bascule

I've been through this before, and despite all the physics experts that seem to be around I never received a satisfactory answer. So someone who actually knows the math behind this and can help out someone venturing into quantum from a purely conceptual perspective, I'd really appreciate your help in pointing out what's wrong with my reasoning here because, as far as everything I've ever read from physics has told me, I must be wrong... Okay, we have Einstein saying that you can't have anything causal occur at superluminal speeds... state changes within the universe propagate at c and that's all there is to it... Yet we have ESR "spooky" action which allows certain things to happen non-locally, quantum entanglement in which the same events can occur "simultaneously" across distances which it would take light (in a vacuum) a considerable amount of time (interpret that as how you see fit) to traverse. We have the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment demonstrating that collapsing the probability wave of an entangled particle simultaneously collapses the probability wave of the particle it's entangled with. Okay, let me say that again, and if it's not correct, please let me know why, because that statement is the crux of this entire question: Collapsing the probability wave of an entangled particle simultaneously collapses the probability wave of the particle it's entangled with. If this is so, do we not then have superluminal causality through ESR spooky action? I'm aware that there is an occurance of spontaneous collapse of an otherwise uncollapsed probability wave, but as far as I'm aware it is not possible for the opposite to occur, namely a collapsed probability wave spontaneously reverting to uncollapsed. So if this is the case, shouldn't statistical analysis of the behavior of an entangled particle on one "side" reveal whether or not the other "side" has chosen to collapse the probability wave or not? Can we not sample for awhile and discover that the probability wave was uncollapsed a whole bunch of times, leading us to the conclusion that the other "side" was sending the "uncollapsed" signal? Similarly, if we sample over a window in which we expect the probability wave to remain uncollapsed at least a few times and observe only the collpased probability wave, can we not infer that the other side is sending the "uncollapsed" signal? Sure, that inference may be lossy, but computer science has been dealing with sending signals reliably over lossy media for decades, and could they not work out reliable communication over such a medium? I detailed my idea of how this could actually work based on the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, and never received the debunking I had hoped for. Please, I'm crazy, I'm saying that causation can occur at superluminal speeds! Debunk me!

I think dark energy (know this is a thread about dark matter, but whatever) is a pretty clear sign that the universe is a lot more complicated than most people give it credit for (scientists excluded) I think it's pretty insane that the overwhelming majority of the universe is made out of something which we really have no clue about... (and by the way, if you didn't garner it from my post it's dark energy which fills the enormous intergalactic gaps, not dark matter)

Yes we do, that's why these plants are put through considerable testing by the EPA, FDA, and USDA. In the end GM plants are functionally no different from what you could potentially get through a few centuries of selective breeding. The bottom line is you can trust science to tell you whether or not these plants pose a threat, or you can trust your own foolish instinct and intuition. And science isn't starving people in Africa...

God is a hypothesis, not a theory. And given the rather unscientific nature of a deity, calling God a hypothesis is being pretty generous

If the magnetic field were continually weakening, then how did it get started in the first place? The magnetic field is a feedback loop being generated by the core of the earth, which is spinning faster than the mantle and crust. As the core spins inside of the earth's magnetic field, it generates electricity which in turn produces the earth's magnetic field. This feeds back on itself, continually increasing the strength of the field until it stabilizes at a given strength, which is approximately .5 gauss for most places on earth. The perceived intensity of the field is decreasing as it begins to lose a dipole configuration and enter a period of geomagnetic flux prior to a pole reversal, much like we're going into now. The poles could reverse as early as next century. I like how every theory in every field of science which supports the scientifically accepted age of the universe is an "evolutionary theory," and scientific theories about the operation of the Earth's magnetic field, which are based upon our knowledge of the laws of physics, decades of data collection, and models which accurately predict changes in the Earth's magnetic field are "very complex and inadequate." The Earth's magnetic field reaches a stable dipole configuration after going through periods of geomagnetic flux. It remains in this stable dipole configuration for approximately 7,000 years, then geomagnetic anomalies begin to appear in its dipole configuration, little patches of opposite polarization which begin to grow, move, and churn into a full out geomagnetic storm. This will continue to increase in intensity until eventually the magnetic poles flip and settle into a stable dipole configuration for the next 7,000 years. Of course, if you think the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is only 7,000 years old, I could see why your view is that the Earth's magnetic field is continually decreasing. So what do they offer as an alternative explanation? So let's check their sources here: Oh, I see, their "straightforward" theory based upon "sound physics" is that GOD made the Earth's magnetic field reverse! So you have real science which explains paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, "most startlingly" with accurate computer models of geomagnetic storms which precipitate rapid pole reversals and rely on an entirely naturalist explanation, or you can say that... God did it. But don't trust science, its theories are "very complex and inadequate." Nice job dissecting the rest In My Memory. I'd do the same except I felt it was a waste of time debunking such garbage

He seemed very well read on the latest papers being published by top physicists of the time, and I guess he just saw how all of their results interconnected into a single theory.

