Mitch Bass

I don't think the holographic universe proposes everything is literally holograms as we can create optically. It's that the universe is 2 dimensional, and that, like a hologram, the third dimension is recreated with a phase (or analogous to that) rather than an actual dimension.

I am nearly certain you are correct about the Holographic Universe proposes nothing in terms of the universe being a result of holograms we create optically. I only meant to suggest that I do find it interesting, intriguing, fascinating...that although optic stimulation certainly does not create the universe, and certainly does not create a holographic universe...well...let me try to figure out why I wrote what I wrote....hmm......the reality is that our minds do not create a holographic universe...rather, quite the opposite....the universe creates the holograms in our head....

You may also be thinking about Rutherfords experiments, where he flung stuff at atoms (thin gold sheets, if I recall right) and saw they mostly passed right through. That showed the insides of the atoms were mostly empty.

 

(For some reason I can't copy/paste into this edit box; go see Wikipedia under Rutherford, then "Rutherford and the Gold Foil Experiment".)

pzkpfw, I will wikipedia as you suggested...yet...let me ask you...in this experiment of which you speak...I am glad you brought this up...as the name of this post implies I am searching (and I searching for a very specific reason that I might at some point write about in the part of this forum in which theories that people develop on their own can be spoke of, a theory which explains all activity from the quantum to the cosmic level with only two postulates and three variables,one of the postulates being there is zero empty space in all the universe)....well...let me ask you this...it has been said that the Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment indicates empty space because of how stuff was flung at atoms and they mostly passed right through. Of course I cannot condemn the conclusions made by this experiment until I do the research about this experiment, yet...is it not true that a boulder dropped into a lake will pass to the lake's bottom despite the water which fills the lake?

Do you normally feel the ground under your feet as you walk?

 

 

Of course the fish can sense the water in just the same way since both your walking and the fish swimming rely on the frictional contact and (reaction) pressure.

studlot....I agree that the fish can sense the water due to frictional contact and (reaction) pressure...I never said that a fish cannot sense the water...but rather...if the water was pure...that the fish could not see the water. The point of this metaphor, the question I am raising in this post, is what is the "evidence for empty space"? I am not asking this question in a small way. I am not asking about the idea that there is less empty space in the universe than previously considered....I am asking this question in terms of...how do we know there is any empty space at all. The fish is "blind" to the water it swims through. Are humans "blind" to what fills what is considered empty space?

In a former post I started...I asked if the universe had no empty space could there still be movement? For the most part people seemed to indicate there could be and it made sense to me what they said. If I thought movement would be impossible without empty space than this post, that I began, would not exist.

Ultimately, at some point, in the part of this forum where original ideas can be expressed, there might be a post by myself that explains why everything in the universe moves as it does. I will do so with two postulates and three variables. I will need nothing besides this. One of the postulates is that there is no empty space. At all . So in this part of the forum...I am searching for a reason why or why not there is conclusive evidence for empty space. If there is definitive evidence for the existence of empty space I will accept the flaw in my theory.

So...to anyone reading this...I am not starting a new theory in this part of the forum (as I mentioned before, and I promise will not do again)...but...I am searching for the answer to my question from people who have evidence for empty space and then to see if what they write is something I can object to and in so doing wait for an objection to my objection (if I have one) and so on until through deductive reasoning and the laws or rationality, if I can have someone agree with me that the conclusions either do or do not have validity.

Right now those who are considered the smartest scientist would most likely mock me for even asking about searching for empty space evidence. I know experiments have been done and conclusions have been reached. Unless I am mistaken it was Aristotle who, considered at the time to be perhaps one of the greatest thinkers/scientists, thought through observation that the Earth was the center of the universe. Than along came, if I am not mistaken, Galileo, now thought to be one of the greatest thinkers of his time and he proved Aristotle wrong. Galileo thought that comets were an optical illusion based on his observations. He was wrong. And then Newton came along and although considered the smartest of his time, thought it possible to transform mercury into gold and died as a result of...well I actually am not sure about the Newton part...my point is that throughout history...that just because the considered smartest humans at any one point history will make an observation followed by a conclusion...

I apologize for going into more than just the reason I started this post. I know there are reasons that humans consider empty space to exist....the experiments, the observations....fortunately...this forum format exists because what has been concluded can be discussed and questioned and examined until....I am hoping a final conclusion becomes evident that will be agreed upon by those, me one of them, who can only accept what logic allows me to.

 

I was trying to see if you wanted a distinction between any "space" and Outer "Space".

When you speak of outer "space' are you simply speaking of areas between celesestial bodies?

 

As Far As I Can Tell

 

Yes. I would be interested in how one might determine that we are in a hologram.

