies and Matters Space (path) and Time (velocity) in the presence of mass. 
Help Needed on Science Friendly Software
jimmydasaint replied to jimmydasaint's topic in Computer Science
Superb  I have to check this out. Thank you. Hope it is royalty free. 
Tbf, this is true for a lot of those folks. Investors are rarely interested in the technical stuff. It is telling that she targeted tech investors and not do much pharm.

It sounds like the idea is not matching what is observed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster for instance. Observations of colliding galaxy clusters show, as far as I know, that the effects of gravity lensing is not necessarily aligned with the location of baryonic.

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
koti replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
I had the same issue myself a few years ago when I first came here to the forums, I had it mixed up like your post above. Consider this, Gravity is what happens to spacetime geometry in presence of mass. Gravity is not mass, gravity itself is the bending and warping of spacetime and we perceive it as humans as a change in weight. 
Depends on your future career, what career do you want in future

fmdog44 joined the community

Spacetime is potentially the combined information of all the infinite fields woven together or some role player in it, and we can see from gravitional waves that matter and gravity can interact with spacetime. With one interaction proven it is also possible that the density of spacetime and or all the fields is greater around supermassive bodies such as galactic center black holes or star clusters allowing for gravity to have a stronger effect on the formation and binding of galaxies than we’ve expressed with math based on spacetime and fields having no or the wrong value and function. The increased density would create a differentiation from galactic centers gravity and the edge of the galaxy, there’s already the relativity of time potentially an expression of field or spacetime density as the fields are information and energy and as denser closer to the black hole the information can be processed and transferred through states or through expressions up or down in direction giving us the increase in times duration as your closer to supermassive bodies. Because of density everything happens faster yet at the same relative rates. Any feedback is welcome just an aspiring theoretical astrophysicist trying to learn and grow. Thank you

Ultrasound  What is the size of the smallest feature observable
brickman7713 replied to brickman7713's topic in Homework Help
Okay so it's just 1540/11 million. Got it, thanks! 
What factor does the amplitutde change?
brickman7713 replied to brickman7713's topic in Homework Help
I do now, figured it out, thanks!  Yesterday

Well. it's not "entirely harmless", it's just less harmful than smoking (that was the reason I switched to vaporization a year ago). I usually read sites with the newest researches such as ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (it's US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health) or vapingdaily.com (it's on vaping and quitting smoking  found it last year while quitting).

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
beecee replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
I have seen nothing in what You have so far said, that shows your hypothetical invalidates GR, or makes verifiable predictions above and beyond GR. Science/cosmology on the other hand, has recently supported two predictions of GR that stems from its equations over the last couple of years...Gravitational waves and BH's. If in your first statement you are somehow inferring that the universe is expanding faster then light [is this what you mean by c2 ?] then that can be explained... ...https://www.space.com/33306howdoestheuniverseexpandfasterthanlight.html and also the universal speed limit of "c" applies to anything with mass. 
Not what you really want but you could look at the manufacturers sites and read their blurb behind their designs. If you look at the most expensive ones vs the budget ones you can see why the former might be better and the function of each aspect. For instance, good drills are double fluted with a high number of turns in the spiral for more efficient clearance and also sharper edges on the spiral so that the hole sides are cut cleaner, like a revolving chisel. The tungsten tip in good SDS bits often have a crossshaped cutting edge so that the hole face is chipped finer and faster, which can lead to easier clearance. I like the Black and Decker Bullet tips for hammer drills, which have tips that are concavepointed as opposed to straightpointed, which is the norm. They seem to punch a hole better as opposed to just scraping a hole out and getting hot, like the conventional tips. I can do harder material with those bullet bits in a DIY battery hammer drill that I can't do with conventional bits... AND they can be used again and again! I don't know anything about tungsten quality, so that might matter as well.

Lisa445 joined the community

im a tradie who has spent his life with all kinds of tools. we often take for granted the thought that goes into designing most of these tools. so i was drilling heaps of holes into stone last week. something ive done many times but not really thinking bout it. i tried a different drill bit and was surprised how different it was. so then i got thinking about the science behind drill bit design and how i can learn more about it. after all, knowledge means being able to better choose the right tool for the job. ive tried to find a youtube vid about this but cant. specifically id like to learn,for example, why/how the spirals are different shapes and angles, and the tungsten is different on different stone/concrete bits. can anyone steer me towards a video or something. only really about the tungsten drill bits.

Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
Strange replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
I think we all know what "bit" means. But you said "a bit of information" which, by itself is meaningless. Now, when are you going to present your mathematical model? 
Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
FreeWill replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit 
Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
Strange replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
What does "expands with c2" mean? What does it mean for spacetime to expand? What does "every point in it represents the value of 0" mean? "A bit of Information." is not a sentence. What is it supposed to mean? "A basic reference point (line, volume)." Also not a sentence. What is it supposed to mean? When are you going to present your mathematical model? 
Space is information (split from What is Space made of?)
FreeWill replied to FreeWill's topic in Speculations
Spacetime is a 4D coordinate system which expands with c2 and every point in it represents the value of 0. A bit of Information. A basic reference point (line, volume).