There were several, the most notable being Unix, VMS, and OS/360 (now z/OS)

In order for tetrachromacy to function correctly if "neural circuits" corresponding to each different type of cone were fixed in the brain at birth, the tetrachromatic mutations in the retina would have to be accompanied by similar mutations in the brain. My guess would be that specific responses to each of the three primary colors are the result of the brain decoding information from the retina, and the actual color we "see" in the mind's eye is a complete post-processing aftereffect of the brain's hardware.

Genetically modified plants are the most regulated of any crop, controlled by the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA. The people arguing against them are alarmists who are depriving starving Africans of food. Reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34165

I guess that's the closest forum to "Science Fiction"

I believe the "technical" name is "ice cream headache" Here's an article about it: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7091/1364

Let's look at his descent into BULLSHIT: There is? Care to tell us what this body of evidence is, whose names are on it, how much peer review the papers documenting it have received, or anything which would remotely substantiate this claim whatsoever? DIDN'T THINK SO! They do? Why? Because you're fitting the facts to your desired outcome? Such as? Throw me a bone here please? I mean honestly, this guy makes three bullshit claims in a row without even remotely bothering to back up any of his claims with anything remotely substantive.

Needs more Instiki

The efficacy of CO2 to elicit a "global warming" effect in comparison to other anthropogenic climage change forcings is a matter of serious scientific debate. The impact of any of these forcings upon the natural cycles of the climate system is still anyone's ballgame. See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=21

The Navy has this to say: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm The crew had this to say: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm

*laugh* http://www.earnedmedia.org/cpr0902.htm

Why do humans try to be so humble about the incredibleness of our species? Who are we trying to be humble for? If you take into account humanity's memetic evolution, we are far and away the most highly evolved species on the planet.

Daniel Dennett, one of the foremost thinkers on the philosophical implecations of the natural selection model and all around brilliant dude had this to say about the debate surrounding the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html

I think it'd be better than seeing your net income decrease with an increase in gross pay because you just got bumped into a higher tax bracket. That simply does not make sense.

I guess other people tried to cover this for me, but you got into the semantics of a "continuous function" Arguing semantics is a boring waste of time. I think I made it fairly clear that I feel brackets are stupid. And I'm sure you know what I meant...

The most obvious problem with a flat tax is what percentage of your money goes to cost-of-living. If the percentage of your income going towards the cost of living plus the percentage of the flat tax exceeds 100%, you have a huge problem. When people don't have enough money to make ends meet and start missing bills and accumulating late fees or overdraft fees from their bank, the problem further compounds upon itself. The bottom line is a progressive tax penalizes those who live a life of conspicuous consumption, whereas a flat tax penalizes those who are scraping to survive. If I have to pick who to screw out of that, I'm going to have to go with the rich. I agree tax brackets are stupid, and I'd rather see a simplified progressive tax code formulated as a continuous function of income rather than stupid, imprecise blocks.

The atomic clocks aboard the GPS satellites have to compensate for relativistic effects. See this page for more information: http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Here are a few recently published stories about my boss. Hopefully this will spark a little debate about natural cycles vs. anthropogenic forcings. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/science/earth/23clim.html http://coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/NEWS01/508250319/1002 Dr. Pielke Sr's blog: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

I would say it's about finding previously undiscovered connections in your existing knowledge structure. Note that introspection as a method of studying the operation of consciousness, which Dennett termed "autophenomenology," is considered by cognitive scientists to be unscientific and largely fruitless.

Space doesn't end, it's either closed and wrapped back on itself with either positive or negative curvature, or it's flat and infinitely sized. Either way, there's no "edge" of space you could fly a spaceship off of any more than there's an "edge" of the world you could run a boat off of.