Hmmm....I agree....to think that the universe is a hologram is something I have no recollection of the book giving any kind of empperical evidence that the universe is a hologram and certainly no means of determining a way to prove it. This being said...here is something I find highly intriguing as a possibility based on what I know about the brains neurology and our perceptions. I at least know that our visual perception of the world is a creation that our brain puts together as a consequence of optical stimulation. If a person is standing in front of a tree and the Sun is offering a source of illumination, a person might forget that the image of the tree is all in the skull. When I consider the similarities between holographic film and the neural construct of the brain, it now occurs to me that perhaps, and i would be interested in getting your thoughts about this possibility, that our brain is "manufacturing" a spectacular hologram which a person experiences and moves within, navigates through. Does our brain not produce a hologram in which we are immersed. This suggests nothing in terms of saying that the universe is a hologram but our visual perception, I almost certain, is a result of our brains ability to generate a hologram that is directly a result of the actual external world and the effect it has in terms of optical nerve stimulation. For most humans when a person is standing in front of a tree the mind generates a hologram of a tree. There are of course those minds that have what might be considered defects and have a brain in which the hologram that, say, a schizophrenic's mind creates is further from reality than our own most likely very close to accurate subjective perception of the objective external reality that surrounds us. So in one sense we are both agree that there is no way to determine that we are living within a hologram, but could it not at least be said that our brain does create a hologram of the world around us and this hologram we do exist very much within the moment we open our eyes when we awake and I am guessing, at all points in which we are dreaming?

 

You may be thinking if the Michelson-Morley experiment. This, and a number of similar experiments, failed to find any evidence for the existence of a hypothetical "aether" that supposedly formed the medium for the propagation of light. However, as Maxwell's equations made clear, that was pretty much the expected result.

 

I don't know if that has anything to do with the notion of empty space. It depends on your definitions of "empty" and "space".

I already have a lot of thoughts to each person's response to my initial post. For this I thank each person who responded as I live to think (or do I think to live). I have about two minutes before I have to attend to a personal matter but I only need a few moments to thank the poster "Strange" because I am positive that it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that my mind was striving to recall. If, Strange, you have the desire to go into a few specific details about that experiment that would be excellent since have no recollection as to what that experiment actually entailed. However, that being said, if when I return, no specifics are given about that experiment I can tell you now, at any moment I have fewer absolute beliefs than I have fingers...beyond that all I have are educated guesses, conjectures. This being said I can tell you that my absolute belief is that by copying and pasting the name of the experiment you provided for me into a bing search engine I will without a doubt become well informed as to what that experiment was all about and then I will be able to discuss the specifics and what they in theory indicate.

Are you talking about empty space, or empty Space?

 

I've seen an experiment done to show that the inside of a van isn't empty. Hang a plumb bob from the ceiling of the van, and tape the string of a helium balloon to the floor of the van (they should both hang in the middle, but not obstruct each other's forward/backward movement).

 

If the van was truly empty, when you accelerate you should see both the balloon and the plumb bob move backwards. Instead, you see the bob move backwards, but the balloon's helium is displaced forward as the air in the van moves back like the plumb bob. Looks empty, really full of air.

To the poster "Phi for All"...the experiment you described with the van the ballon and hanging plum bob, I will have much to write, but for now I am also guessing that to answer your question...if I am understanding it correctly, when you are asking me if I am talking about empty space or empty Space...hmm...well...i'm not sure...if by empty Space...I'm really not sure how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space...I'd like you to maybe if you desire, explain how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space but for now what at least I can say is ...if I am packing to go on a trip there is only so much that will fit in my luggage because of the limited "empty space"....however....hmm....well for now I will suggest that I have heard for example that a sub-atomic particle,,,a basic one,,,with the electrons, neutrons, protons..is 99 percent empty space so here for example I would like to know what the evidence is to prove this.

AFAICT, the holographic universe is more of an interpretation of science than science. I'm not aware of any actual way to test it

First let me make my ignorance understood so that I can ask you what might be a common expression that I do know. You wrote AFAICT. Will you please tell me what that means. Second, as far as the holographic universe book...it seems like you might remember more than me because I am not sure what it is you are thinking about specifically when you write there is no way to actually test it. Are you responding to a premise in the book that in some way the universe is in essence a hologram?

There is a book called the "Holographic Universe" which contains the concept that humans are wrong to consider that most of reality consists of empty space but rather, there is no empty space. The book compares humans to fish that cannot see the water it swims through. I am wondering first, has anybody heard of, or read "The Holographic Universe" and can either testify to the books validity or lack thereof, and second, what is the evidence for there being empty space? I have it in my head that a scientist once said that there was an experiment done at the beginning of the last century which produced conclusive evidence for the existence of empty space. Does anyone have any knowledge of such an experiment?

 

For one, phenotypes are not determined wholly by DNA. It is a complex interaction between Genetics and Environment. While some traits are very heritable, others are less so, and some exhibit almost no heritability.

 

Its been a few years since I read the follow up book by Charles Dawkins to his book The Selfish Gene, but that book was named The Extended Phenotype. If you are correct than my memory of some of what I learned from his book I never did learn. Or rather i should, one idea thought I thought I learned was never taught. I thought the definition of an Exteneded Phenotype was the organism created which was determined by DNA. From what you just wrote though I would very much like to understand what it is that you are defining as a "phenotype". Do you know why Dawkins followed up the book he wrote The Selfish Gene, with the Extended Phenotype. (this being said I don't even know which book came out first). This post I had guessed was based on the ideas Dawkins brought into being with his book the Selfish Gene. I have read that book and as I said I have read The Extended Phenotype. Being as deep as you are into this thread, the seventh page now, I am guessing with a good deal of certainty you have a depth of comprehension into the conceptual idea of the Selish Gene. I am hoping you can give me some of what you know about the basic idea behind the book The Extended Phenotype,

Reading over the formulas following the post named Gravity Stacking (OP: 514void) two questions come to my mind that are not associated enough with that post to be asked within that post. The first question has to do with the esssence how the first question of the post was was asked: would something as massive as the earth fall at g or 2g towards the earth? Since we are in the part of the forum entitled Relativity I am curious to know if the way science perceives reality after Relativity became part of the scientific vernacular, would the mass of two objects as massive as Earth cause gravitation to make those objects fall towards each other or would it be said that the two objects would move towards each other because of how some would say mass causes space to "bend"/"curve"?

