Jump to content

Royston

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Royston

  1. That's one of the reasons why I don't think the graviton is real and you don't *need* a force to explain gravity, as it's not a particle-based phenomenon.

     

    I agree, I remember reading about gravitons (or the theory of gravitons) in a 'Brief of history of time' and remember finding it a little tenuous. I'm still under the assumption gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time.

     

    It's not a force in it's own right, it's an observable effect due to the universe's structure. (could be worded better...I'm trying to do four things at once at the moment.)

  2. Yikes...that sounds like a scenario from Jerry Springer.

     

    You're right the majority can't be sensible with such things, but statistcally I think alcohol is far worse...drunk driving, violent behaviour when people leave pubs, alcohol poisioning et.c hospitals in England wouldn't be struggling for beds if wasn't for the amount of cases they get through alcohol abuse. The UK is infamous for it's drinking culture.

     

    It's down to each person though. I've never met anyone who has become dependant. Everyone blames the substance, if grass wasn't available then people would use something else, if you have an addictive personality then that's something to be treated psychologically. If your friend is wanting a boob job over making their child happy, then that's the kind of person that just want's, want's want's...that has nothing to do with smoking grass.

  3. I had a strange experience once with relative temporal perception' date=' where my conciousness was 5 seconds ahead in the future, and when the present caught up with my mind there was a kind of feedback loop (like a flash of migrane) as my consiousness was shunted forward another 5 seconds into the future.

     

    Of course this was when I was at a party and someone spiked my drink with something. An experience I'd never want to repeat...[/quote']

     

    You may not believe this, and I'm certainly not posting this to question that disorder is not growing in the universe, as this was a purely subjective experience. However when I was at a party..ahem, I was concentrating on how everything was reacting against everything else to create 'present'...man, kind of like the butterfly effect. Then I was looking at a broken glass, and somehow all the pieces gathered themselves and leapt back on the table. I then seemed to appear at random points of time at the party, I would be upstairs listening to some music which I was doing 5 minutes ago, and then I'd find myself downstairs in the middle of a chess game which I found out I was going to be talked into later on...there was no conscious decision to play chess.

     

    Needless to say the glass was still shattered on the floor the next morning. I believe I lost or gave up half way through the chess game (obviously irrelevant.) I found the whole experience fascinating...the few friends I told found it worrying, in regards to my health, but I think my point is that you can experience temporary time distortion to the extreme but it's not going to make any difference to the 'arrow of time' it's all purely how you're brain is processing the information.

     

    I hope my future posts aren't going to be met with more dubiousness after telling you this experience.

  4. I'm fairly certain that's correct. "One second's worth of time" has still passed' date=' when regarding things from an absolute viewpoint.

     

    Even if it feels like a minute for the fly, that's merely an relative perspective from the fly's mind.

     

    One second is one second is one second, no matter how fast or slow you measure it; it's the exact amount of time it would take light to travel [i'](whatever distance light will travel in 1 second)[/i].

     

    Light being our only constant to accurately measure time over distance.

     

    Even if a fly perceived light to be travelling slower over a given distance it would still be relative to a fly's clock. (Obviously fly's don't see light slowed down, otherwise they'd be practically teleporting everywhere...or moving so fast that we couldn't see their movement.)

  5. I understand what you mean but im not sure different perceptions, even if of time, should interfer with the physics that govern the Universe.

     

    Fair comment and I agree, in hindsight the paragraph is a little misleading to what relativity proposes...it's really quite vague.

  6. I couldn't figure out whether that was in agreement or disagreement?

     

    Sorry Danny8522003, I was actually agreeing with you. I should of made that clearer.

     

    I still think the debate relates with relativity, just as the opening paragraph on relativity describes...

     

    The Theory of Relativity is the celebrated discovery of the physicist Albert Einstein. Originally, it was two theories: the Special Theory of Relativity came first in 1905 and states that the rate at which time passes is not the same all over the universe - it is dependent on the observer (in other words, it is relative). It is not hard to see that different people perceive the passing of time at a different rate to others: as we get older, less information is processed about our surroundings per second, so we perceive time to be going faster.

  7. I would say perception of time is irrelevant to relativity. No matter how long it takes you brain to "unravel" a second, it will still be a second according to a clock.

     

    If a fly was watching a clock the second hand will appear to be going slower.

     

    I understand that relativity deals more with position rather than perception, e.g from the early observations of measuring the time it takes light to reach an observer you will always get readings that are relative to your position...common sense. And due to Pauli's exclusion theory this is true on an atomic level.

     

    I just forgot that if events are indeed perceived slower then obviously the measurable increments of time are slower to the observer (when using a clock for reference). The 2nd law of thermal dynamics still holds so as I said in my first post it bears no consequence how time is perceived, I just found it interesting that something exists in the same framework but perceives events to be slower...relative to the observer.

  8. Marijuana does not do anything for your blood but give your brain the sense that u need to eat and in eating u fuel your own recovery.

     

    It lowers your blood sugar levels, that's why you get the 'munchies'. It's why sometimes you can have dizzy spells (if you're using and your blood sugar levels are slightly down)...similar to what diabetes sufferers experience.

     

    I think it should be used for medicinal purposes...it's clearly not as harmful as opiates or alkaloids used in hospitals for pain relief and recovery, and not physically addictive.

     

    Making it legal for anyone would be rubbish, as already mentioned chemicals maybe added and government tax (just like cigarettes) plus it would lose the stigma...which adds to the fun, and culture of the substance.

  9. I actually liked Alan Rickman in 'Prince of Thieves', didn't Kevin Costner put a lot of effort into his English accent...!!!

     

    Christopher Walken in True Romance is also up there...very cold.

     

    Gary Oldman in Leon was also great...so many to choose from.

