Tub

I can vouch for this! Recently, walking peacefully around a quiet corner, i was completely startled by a woman running into me - i jumped and let out a squeal like a little girl! I'm a big boy and i couldn't believe i could be such a scaredy cat, so easily frightened. My inner-peace was certainly disturbed then! As for true inner-peace, what causes me most inner-disturbance is worrying: worry about family, friends, money, health, work, relationships, world events etc etc.To me, then, inner-peace would be being able to stop all this worrying by not always imagining the worst - but I can't see that ever being possible; maybe some turmoil is necessary: rough seas make good sailors.

Ha, Ha. True enough, i suppose, ( John Cuthber posted something similar above ), but i did say my horse is the fastest horse " that has ever lived " and, as far as i know, no horse has yet flown in a rocket and i think the riddle also says enough to imply that the horses have to be running so, at its fastest, my horse is still the fastest horse that has ever lived. Yaaaay! Thanks for the reply.

True. Everyone has to exploit someone else in on way or another: some do it" nicely ", kindly and with respect; others with arrogance and contempt - an attitude attributed to some petty officials who have had a little taste of power, however small. ( What Shakespeare, in Hamlet, called "... the insolence of office. " ). Me too, ( usually ), but circumstances can change very quickly..........https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato_dialogue_the_ring_of_gyges.html

Sorry, Butch, but i don't quite understand your post. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more. Thanks.

** https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science Thanks for the Feyerabend link - what a fascinating character. I wasn't familiar with him but, quite by chance and in the last couple of days, i have come across several YouTube videos of Terence Kemp McKenna, himself also an interesting character in this field, who was influenced by Feyerabend. As regards the OP, i vaguely remember this quote : " Science and Philosophy each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference ". Unfortunately, i can't remember who or where it came from but it seems to me to be a sensible and equitable way to view both disciplines.

I found this article very interesting. https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Ha,ha - an alien horse,eh? Was it a small grey?

My living horse is the fastest horse that has ever lived, but it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived. Why not?

This useful link refers to that and what koti and swansont have said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

This intrigued me too, but as well as the other posts above, i found this link very helpful: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html P.S. I hope you don't mind that i changed your " gravitial " to " gravitational ".

True, there have been a lot of twists and turns along the way - just like with my cheap sat-nav - but perhaps that makes the journey more interesting. Anyway, returning to the OP, could it be said that genetically-transmitted information is a physical phenomenon?

Hello,1x0. I think there is one way to say that information can be a physical entity. For example, i have a car, a silver Peugeot 206, and that information is stored physically in my brain in my memory-cells so that, if someone asks me what car i have, i can retrieve that information from its physical location in the brain. Each time someone asks me that same question , i go to the same location , the same memory-cells, and the same information is still there. Even when i am not thinking of my car, the information is still stored in that physical location until the next time i need it. So, as the action of memory is a mechanical function, i think it is not too unreasonable to say that the information stored in the memory-cells has a physical presence.

Maybe this link will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability. I think it covers what Sensei mentioned. Jupiter's mass is measured at 1.898 x 10 to the power of 27 kg. and would need to be about 75% to 80% more massive to achieve stellar ignition ( http://nuclearplanet.com/Stellar Ignition and Dark Matter.html ). I'll let you do the maths - i can't! Incidentally, i believe that Proxima Centauri has fuel enough to last for 4 trillion years!

On reflection, dim, i see your point............or do i?

Thanks from me too, Koti. At my level of scientific nescience, i did find it helpful - especially about the difference between mass and matter/weight. I gather, then, that mass is independent of acceleration and motion in general too? If i could employ a little analogy: if i had a bullet in my hand and tossed it gently at a wall, it would just bounce back harmlessly; if i threw it as hard as i could, it may mark the wall but would still bounce back; but if i shot it from a gun, it would do significant damage to the wall. So the mass of the bullet always stays the same but its weight increases exponentially with accelerating velocities. Forgive me if i ignore your suggestion about NLS, ( just for one moment, haha, ), but i imagine that if the bullet did hit the wall at NLS then the wall would be totally destroyed.

You're welcome.

Hello J. If you want to link to a website you can do this: open a new tab now and type " Black Hole Tipping Point " in the address/search bar; then when the YouTube website opens, highlight " https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=brmjWYQi2UM " in the address/search bar, right-click on it and select " cut " from the options. You can then close YouTube if you want. Then to enter the link into a post , get to the point in the post where you want to enter the link, right-click and select " paste " from the options and your link should appear. Just do the same with the next link you want to post. ( The link to BHTP will stay in your cut and paste function until you cut again on something different ). You can experiment by pasting links into new e-mails then deleting the e-mails. Can't help with the Black Hole though, sorry. Edit: Ha,ha. Just seen your new post. Well done.

Thank you, Strange; thank you Eise. That was my best shot - should i say " Shot in the dark "? Perhaps not! ( It's difficult to avoid puns in this particular thread ). There are so many words to use here: seeing, looking, watching , sensing, sight, vision, perception, so i'm sorry if i've opened-up a whole new can of " words ". If it's not off-topic too much, i've noticed that, while watching a TV programme that's not too interesting, i sometimes drift-off into some train of thought, or some reverie ,and then, when i eventually "come back to my senses ", i notice that the programme has finished; so my eyes have been gathering the EM signals from the TV but i have.'t been " seeing " them. Oh dear.

Would it help to clear away the semantics roadblock if we used " sense " instead of " see "? So we can " sense " visible light, but we can't " sense " invisible light.

Shouldn't you have said " Nay, nay and thrice nay " ?

Aha. Thanks

Just a few moments ago, i went into a large, darkened room with a small torch i have on my key-ring; i held the torch up to eye-level and to the right side of my head, pointing it directly across my eyes, and at a wall to my left, and switched it on........now, moving my eyes slightly to my right, i could see the lit bulb in the torch and then glancing to my left i could see a patch of light on the wall about 2 metres from where i was standing but between the wall and the bulb i didn't see anything - no beam of light at all, just darkness! I find that very puzzling.

Thanks for your reply, Furyan5; this would explain the old phrase: " It's all in the mind ". Relating to the OP, then, is it reasonable to say that " visible " light is white, reflected light of a certain frequency detectable by the eye, while " invisible " light , such as UV and IR, is unreflected light of a frequency above or below our visual spectrum, and that " visible " light strikes the eye as a blanket of white, ( Studiot mentioned a sort of " whiteout "), until the eye, acting as a prism, sorts the different frequencies into separate colours - or is that done later by the brain? Shakespeare, in " The Tempest ", famously wrote: "... We are such stuff as dreams are made on.. ". ( Act 4, Scene 1 ). Seems he was right.

Thanks, SJ.

If it isn't too far off-topic, i'd like to ask how we " see " dreams: obviously reflected light is not involved so there can't be any photons to be detected, and is it still the visual cortex that is involved? Can anyone enlighten me? ( Sorry ! ).