The second question I thought of after reading the Gravity Stacking Post (OP: 514void) might seem too extreme to warrant a response, too outlandish to be taken as a serious point and far from the realm of where anyone would put any effort into considering contempletaing. If I get no feedback as a result of my following words I would understand why. Anyway….a postulate of Galileo...all objects fall to the Earth at the same velocity when "let go" regardless of weight. Galieleo predicted that if the Earth had no atmosphere even a feather would fall at the same speed and on the moon, an experiment was done in which it was demonstrated that a feather and an opject of much greater mass did seem to move to the moon at the same velocity when let go. However, ultimately, this postuate, that two objects, regardless of mass "differential" would "fall" towards the Earth at the same velocity, is not right….right? If there was a marble sized object with the mass of the moon being held two thousand yards away from the Earth and there was a marble sized object with the mass of a bowling ball being held two thousand yards away from the Earth...and they were both let go at the same time…the marble sized object with the mass of the moon would pull the Earth towards itself, the marble size object with the mass of a bowling ball would also pull the Earth as well but unmeasureably to any modern day calculating instruments. If these two marble size objects were dropped at the same time, but far away from each other so that the marble sized object with greater mass did not have a gravitational effect on the lesser mass marble sized object, the result would be that the lesser mass marble sized object would move at a greater velocity even though both marble sized objects would make contact with Earth at the same time?

LIke the opposable thumb. The opposable thumb allowed our intelligence to create the weapons and tools and inventions that made it so we became at the top fo the food chain. But as you said , intelligence grew alongside with other traits. Which came first the opposable thumb that made intellencgence so useful that it evolved at such rate that a book such that a book was written about the how dangerous the speed of the intellectual evolution (well you know I cant of the books name right now and when i do I will talk more about this.) So a thumb as opposable as our only exits in an animal so as ourselves with the intelligence to make it an advantage. Which started first, our thumbs becomeing oppsoable or our intellligence ,,,I apoliogze…I have done so much intellectally these past few days and my brain needs to charge up again before I can consider wrting something at this point that will have the clarity I usually wish to achieve.

I will leave you with this bit of trivia you will hopefully finding at least a little amusing: Based on the dynamics of evolutiion it is not a mystery which came first the chicken or the egg. The answer…the egg.

Just in case that there was a misunderstanding, a straw man argument is essentially building up an argument that no one made and then tearing it down.

 

I only started this post becase of the rampant amount of thinking that mutation is a major force behind evolution. So let me explain to you the a metaphor that comes out of my research in evolution at the genetic level. I hope this is not a problem but I just used the same metaphor with someoen who was doing exactly what you said no one does. Someone was building up an arguement that made mutation something more than a microscopic factor in terms of evolution. There are 26 letters in the alphabet. Without the mutation of a single letter, will it ever limit the combination of letters which lead to the combination of words which lead to what could become better and better papers, articles, magazines essays, theories. The arguement You said a straw man was building up that no one made is not the case. The point of this post is to clear up a common misconception that mutation is this important factor in evolution. Mutation is a about ten thousand more times to cause an animal to have a negative effect than a positive efffect. Keep in mind that cartoons such as the X-men which are known to be stroies about mutation are thought by people to be based on an exaggeration of how evolution works. Whatever a straw man means I doubt it is associated with an expert on a subject that can clarify that a commonly held idea about a major concept is horribly flawed. The theory of evolution is so critical that I wanted to clear up the reality behind the actual mechanics of evolution. There are three primary colors. How many varieties of these three do you think there could be that could create orginal and greater artwork until at least the end of the Earths existence. letters do not need to be mutated yet books and stories and online chats will continue to evolve. I just want people who are in the dark about the exact science of genetics to understand once again that mutations are ten thousand times more likely to bad than good.

Mitch, you may just wish to recall that Darwin referred to the process of natural selection. Evolution is a process of natural selection. (There are some other influences, such as sexual selection and genetic drift, but natural selection is at the heart of the process.)

 

Darwin did not know about mutations and struggled to identify what could fuel evolution other than the initial diversity present in a population. Clearly this was not enough and so he even dabbled with Lamark's ideas about acquired characteristics.

 

So, it is my impression that people who know anything about evolution attribute it, in simplified terms, to natural selection acting upon normal population variations, where the latter are augmented by occasional mutations.

 

No. Wrong. Completely wrong. Single cells are self replicating organisms. It did not take a few billion years for these to appear. Why do you think it did?

So you wrote:

You also wrote :Mitch, you may just wish to recall that Darwin referred to the process of natural selection. Evolution is a process of natural selection. (There are some other influences, such as sexual selection and genetic drift, but natural selection is at the heart of the process.)

I have so much say about these words and so little time that I will not start until i have time go over what you are suggesting by this and the traffic jam thought it is causing in my brain. I have to let this go for now. I am looking forward to asking you questions about what you are saying that might make it so that what you are writing makes complete sense and does not in actuality have the flaws that my first response idicates to me they have.. The most important thing though is for any contradiction of ideas and thoughts about who is right and who wrong , well I just hope you are like me and that if what I am saying is show to be wrong am nothing but appreciative. Good luck in all ways and I will be retrurning soon.

