davidivad

is it a particle or a wave...

in theory, both should be correct. it is just a matter of whether you need to use a classical approach or not.

gravitons are assumed to exist although they have not been detected yet (it would take a big machine).

consider what is going on in the double slit experiment with photons and you will understand better.

for einstein it is a curve and for the quantum world it is a graviton.

which one suits your calculations better?

actually they need to work out the math a bit better for the graviton because the current math does odd things.

these things take time.

much agreed

just for sake i am going to be the critic here.

i scour the internet every day looking at the latest news in science only to find that science has a pace. i often get discouraged because after the first few sites there is nothing new. the only thing left to do is hit the research publications. i then run into the problem that these papers are highly theoretical and often clash. which one is correct? the fact is that part of the scientific community's job is to verify or take these ideas and projects into consideration so that they can decide what to do with them.

to just throw the latest stuff out there at the public is irresponsible and misleading.

it also hampers the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.

we have all the time in the world so let our investments do thier job correctly.

 

It it true that it is very difficult if not impossible to stop thinking with your voice once you know a language. If I was going to think anyway, is my idea ever original? I'm going to think again, but it could be a good idea-- but because it's product of me thinking, and the words I know enslave me to thinking in my voice, is this idea really mine, or am I compelled to put in effort because of the words and their control over my mind (i.e. we can't stop thinking)?

 

pick a random word in the above quote and experience the feel of the word. it helps to relax first.

to do this, focus your eyes on an imaginary point on your forehead for about thirty seconds in a manner that your eyes are rolled back into your head. after the thirty seconds, blink your eyes a couple of times and close them visuallizing your word as if it was printed on a card. once you are successful at this, imagine how the word makes you feel looking at it in your head.

doing this requires practice scince the excercise induces a light REM state.

we finally did it.

any other means would have been absurdly unrealistic.

another home run for quantum field theory.

mistakes

this is a funny little scenario.

the problem here stems from the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

therefore the measurement cannot be physically made. it would require faster than light transmission to measure.

the speed of the opposing beam is unmeasureable from the measuring beam so this is no more than an excercise in math.

i would also like to include Feynman as he gave us such a great way to look at things in particle physics.

I think this is good principle. I think the problem comes though when give rights to humans that protect us against things which could produce more benifit than harm. Consider for example experimenting on babies or the mentally disabled. This could result in scientific discoveries that save thousands of lives. Consider slavery, We consider it wrong even if it were to bring benifits to our economy.

 

The point is that human lives are protected by rights that mean we should not be treated as property ie as a slave . Yet when it comes to animal experimentation we treat animals as property. To be consistent then we must either accept that experiments on babies could be permissible or that animal experiments are wrong.

i understand.

i think that the fact that we even have this issue brings our capacity into question.

And, by that argument, since a dog would understand it better than a rock...

 

I'd probably kick whoever it was that expected me to make that choice.

 

Of course, you can turn the argument on its head and say "Since I can't be sure the dog goes not have feelings, I shouldn't kick it".

you clearly do not see the issue here.

i'm hearing you but not believing it...

would you rather kick a dog or a monkey.

which one would get it?

i would probably kick the monkey because he would understand it best and be more able to deal with it.

the idea in animal research is to use animals that are chemically similar in some cases and physically similar of course.

while animals may not be as sophisticated as humans, they often show emotional traits such as mourning for a lost member.

i think that this has already been established in the scientific community and so you use rats as opposed to monkeys when you can per se.

sorry about the post. i did not realize that it was that harsh.

i would however say it is probably not best to kick a dog.

i would love to argue the point of feelings, but this is something you need to experience yourself.

is it wrong to kick a dog?

why or why not?

i wish that the disease could be truly defined in such a way.

the fact is that we really only can speculate and that positive symptoms are usually overcome with antipsychotics (dopamine drugs).

one of the worse side effects of such drugs is akathesia ( it is akin to torture). some patients stop experiencing the positive symtoms and should be taken off these drugs because they have some pretty severe long term results. many of the common drugs will cause males to possibly grow breasts and lactate...

cognitive behavioral therapy seems to do little and actually fares worse in some cases. it is better to let the drug help them out than to keep them focused on thier " experiences." also consider that this is a disease of "the soul" and alters thier entire view of the world. giving them a hammer and telling them to swing away is a bad idea if they are not aware of the extent of their disease.

watch this video, and talk to someone if it bothers you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWYwckFrksg

one good way to understand for yourself the extent of the disease is to have your subject explain a parable of your choice. most schizophrenics will give you the same literal type of response that you see as an arguement on many of these threads (not to offend the uneducated). most individuals without the disease, and some college, will read between the lines which requires higher thought processing.

example;

a rolling stone gathers no moss.

schizoprenic response;

moss cannot grow on a stone because it crushes the moss.

normal response;

you should keep moving.

of course you want to give a bit of context here but it conveys the basic idea.

if you have a question about something, send me some mail by clicking my icon and leaving a message.

i may have something to offer.

i am not sure what multiple universes have to contribute to begin with.

if they are there, then they still would bear no fruit for us being closed off by an already infinite universe.

then again, our universe may not even be infinite and we still couldn't traverse the whole thing due to expansion..

to me, infinity is only a costruct for math.

i would have to go with Illya Prigogine.

he gave the second law of thermodynamics a run for it's money.

order out of chaos... awesome book.

sentience in this scenario seems silly guys.