     

    I'll stick with Alan Rickman, though I thought he was rubbish in Dogma, albeit he wasn't a villain.

  10. Number one was the best' date=' everything else was just rubbish.

     

    Ollie[/quote']

     

    Yeah, I thought the first was best..it seemed to get progressively worse from there, but relative to a lot of other films (people are so critical these days) they're still really entertaining.

     

    Has anyone seen the spin-off animated compilation...I can't remember the name of it now, predominantly Anime and CGI animations, I watched that over and over a few years back. I also thought the MTV promo for the second film was actually more enjoyable to watch than the film itself...IMO.

  11. Hello I'm Snail, thought it was time I disclosed a bit more info about myself. I live in a caravan, am covered in slime and am a hermaphodite...I actually live in a nice three bedroom house with my mates, by the beach and am purely here for learning and seeing if any of my ideas aren't completely bonkers.

     

    I love travel, though havn't for nearly a year now due to financial constraints...sigh, only 161 countries to go ! My passion is music, particularly using synths and samplers...played the guitar from an early age...and yes I can shred, and am starting a production company in a couple of months. I'm also an avid festival goer. I love the sciences although am clearly not an expert in any particular field...I try to be as logical as possible, and love hearing about any cutting edge technology or new discoveries.

     

    I've got a dull day job, but it's made up for with other pursuits and yes I do own some giant african land snails (if you were wondering about the name.) I was actually quite useless at science at school, and am really a creative person (good at illustration / music et.c) but I'm trying to change that (the science bit that is.)

     

    A lot of the introductions are very non-descript, so I thought I'd waffle a bit...I think it's better to know a bit of background to the person you're replying to. cheers Snail

  12. dunno who told u that! they are called poppers because they used to avalable in small glass vials, wrapped in fabric, u grshed the vial then inhaled, it made a "popping" sound when u did so.

     

    I stand corrected...said the man in orthopedic shoes.

  13. I would anticipate that it arose of onomatopoeia, that would be common amongst even distant tribes. just a wild guess :)

     

    I agree, I don't think the lowering of the larynx is paramount for language ( I feel it's possible that we could of attained good communication without this trait albeit not as verbally articulate.) Sound association, drawings, hand gestures are all effective ways of getting a message across.

     

    I would of thought that 'when was the transition to cognitive thought and imagination' would be the question to the groundings of modern language. I might be wrong, but chimpanzees show no sign of creativity...do they ? Although cave paintings are blatantly copies of what early man saw, there is still a degree of imagination needed to convey their ideas onto erm...rock.

     

    Sorry if I'm babbling a bit...a little hungover today.

  14. No - you still can't have free-will' date=' since the quantum 'decisions' which are made are by definition completely random. The probability that you perform an action can still be calculated exactly, so your 'decisions' can be predicted in a statistical sense. If you were able to influence this random choice in any way you would be in contradiction of physical law (since it would no longer be truely random).

    [/quote']

     

    In short - we are 'the sum of our parts'.

  15. Amyl nitrite is an excellent medicine to cure us when we take in cyanide.

    Besides curing cyanide poisoning' date=' it also cures angina.

    What is an angina? The illness caused in the larynx or the coronary?

    And what's popper?[/quote']

     

    My mum suffers from angina, and the only real cure is surgery by unblocking the arteries...angina is simply not enough blood reaching the heart. Nitrates are used as a temporary measure. Nitroglycerine is used for more severe cases, but I think a low dose of aspirin (the same for when you have a stroke or heart attack) is more common as it obviously thins the blood.

     

    I'm not sure amyl or alkyl nitrates are used for treatment, I've never seen my Mum sniffing a bottle of poppers !!!

     

    Poppers are so called as there was a myth they pop brain cells. They are actually quite harmless (if enhaled), but yes they will give you a headache...ingesting them is a bad idea...drink plenty of milk so you vomit, and go and see a doctor.

  16. Teachers and parents never like their children say vulgarities because it will be very rude and uncivilised for them to do so' date=' and some of them have sexual meanings. Is saying vulgarities totally, completely bad?

     

    (My phrasing sucks, but I think you know what I mean.)[/quote']

     

    I think there is definitely more vulgar language on TV and film than say 30 years ago. I'm not sure this is a direct reflection on the audience becoming more vulgar. I think certain words need to stay vulgar as they lose conviction...they're needed to accentuate how angry you are, or how passionate you are about something.

     

    I think it's down to social groups, and classes (as in middle / upper et.c). I think some schools would be very dissaproving of swearing in class, where others would take it more likely. I think a parent should realise their child is likely to swear and should educate them when it is appropriate rather than saying it's fundamentally wrong. You can't have your hands over their ears all the time, so it may confuse them why other people have the right to swear.

     

    Some words blatantly have more conviction and are more vulgar than others, and there are still a huge majority that will get shocked by certain words especially coming from a child (I'm reffering to the older generation). So relative to the situation swearing can be very rude, or it can be necessary. So no...personally I think in some cases swearing isn't that bad, and it's up to you to gauge whether it's appropriate.

  17. Wtf would the perception of time to an animal have anything to do with relativity?

     

    I was wondering if this has any implications to relativity...at which point did I say it did?

     

    I'm going to google a few related topics, watch this space.

  18. I remember watching a programme, where they stated that a fly experiences huge dilation of time. For example if you moved your hand slowly towards a fly it would percieve it as motionless. How is this possible ?

     

    As humans, events can seem shorter...if we're enjoying ourselves, or longer...waiting for a bus for instance. We certainly don't see events visibly slow down. Is this just down to the speed visual information is being relayed to the fly, like high speed film ?

     

    I keep on wondering if this has any implications towards relativity...if events are slower to one life form, how do they fit into the frame work of another...obviously they do, but it's kind of bugging me.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.