Darwin did not know about mutations and struggled to identify what could fuel evolution other than the initial diversity present in a population. Clearly this was not enough and so he even dabbled with Lamark's ideas about acquired characteristics.

So, it is my impression that people who know anything about evolution attribute it, in simplified terms, to natural selection acting upon normal population variations, where the latter are augmented by occasional mutations.

 

1) Darwin was explicit about universal common descent. The only figure/illustration in the Origin is one of the very first phylogenetic trees ever drawn. While Wallace's theory of natural selection would obviously have assumed some limited common ancestry...after all, there is no such thing as evolution without common ancestry...the idea of "universal common descent" to my knowledge is not. If you think otherwise, then please point me to the works where Wallace spells out this concept of universal common descent. The two theories of Natural Selection also differed in subtle, yet profound ways. Some have even argued that Wallace's origin concept was more one of group selection rather than individual selection.

 

2) It is very unique.

 

New genes and new variants arise through mutation. Without mutation there is no variation to recombine into better combinations.

 

While most of evolution in sexually reproducing organisms will operate upon standing variation over the short term, over the length of evolutionary history, mutation is the source of that variation.

First I will respond to the second part of this quote. Perhaps you are not fully aware of the process of evoltion at the genetic level and how almost trival mutation is to evolution. I started a new post about this subject. I wanted to make a common misperception that you wrote become clear and evident in term of the reality of the situation in terms of the extent of mutations force on evolution. I wll do this right now in a clean, cut metaphor that should help you to appreciate what I am saying, The metaphor is in response to your words which are" New genes and new variants arise through mutation. Without mutation there is no variation to recombine into better combinations." Think in terms of the 26 letters of the alphabet. Letter do not mutate yet will this prevent the short or long range potential to to recomine the in ways whichg can become a better story, a more interesting phiosophy a better book to explain the univerese in better ways than it has been in the past. ?

 

Mixtures can be packed together much more tightly, that is in fact the theory of concrete mix design, but empty space cannot be completely eliminated without an infinite range of aprtcle sizes.

 

One question I asked not long before in this post was: would there be motion in a ballon filled with a one substance and no empty space. Your response to me was to ask the following question: Why wouldn't there be motion? One person, after reading our posts, said that the discussions we were having were insignificant because I started to ask about what if the universe contained no empty space and was made of one substance. I then asked not only if there would be motion in that universe but also if that universe could be exactly like the one that exists at this very moment in which we live. The person t said that the questions about the hypothethical situations i was creating were non signiifcant because they could never exist and it was like I was creating science fiction. The person who made this post does not upset me by questioning the signifcance of my questions. I can assure you as well as him that all these creations are being asked for a very definite reason and in terms of me trying to understand the reality of the universe and how it operates.

You said at the end of your last post that the size and shape of a particle are important. However, if you were trying to help me by indicating that the size and shape of a particle are important for me to find the solution of my question about motion in a universe that is filled with one substance and no empty space, than I will ask you in a univese without empty space, could particles even exist? You know what I think I just realized a thing that is starting to allow me to make sense of an enorous amont of what was once confusion. I am thinking of the word particle. I am thing about the word in its most pure form. The first syllable is 'part'. So in a univesre that has only one substance and no empty space there could be parts of that one substance that are moving in a direction and amounts and speeds that the other parts of the one substance are not . I was curious about the words "atomic packing" which you had used many posts ago. Thank you for explaining the concept. You eventually wrote

Mitch, I didn't ask Mordred, I asked you, and you have no right to assume my question was in any way linked to any of Mordred's posts.

 

So I ask you again.

 

 

Particles were not mentioned in your question, nor in my response.

 

Since you mention them now, please specify the shape and scale of the these 'particles'.

 

Classical particles (atoms and larger) are subject to packing laws, which generally leave lots of empty space.

 

Subatomic particles exhibit quantum tunnelling.

Ouch, I just spent about fifteen minutes responding to this post. I wrote in detail the evidence to suggest that I did not assue anything and what you think I did not have the "right" to do is something I never did .Also I wrote about the point you were making about wanting to know about particles and what kind I was considering. I wrote Ouch as the first word after I pasted your quote because i put a lot of effort into attempting to make you understant that I am not the kind of person you seem to have made me out to be and it hurts that I lost the writings due to a mistaken key hit and now I have not the energy to try to remember how I attempted to clear things up. But after some rest I will because its important to me.

Let me at least say that as far as particles…You spoke of two sizes, one being subject to packing laws which generally leave lots of empty space. I would greatly appreciate it if you told me what you mean by packing laws. I will look it up if you would rather not explain it .However, what I am guessing you mean by packing laws I am guessing does not in fact make it so that there is room for empty space.

As far as smaller particles that you say allow for quantum tunneling. My educated guess as to what quantum tunneling is, and i am pretty sure I have it right, is not what it appears to be.

keep in mind that when I have only about three beliefs and everything else I have is educated guesses. Conjectures. Using these words in this post, educated guess, is me saying this is my thinking after a lot of deductive reasoning and logistical thought.

You said I brought up particles but I did not. Mordred started using the word when he said motion would be possible because of the empty space between particles. MY response was to ask what if there was no empty space between particles.

I would greatly like the opprutunity to speak with you about the issue of particles and empty space and quantum tunneling.

