JillSwift

Precisely what I was trying to find out! Thanks!

== Welcome!

Jillswift,

 

I thought we had already agreed that telepathy as characterized in the OP was illogical. We agreed that magical, unreal things are not logical. People can not sense other peoples thoughts by magic, without a mechanism.

 

My drift, was to ask if we have accounted for ALL the mechanisms by which we communicate.

 

I know this is goal post moving, but I thought it was consensual.

I made a mistake. Sorry.

 

Regards, TAR

I'm not berating you, hon. I'm sorry if it came out that way.

PV may be the company name, mark, or somesuch.

Z87+ is an ANSI standard for face protection.

The following link is to a manufacturer who explains some recent changes in the standard, which is the best thing I could find that explains what it is.

http://www.bullard.com/Industrial/ansiZ87.shtml

Am I wrong to think this conversation has become a matter of "if we mess with the definition enough, we can get 'telepathy' to mean something that exists"?

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate.

 

I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass. Thus they appear to cover more space in a shorter amount of time. The resulting distance gained is quickly lost by the satellite as the denser object expands too fast for it to escape.

Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

The interior of Earth is significantly denser than the material on its surface. If denser material expands faster, why has the crust not been broadly split?

What are the differences in rate of expansion, by mass?

Given the rate of expansion you claim through via "objects are smaller in the distance" idea, if there is a difference in rate of expansion by density, shouldn't we have already run out of atmosphere, and the vastly denser Earth has out-expanded it?

So, how does this "model" explain orbits? Everything expanding at one another wouldn't accelerate mass already in motion away from more mass.

EDIT: Also, why do helium balloons float rather than expand 'till they touch the earth?

For everyone who wants to inch into matter-expansion, please refer to this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

 

And read the entire thing, and we will discuss it from there. Barrage of anti-thesis is boring when you could just take something into consideration. And, no, it isn't just on me to apply mathematics to the theory, its on all of humanity to do so. And yes, philosophy is pretty much the reason I know that a bunch of idiots on this forum are failing to answer how things appear to converge in the distance by answering that they appear to converge in the distance. No, it is because light diverges, and no one is explaining that. And no it isn't geometry, it is theoretical physics. Glad everyone thinks its a bunch of pseudo-science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You probably need to be a little more specific, and basically don't ask me this question when you have a point to make, just make the point. This isn't a game where you think you beat me, or you get a prize for winning, just put across an argument. Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

I think this is the "argument from snottiness' fallacy.

Whatever. That's a load of poupe.

Pardon me, Sir, do youhave any Grey Poupeon?

I'm handling all this on another thread here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

You offer no evidence in that post. You don't address the question of where the energy is coming from to keep all this rapidly expanding matter bound to itself. That is: Why aren't electrons peeling away from their protons? If the smaller particles are expanding too, what's keeping them bound? If everything from the quantum to the cosmological is all expanding, how could we detect it?

More importantly, you've not answered the question: "Is there any evidence we could produce for you that would convince you that it's all just geometry?"

(thanks to Jill for correcting my spelling).

This is why I recommend a philosophy over any science.

Unfortunate for you, then, that this is a science forum.

Can you offer the slightest evidence that matter is expanding? Especially at the rate necessary to produce the effects you are claiming. How is the matter remaining bound as it expands? That requires energy - where's the new energy coming from?

So, is there any evidence we can show you that would convince you of the geometry involved?

Behavior - especially social behavior - and intelligence aren't all that intertwined.

If this genius chimp happens to have an intelligence that allows him or her to be a better manipulator of social structures, then said chimp will be very successful. If the intelligence is more focused on tool building, then his or her social instincts are going to be the decider in success within the troupe.

If the chimp's social instincts are significantly divergent, then he or she is going to fail within the troupe - unless the intelligence gives him or her the ability to grasp the social structure and imitate or manipulate it. SImilarly, if the chimp is of lesser intellect, his social skills will still be the primary measure of success unless he or she is incapable of learning "cultural" behavior.

In short, the particular skills of the new intelligence have some effect on the chimp's success in the troupe, but his or her social skills will be paramount.

Is this really non-mainstream? It's probably more likely that the people who frequent the forum don't know much about space-time.

Well, that's easy enough to clear up. Fetch some independent, peer-reviewed articles studying the phenomena that backs up your interpretation.

Also, here's a robot's "impressionable bar":

====================================

Here it is with a dark object in the distance:

====================================

(No differentiating of the light, because there's no lens to focus it.)

