davidivad

there has to be a minimum amount by which to add.

if you cannot specify units then you cannot add.

an infinite number of zeros which adds to nothing must be treated as if in units. why?

is there a possible reason why we need a unit to do work and how does this relate to the world we live in?

an average can be a minimum if all numbers are at the lowest value.

i would look at this as a false premise.

one is led to believe something false.

that means the suggestion is incorrect.

the answer...

it is a false premise.

the truth here is that i cannot surmise what he is actually thinking without him actually revealing the information.

this suggests a question of how to do the math.

he could be crazy and have the answer linked to an explosive device.

never do something that expends energy for no reason.

could be a fusible situation

well, the only thing you can do now is try it out.

make sure you time it right though.

use a metronome or something.

i dont think light cones are real...

what was the question?

what is time.

we have failed to come to an agreement on the meaning of time.

yet this is exactly what is needed.

agreement by the community to the terms by which to use a word.

step one...

i vote that time is at least the sequence of events.

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissible_spongiform_encephalopathy

here, a protien is transmitted usually through consumption of infected food but also shows up on occasion as an inherited trait..

"Familial forms of prion disease are caused by inherited mutations in the PRNP gene. Only a small percentage of all cases of prion disease run in families, however. Most cases of prion disease are sporadic, which means they occur in people without any known risk factors or gene mutations. In rare circumstances, prion diseases also can be transmitted by exposure to prion-contaminated tissues or other biological materials obtained from individuals with prion disease."

night of the living dead....

rabies.

i concede.

we can define it and use it under those conditions.

what is accepted by the professionals of the field in question?

a consensus can be reached just for this purpose as long as everyone agrees.

i then present to you the liar's paradox.

Explanation of the paradox and variants

The problem of the liar paradox is that it seems to show that common beliefs about truth and falsity actually lead to a contradiction. Sentences can be constructed that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value even though they are completely in accord with grammar and semantic rules.

The simplest version of the paradox is the sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

sorry for the poor reference.

its my job to understand people.

i cant disagree with that...

he is asking about the formations of the pillars of creation and is trying to consider if it relates to a marginally weak field as well as how this affects if at all.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.2819.pdf

here is a paper on the topic that may help out.

the pillars are a beautiful sight.

it is a star forming cloud 7000 light years away.

crab nebula i believe,

"Elephant trunks are formations of interstellar matter found in space. They are located in the neighborhood of massive O type and B type stars, which, through their intense radiation, can create expanding regions of ionized gas known as H II regions. Elephant trunks look like massive pillars or columns of gas and dust, but they come in various shapes, lengths, and colors. Astronomers study elephant trunks because of their unique formation process and use 2D and 3D simulations to try to understand how this phenomenon occurs."

i hope i clarified well enough for you.

the supporting paper at top should help.

logically speaking, they are both just ideas.

absolutely.

i just think that sending people off with a stick and no knowledge is a bad idea.

i spend quite a bit of time during my day explaining complex things to people that will never have a clue regardless of how i put it.

irritating to say the least.

let me see here.

we are refuting the concept of time via relativity in a quantum theory thread when we have a reasonable answer.

im all ears for somwething better.

relax, im not here to break any meters.

i completely understand how frustrating it can be.

i have even come very close to being called a liar.

argumentation comes hand in hand with collaboration.

i try to enjoy rediscovering all those things that drew me to science.

science is a labor of love for me.

i like to discover it again with them.

mike.

isaac newton was crazy.

and with his craziness, he gave us the tree of knowledge (the apple).

how fitting is that?

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/

here is an article that states quantum theory's latest concerning the flow of time.

according to the article, it is due to quantum entanglement.

“Finally, we can understand why a cup of coffee equilibrates in a room,” said Tony Short, a quantum physicist at Bristol. “Entanglement builds up between the state of the coffee cup and the state of the room.”

Twenty-six years after Lloyd’s big idea about time’s arrow fell flat, he is pleased to be witnessing its rise and has been applying the ideas in recent work on the black hole information paradox. “I think now the consensus would be that there is physics in this,” he said.

Not to mention a bit of philosophy.

yea, thats what i'm saying...

dinner is served.

as long as that is what it means to you, this is what matters the most.

philosophy is a strange creature.

if i had to count the number of paradoxes in life i could split a dime forever.

to me, philosophy is the einstein of all because it is truly relative.

what is the truth?

it is a lie.

heck, i'm just waitng for them to declare martial law over riots, ebola, or financial disaster (gas prices seem odd, hope we don't pay later) and throw everyone in a detention center.

1

if anyone could tell me whether or not this disagrees with any regulations it would be much appreciated.

could it therefore be considered that everything has its own time?

i say this because i am considering that cooling down the atoms removes all noise in the system so that the natural frequency can be utilized.

i know this is a jump, but does that idea conform to the way time is handled with any current method?

 

one could imagine that if everything had its own clock based on its natural frequency then it would only be constrained by the speed of light.

in other words each has its own time and can be affected by speed of light transmissions of force carriers.

remember, this is just an idea.

 

edit:

under such conditions, waves themselves are constrained by the light constant and time is dependant on the object itself while interacting with its medium.

gravitational information might be passed through thier own force carier..

i am only speculating here.

this is not my concept of time neccessarily but is something worth testing.

strange?

how about it?

that was just an attempt at philosophy.

i know i suck.

is it the truth?

pick it up.

does it have weight?

this is the truth.

i do not lie.

this is exactly the attitude we dont need here.

if we chase half the visitors away with our dryness, then we leave them with the idea that we are socially inept.

i know better.

science is not about being correct.

it is about discovery.

perhaps intelligence can come in the form of understanding?

how can you expect that of someone without a phd?

WE are supposed to encourage new ideas and sometimes that means walking them through without telling them to submit.

unless we all need phd brownies or something.

not to offend anyone but really?

i expect understanding from our elite group.

the electron's wave function is spread out.

it can therefore become local at the most possible spot.

once the wave collapses, it is considered local or "real"

thruth is an opinion guided by one's perspective.

one truth is another man's lie.

two truths can lead to a lie.

lies can also lead to the truth.

this is of course my personal opinion.