But the orginal question, if the universe was filled with a single substance and no empty space, would there could there be motion. Your response was why coudlnt there be motion. Let me get to a a more profound and poignant question. If there is only a sole substance in our universe and there is no empty space. couid our universe be exactly as it is. Do you think it could be possible that the universe we live in has no empty space and is made of only one substance?

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid.

 

F=MA would work within a solid just like that metaphor of bumper to bumper activity where there solid does not consist of particles that are surrounded by empty space. So for example, in the metaphor I wrote a few posts back, well,,,,let me ask you,…I understand that force =mass times acceleration,,,,in my metaphor I am describing how moition would be thinking in terms measuring force by how the degree of mass that is moving in the same direction times the speed at which it is moving.

You have made me understand why being hit by ice would do more damage than water, I thank you for the detail at which you wrote out what makes a solid a solid a liquit a liquid a gas a gas and a plasma a plasma. So, in this subject area, can you tell me what FIRE is?

 

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid.

 

then I wanted to describe how forces acted on different mass bodies within a fluid,or gas like state sorry for the confusion, that evidently got lost in translation lol.

 

The perfect fluid calculations are commonly used in numerous cosmology applications so the synonym is applicable

If you have the ability and time and energy, I would very much appreciate the answer to what defines a solid as opposed to a fluid as opposed to a gas. Perhaps you can easily answer this question just by answering another question I've had for years but never attempted to find an answer. If I throw a water ballon at a my brother the next time I see him, I only see him once ever few years, he mght laugh at the suprise. If I throw a water ballon at him that I've kept in the freezer overnight and the water has turned to ice and I throw it at him, my brother could end up with a concussion and maybe I'd be fortunate enough that he'd forget I thew it. One ballon filled with water as opppsed to a ballon filled with ice that became ice from the same amount of water in the first ballon could break a persons skull, where the first ballon could only annoy or suprise a person.

s

 

Essentially, the perspective in the Opening Post is cherry-picking the aspects of a trait and judging the whole by a part, sort of a Poisoning the Well argument, or a reverse Composition fallacy. Cruelty/hostility is always bad, kindness/caring is always good. We know this isn't true, especially when we're talking about the survival of the whole species and not just individuals.

 

Phi for All, I could be wrong but it seems you are suggesting that I have indicated that I consdier cruelty/hostily as always bad and kindness/caring as always good?

I have been heavily infiuenced by Fred Nietizche and have read much of his material including the Beyond Good and Evil and The Reevaluation of Values. I am no making a judgmenent call on whether being cruel is bad or being kind is good. Cruelty to enemies can save a country. Kindness is a result of the genes at a selfish level. Altruism exists because of how evolution works on the individual genetic level or just as much, humans are so physically in need of others ot survive, altruiism and kindness are traits that have resulted in because for practical self survival purposes. Human evolution has made it so that humans feel good helping other humans.

My point in the beginning was that the human animal being the only animal that is nearly devoid of all reflexes, is the only animal that even has the capability of being crue as I am using the word cruel. However I did not call this post As Guilty as it Gets because of the cruelty factor at all. There are many who say that humans are born innocent. I am saying that out of all the animals, humans have the least innocence because of our superior intellect. I am saying we are not innocent but take in mind that I am using this word innocence to connotate a lack of awareness.

In the wars the United States is fighting there is a lot of utilzed unmanned drones both that can be equipped to attack and do damage. If a drone accidentally identifies an innocent person as an enemy and fires upon them, this does not make the drone evil. The drone is unthinking and will do whatever programming guides the drones activity. A computer program is like a reflex. A reflex is like driving on road with double yellow lines. What humans and humans alone have is the intellegence to make it so that we are like on a road with broken white lines giving us options.

I must strongly disagree with you on the point of cruelty. What you are describing as cruelty is a side effect of a sound survival instinct to shoot first and ask questions later, coupled with a perfectly reasonable distrust of the unknown i.e. a member of a tribe you are unfamiliar with.

 

Only a small proportion of humans are deliberately and consistently cruel. It is reasonably well established that these persons either lack, or have a very low capacity for empathy. We see "cruelty" practiced by our primate cousins - in particular I return to chimpanzees, with which I am most familiar. Granted we've never seen a chimp subject one of its fellows to waterboarding, but some of the interactions certainly match what I think you would call cruel were it witnessed in humans.

 

So, in summary, other animals display cruelty and much of this cruelty either has a survival value or is a side effect of behaviour that does.

Perhaps the problem is that we are not using the some working defintion of the word 'cruelty". You are suggesting that other animals display cruelty and that this cruely has a survival value or is a side effect of a behavior that does. I have about three certrain believes, all else are educated guesses, conjectures, but from all I know only humans have the capacity for what I am calling cruelness or kindness because

to be cruel or kind as I am using the word, or the product of thought and feeling, neither of whch other animals have. As I said, earlier in this post an unmanned drone that because of its programming accidentally does something like identifies a group of people as terrorists when they are not, and then launches an attack upon them and destroys them all…this is not what I am considering to be cruel. Perhaps you can tell me how you are using the word cruel. As far as I can tell you are using the word to indicating any kind of behavior result in harm or destruction. If that is how you are using the word than yes, other animals can harm or destroy just as humans can. So without putting a word to this, I am just going to state that humans are born and become the only animals that have the thought and feelings to be do help or hurt. Humans have choices and therefore are responsible for what they decide.