All life seems nothing more than the sum of its parts in such a case, including humans, making it concieveable that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. after all, we are nothing more than complex biological machinery should our subjectivity be no more than a product of our imaginations.

consider instead that we kill animals, that clearly have feelings, so that we can dress them up as almost cerimonially decorated food to survive (who wants to stare an animal in the eyes while eating it). i would suggest we observe a minimal approach as well as the almost cerimonial recognition of our comprimise to a situation where there is no correct answer beyond the subjective opinion signifying our sentience and what we cannot do as a species yet.

in the end;

take only what you need and put the rest back.

do so in humility.

recognizing your own limits is one of the first steps on the staircase of awareness.

i am not much into wormholes, but that is not to say they aren't a possibility.

the reason i assert that particles would all move at the speed of light without the higgs field is that it is this interaction with the higgs field that slows them down. basically, particles without mass like the photon travel at the speed of light.

there have been theories of particles that move faster than the constant like the tachyon, but i am not big into them either.

if they are real, then it is up to the future generations to find them.

the higgs field is what makes some particles move subluminal. it is believed that perticles that exhibit mass are interacting with the higgs field.

as far as the speed of light is concerned, all particles would move at the speed of light without the higgs field.

mike;

your bell curve... are you asking the question of is there something that works against your version of entropy?

the answer is a resounding yes.

if you place life itself into context with your graph, then it would resemble your bell curve.

life is a complex chemical reaction which sustains itself at the expense of the overall order of a system. it is so good at doing this that it can find new systems or resources to consume. while everything must give way to chaos eventually, life has found a way to defeat the trend to disorder by reproducing. note that life does not win completely and must give way to evolution. this evolution, however, ensures its survival.in an abstract way it is clever indeed.

suppose two isolated heavy masses in space move towards each other will the path followed be straig ht line joining the centres of two masses or curved path?

if you are only concerned with two or three dimensions in this experiment, then the path will be a straight line in three dimensions. however, considering these objects also have large masses, it is laso important to build a representation of time by plotting the acceleration of the objects up to the point of contact. if you feed your measurements into a graph, you will immediately recognize that the line is curved in the fourth dimension. to clarify my point, the path that the two masses travel also contains an additional aspect which shows a clear curvature in space-time.

I have always wondered this. I will try my best to explain what I mean.

 

Why is life viewed through this body that I have? Why do I not view life through the body of someone else? Actually, why was I not someone else?

 

My consciousness, why is it in this body? If I were to use religious terms, why is my "soul" in this body?

 

Someone told me once that it is because of the genes that go into making me, but that doesn't answer why. If my mother had had sex with another man instead of my father, would my consciousness still be a part of that new individual? Would I be that person? Or would my consciousness cease to ever exist?

 

Nothing has ever made any sense to me as to why I, and all of you, perceive life through the bodies we are given.

 

 

 

I'm trying to explain my question the best way that I can, so I will clarify anything to anyone that doesn't understand what I mean.

i AM you through someone elses eyes.

i am me

i exist

my point is that we do not know what will happen. there is no proof that they would not be affected unless we actually did such a thing and found out. what if we accidentally brought back a retro virus and reintroduced it to the ecosystem.

remember that the wooly mammoth did not die out that long ago. my main question would be whether or not we can actually prove why they are extinct or are we assumming that we probably know. extinction of a species can be dependant on more than one variable in an environment.

earth has an expensive gravitational field. it would be much more reasonable that space fairing creatures would plunder us of easy to get resources within the solar system making our growth out into the solar system futile. imagine that! our future existence stolen from us and we would not have the ability to fight back due to the fact that we are hindered by the gravity of the earth.

suppose we launched a probe to gather data once we realize they are there. we are ignored. we send nuclear warheads at them. they uses thier superior propulsion to intercept the bombs. thier response is steering a large asteroid towards us.

an exctinction level event.

i would be interested in how one of these beasts handles the evolutionary gap in microbiology. we may bring a mammoth back only to watch it die of a modern cold or infection.

neither.

just because there is a field there does not mean we have the ability to measure it directly. we still haven't detected gravitational waves yet.

while i can prove nothing as an absolute fact, this is the best explanation i have found so far. what isn't a theoretical postulate at this point? i would refer to the discovery of the higgs boson to support my claim. i am claiming no more than the existence of the higgs field.