 

I'm also uncomfortable targeting individual traits and making sweeping judgements about them. It's obvious that no single trait is responsible for how we've developed (with the possible exception of walking upright, imo). It's all intertwined and cumulative.i

I find it interesting that you consider walking upright more responsible for how we've develped than our intelligence. Humans lack the physical attributes that other animals have that allow them to survive. Our flesh is soft our weapons are sharp. Without the intellgence to create weapons to hunt or food to grow we would not be able to live as we have been doing for many thousands of years. Keep in mind, that our distant ancestors had a much greater arsenal of physical attributes to survive than we do. The smarter we got the less these attributes were passed along because without them we could still survive. Do you know that sevety four percent of the people wth an above average IQ have a reason to wear glassses while only thirty-eight percent of the average population has the use for glasses. The single trait of intelligence is responsible for how we have developed to such an extent that we have lost our reflexes and gained the potential to experience pain and the subjective experience of pleasure. If you want me to explain how the evolution of intelligence ended up causing the human animal to have the potential to feel pain and the subjective feeling of pleasure I wlll. Certainly my thinking here has nothing to do at all with the idea that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and then were exiled from Eden. I am a man of science and not of religion although I am spirtual.

And these alterations are caused by genetic mutations.

The alterations of gene combinations is not a an effect of mutation anymore than the alteration of the combination of different people on an baseball team which could cause the team to do better or worse is an effect of mutation.

Each member of a baseball team will have an effect on the winning or lossing, the success or failure. If the combination of genes that make an animal create a body that is effective, some of those genes will be passed on.

If two parents have children that are different and one is so smart that he becomes the President of a college and the other is so unintelligent that he ends up living in a group home, do you think this is a result of genetic mutation or a different comination of genes that have been passed on by the parents?

That OP is a bit of a straw man, as evolution is not clearly driven by mutations alone

I wrote the exact opposite of what you are saying I wrote. I am not sure what you mean when you refer to me as a straw man but I can only think of the straw man from the wizard of OZ who had no brain. And thats fine if thats how you perceive me. But the quote you wrote has you saying that evolution is not clearly driven by mutation alone. I am saying that not only is it not clearly driven by mutation alone but it is rarely driven by mutation at all. What I was indicatiing was that there are many people who have no understanding of how little genetic material, the DNA themselves, actually are altered, mutated or physcally change. So, please if you will riddle me this, CharonY when asexual creation occurs, are the offspring exact dupicates of the birth giver? If not is it because of mutated genetics or the reaity that of dominant and recessive genes which cause a difference in gene combination that makes the child from that which made the one who made the child?

 

now the real universe is not a solid, far from it. remember f =ma, also remember newtons 3 laws of motion.

 

Here I might now be asking the most vital question I have so far asked of the people within this forum. How, as Mordred seemingy indicates in the above quote, does force equaling mass times acceleration or any of Newton's three laws prove that the real universe is not a solid?

Consider the following scenario: there is a cement truck a school bus and motorcycle. Imagine the cement truck is in front the motorcycle is in the middle and the school bus is in in the last position. Imagine it is bumper to bumper traffic and all three vehicle are traveling at the same rate and there is no empty space between them. These three vehicles are moving but there are bumpers are physically touching one another. What would happen if a large tree suddenly fell in front of the cement truck? A tree so large the cement truck came to an almost sudden stop. The school bus would suddenly be closer to the cement truck than it was before because the bus would push the motorcycle behind the cement truck. The cement truck being much more massive than the the school but would move from the collision but maybe very little because of the tree, this tree is more massive than even the cement truck, and the fact that the push of the motorcyle by a relatively unmassive schoolbus compared to the cement truck would make it so that the bus, being more massive than the motorcycle would crush to some degree, comprees to some point, the motrorcyle and now be closer to the cement truck. So the school bus was not pulled closer to the cement truck because of some attractive force, it was pushed towards because of the drop in speed of all three vehicles. Correct if I am wrong, but the school bus being more massive than the motorcyle would have more momentum traveling at the same velocity. If the cement truck was massive enough than it would move very little because fo the collsion motorcycle being pused from behind by the school bus.

Well maybe evolution is what you think. However, most of the people I have come across who talk about evolution speak of the idea the what they consider to be the driving force behind evolution. Although they have different names for the force, ultimately it comes down to genetic mutuation. If you have been thinking that mutation is the cause behind all but a small fraction of evolution than the name for this post I have created is accurate for whoever is reading the words I am now writing. Evolution is not what you think if you think genetic mutation is the reason for the existence of the massive evolutinary phenomenon.

The only time genetic mutation had a huge impact was during the first few billion years of our planets existence. Because the effects of genetic mutation are as rare as they are now, it took a few billion years for genetic mutation to ultimately create what is now known as a self replicating organism.

At first a single organism would make copies of it self. The only evoution that took place was as a result of genetic mutuation. At some point in the history of life, a new way of animal manifestation came to be. This new source of creation would be the joining together of two sepearte organisms. When two animals (a male and a female?) come together to create offspring, the offspring is a result of the genetic material irth of from two seperate animals resulting in the birth of a being that will be a result of the genetic combination by two different animals. Animals that were constructed by the combination that would do well had the chance to pass on their own genetic material,

Evolution has very little to do with the phenomenon of genetic mutation. Evolution is a result of the fact that reproduction is a process that creates alteration of genetic combinations.

The problem I have with genetic theories of evolution is that although genes are the templates of life, how does the template alter the template? For example, the template of all molecules is connected to atomic orbitals and atoms.

You've made a simple process far to complex. Genetic mutations arise either because of environmental insult (radiation, carcinogens, etc) or a copying error.

Coneptual is having a problem with the genetic theories of evloution. Mokele is atttempting to solve this problem by bringing up the phenomenon of genetic mutation. I have carefully studied the words in two books that Richard Dawkins produced. The first is THE SELFISH GENE and the seond is the EXTENDED PHENOTYPE. Somewhere within these two books the genetic theory of evolution that Conceptual is having a problem with is not entirely explained by what the mutation effect that Mokele described. In fact only a small portion of evolution is considered by Dawkins to be s product of mutation. When DNA creates a body the body it creates is known as an "extended phenotype". Every animal that exist is born the way it is born because of of the "instructions" that the DNA has in terms of how the animal will be constructed. The DNA that is giving out these instructions is a resullt almost always of the contribution of two parents. Evolution is very little about the creation of animals that evolve because of DNA mutuation but rather the success or failure of the combination of DNA contributions from two different animals that create offspring that will be different than themselves. If the combination of DNA creates an offspring that does well than some of those genes from that animal will be passed on to any children of the animal.

Dawkins uses the metaphor of a rowing team when considering the governing dynamic behind the force of evolution. Dawkins writes about how a rowing team consists of for a number of memebers. Depending on the total effect of all the members, the rowing team will win or lose.

I forget how far Dakwins went with this metaphor, but I will extend it so that evolution makes sense without having to consider the mutation of DNA as the fundamental force.

So imagine if each rowing team was an individual animal and the memebers of the rowing team were genes. The members of each rowing team, the genes of each animal, have come from taking memebers from two different prior rowing teams that created a group of members that made it at least to the point where they could pass on their genetic material. Each gene influences some part of how an animal will be constructed. The new combinations of genes as a result of there being two genetic contributors is what makes for an animal to be different than the two animals that contributed to the birth of the animal.

Even a solid has plenty of empty space between the particles.

 

 

What would prevent motion?

 

It seems that Mordred is saying that the empty space between particles would allow for motion. However, Mordred and perhaps you studiot do not realize what my question was intended to answer. In a balloon that contains only one substance and nothing besides, meaning an absolute void of voids, zero empty space, and this includes that the sole solid substance has no empty space.

 

Let me instead ask a question that people who have a better understanding of certain aspects of physics than I do. Could there be motion if solids had no (using the words of Mordered " empty space between the particles."

Please define what you mean by 'how fast is the universe moving'. Until you do that you will not get an answer that satisfies you.

Excellent question zapatos. It makes me wonder if I shouldn't redefine my question entirely. Hmmm…well..I wrote earlier in the post about the speed that our solar system is moving around the Milky Way galaxy. So then the question becomes is the entitre MIlky Way Galaxy moving at some velocity and then so on an so forth. Perhaps I can make better sense at what I am trying to get at in the words in the next paragraph.

Imagine if a person is in a car traveling at sixty miles an hour. If that person throws fa gun out the window at four miles an hour the total speed of the gun would be sixty four miles an hour. if, after the gun was thrown out the window, the gun went off and a bullet was fired, the speed of the bullet would be the speed of the car plus the speed of the thrown gun plus the speed of the bullet. So if the bullet travels at three hundred miles and hour and the gun was thrown out the window at four miles an hour and the car was moving at sixty miles an hour…would I be wrong to suggest the bullet would travel at three hundred and sixty four miles an hour.

So... if the Earth is traveling at a certain speed and the solar system is traveling at a certain speed and the Milky Way is traveling at a certain speed and then finally in the very end, what if the universe as a whole, if everything that the universe included was moving at a certain speed…hmmm….maybe the entire universe is moving as one at a certain speed while what is contained within it moves the speed of the universe plus however fast the indivual sections of the universe are moving.

Now visualize the motion in a 3d object such as a balloon. (with a layered center lol). This would represent our observable universe. If you can visualize the 3D multilayer, you can see how easy it would be to detect a rotation regardless of location.

This being said, consider a ballon that does not have a layered center of sand but rather, consider a ballon that contains sand and nothing besides? A ballon void of voids. I have been told that a universe that contains a sole substance without empty space could not exist as it does because there would be no movement. If this is correct than I will most likely not be able to determine the question posed at the start of this post: "Why is the speed limit of the universe 186,000 miles a second?" The moderator has made it clear that this is not the part of the forum to develop new theories. Respecting this rule I am only asking that according to what is known, if an object like a balloon was filled with a single substance and contained no empty space, could that substance be in motion?

Galapagos. The Galapagos islands. Your brother will not be albe to explain what has happened on those islands, where Darwin got the idea of evolution in the first place, without being nearly certain that evolution is, as many scientist have said. "there is no other explanation of science with more proof than that evolution is the reason for why the phenomenon that took place on the Galapagos islands.

Let me put it to you like this, for your brother in law to deny the almost certain reality of evolution, your brother in law would have to deny the existence of the reality of the Galapagos islands. Your brother is welcome to do this. Unfortunately for your brother in law in terms of trying to deny evolution, I have souveneirs from my parents who took a trip there. The reality is, if your brother asked me, I have never been to the Galapagos islands. However, as rule in police detective work, for the most part, when there is a crime, there is a motive, an ability, and evidence. Something like this your brother in law would have to create now in order to deny the almost certainty of evolution. Your brother in-law would have to create a motive for people to conspire the existence of the Galapagos islands and a means for so many people to be fooled into thinking what many people have had which they experienced as first person experience of visiting the Galapagos islands.

This is my third or fourth day that I have found this scienceforum.net and I don't mean to get personal but so far every response to my oringal post has been amazingly intelligent and well thought out. I thank you all for the energy and effort you have put into the words you have written. Beng new, unknowing…I was not sure what the person in the previous post was indicating when they wrote about the OP. I am guessing it stands for "oringal poster". If someone can tell me if that is correct I would greatly appreciate it. Also on the lower right hand side of my screen it says in a box "with one checked post" if anyone can tell me what that means I would greatly appreciate this is as well.

If OP does stand for ORIGNAL POSTER than I can say when the OP wrote AS GUILTY AS GETS…BORN…what I was specifically suggesting that humans are born more cruel than any other animal can be. Humans alone as an animal on this planet know the pain they are inflicting and will even find it funny sometiimes. Have any of you seen "America's Funniest Home Video" where the father from fulll house 'Bob Saggat' host a show in which people try to win ten thousand dollars by sending in what will be determined as the 'funniest" video. People told me, and I actually did some research to substantiate what they were saying, that a great deal, if not a majority of the videos that were deemed the "funniest" had an element of someone getting hurt. Whether it be a father playing catch with his son and the son throws the ball hard into the father's nether regions (I am wondering where I got the term nether regions and if it means the area of the body I am indicating…between the legs….the most sensitive two things on a male body….I would be more exact but I am still a new person here and don't know the guidelines in terms of words that can and cannot be written without being offensive in this scienceforum.net.)

Many scorpions have deadly venom. It is a fact that the smallest of scorpions have the most potent poison. For the same governing dynamics of evolution that made it so the smallest scorpion has the deadliest venom, humans are relatively harmless and defenceless except for one aspect of our being. Like the smallest scoprpion we to have a weapon that allows us to survive and reprodcue despite our relative weaknes. This weapon is intelligence. Like the smallest scorpion that is the weakest of its kind which has the most powerful poison, humans, are the most vulnearable of all animals but humans have the most power intellect.

I am not speculating this part of my thinking. It is a fact, that the human baby is more helpless and more helpless for longer than any other newborn animal. We have only two real reflexes and without help, no human baby would ever survive. Yes, many animals are dependent at birth. None, though, for as long and as much as humans. And there is a reason for this and it is as follows:

some animals, when born, instantly are indepenedent. They are born with the relfexes to do what they must to continue to exist. Intelligence was such a powerful trait in terms of survival and reproduction, that as our evolutionary ancestors evolved, they slowly began to lose their reflexes and instead were guided by emotion. Reflex is behavior that is automatic and there is no room for intellectual decision making in a purely reflexive organism. Yet evolution gave us someething that we now have where we can use our intellect while still doing what it takes to live. So the question is what replaced our relfexes that allowed for a degree of freedom for our thoughts to guide our behavior as opposed to reflexes…the answer is something that no other animal has ...pain and the subjective experience of pleasure.

Only an organism that can feel pain can be said to be cruel. I am not speaking of being vicous, or dangerous, or destructive, I am talking about cruelty which means causing pain in another being and knowing it and for whatever selifsh reason, doing it anyway.

The loyalty that I have been reading about throughout this post is a result of the fact that humans can be so cruel to each other, that human loyalty evolved as an evolutionary trait to protect us from our own kind.

Is not time simply matter in motion. If all matter stopped moving, would not time cease to exist?

Just because there is nowhere for the universe to translate to doesn't preclude the universe as a whole possessing rotational motiom.

along with evidence suggested by the clues found in the

Just a side note The Godel universe is a rotating model.

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

 

Part of why I started this post was to find out what the speed of the universe is. A few people responded that the universe only moves with itself but does not itself move but rather expands which has been stated is different from moving. The two people I have just quoted indicate the possibility that the universe as a whole is in fact moving. The reason I called this post "186,000 miles a second. Why?" Was because I was and still am attempting to get an answer to the question of "how fast is" the universe moving because once this question can be answered it is very possible to explain why the speed limit of the universe is 186,000 miles a second.

I don't like the perspective from here.

 

The selection for high intelligence brought both good and bad, which is common among traits. And some of the traits we consider good can be bad as well, and I think that's the perspective needed here.

 

So yes, raising children to recognize the need for caring and kindness is essential, because it's a big part of what keeps all our marvelous traits working together so productively.

From what I have discovered about evolutionary biology, I find this response highly interesting. It seems, you are suggesting that our high intelligence made us realize that we should raise our children to recognize the advantage of caring and kindness. But then does this mean we have to teach our children to be kind and caring and as I was kind of suggesting when I opened this post, that humans are guilty of being born with a lack of kindness and caring. What is the opposite of kindness and caring. Cruelty. And this is what I was suggesting that humans are guilty of being born with.

Well before we get to answering that question. Let's say the plane is parked on Earth. What's its speed?

Ahhh, my friend…I see now we are truly getting somewhere and I thank you for this. So earlier in this post I wrote about how fast our solar system travels around the Milky Way. Add that to how fast the Milky Way moves and keep going from there and maybe (this computer is failing, i need to long onto another, or fix the slowness)