Here it is with the dark object closer:

************************************

(Less light, but still no differentiation.)

With he object practically touching (assuming the object is roughly cylindrical):

=----*****8888888MMMM888888*****----=

(Finally, some differentiation, as the light is partially blocked by the object and partly let by.)

Now, that's with "ambient light" - light reflecting off many surfaces.

However, if we back-light the object with a single bright point of light (like a bright light-bulb);

Here's the object at a distance, as seen by the "impressionable bar":

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888

As it gets closer:

===8888888888888MMMMM88888888888888===

Very close:

================8MMM8===============

Do the experiment - In a dark room with a single desk lamp on, cast your hand's shadow on the wall. See how the shadow gets "larger" when it's closer to the bulb, and "smaller" as it approaches the wall. With the wall representing the "impressionable bar".

Similarly, do the experiment outside in sunlight. There will be no shadow until you are very close to the wall, and it will appear "larger" than your hand until it's almost in contact.

omg omg it's an administrator!

you must be in real trouble NOW.... runnnnnnn!

Stay calm, don't look the admin in the eyes - avert your eyes. Keep your head low, and slowly back away from the administrator.

I'm a take a guess at the answer (Full disclosure: I'm quite ignorant of physics and cosmology.). The universe appears to be expanding only because light naturally redshifts (a frequency shift due to a reduction in energy) over vast distances. This is caused by light bumping into "dark matter" that absorbs a small portion of the photon's energy and converts it to gravity.

Yeah.

That's the ticket.

Let me draw you a second picture.

It's all about the lens in the eye and how it refracts light.

Neveos: Your field of view is conical.

Let me draw you a picture...

The best example of this phenomenon is actually Mythbusters.

Good science makes sucky TV, but explodey science makes great TV. Same thing for sci-fi. (Or SyFy... whatever.)

A shameless attempt to use an "intelligence" word rather than a "laws of nature" word. But, consider this: you too are a complex process bound by the very same laws of nature. You would say your goal was to answer me, but couldn't I equally say that it was simply an effect of photons entering your eye and your previous state?

Well, I do consider determinism to be at the heart of the emergent phenomenon called "mind".

However, intelligence does require forethought - and in turn experience/memory, and the ability to make connections between those memories internally or simply without other influence.

There is zilch evidence for the above, and no need for it in order to explain speciation. So, the best conclusion at this point: Evolution isn't intelligent.

Why "goal" and not "effect", Mr. Skeptic?

Anyone in the right place with the right 'scope going to watch this?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091008-nasa-moon-bombing-lcross-water-crash.html

theoretically, yes..but in reality, no.. any mutation comes at a price, and some mutation don't pay their price right away, but afterwards when they come in conjunction with another mutation (which also wouldn't be beneficial, and hence a waste, but combined with the previous one it pays off)..

oh come on, you should know what logical fallacy that's supposed to called, you're good at naming them..

 

in a world where everyone wants to get smaller, and not bigger, yes, the wire mesh would be intelligent.

 

evolution does play the description of intelligence and the meaning it correlates to in our world very well..in our world, intelligence is how complex are the means something can devise to reach good or avoid bad, not big and small..

 

but what you said was something of a moment of enlightenment to how you guys think evolution is without a direction...and the experience is...twistedly wicked.

There is no fallacy to name.

My analogy is simple (as analogies tend to be): The mesh is the environment, and the grain size is a phenotype. The mesh makes no decisions, doesn't think about what size of grain might fit through it, and otherwise does nothing that is associated with intelligence. It's simply a condition of environment.

You keep trying to include value judgments in the natural selection process - this is an entity that is not necessary to explain speciation, nor is there evidence to support such an entity. As such, it should be discarded.

Perpetual motion is impossible.

many mutations are not beneficial in them selves, but when combined with another mutation that comes afterwards, they become beneficial..so what made the trait survive the first "round" of natural selection to team up with the second trait and become useful?

keeping the good changes and rejecting the bad is intelligent.

So, I want to take this bunch of sand I have and keep the smaller particles and reject the larger. So, I run it through a fine wire mesh.

The mesh selects for the smaller particles of sand, and rejects the larger.

The wire mesh is intelligent, by your argument.

You're ignoring that a person is aware that they are considering another's point of view. It does not blur the boundaries of "I" and "Other" to consider an external point of view.

In short, no matter how well one can "put one's self in another's shoes", you never become that other person - subjectively or objectively - unless you're having an episode of some sort of schizoid reality dysphoria or separation.

Where it's true that we are a part of a universe without any separation from it, and in that the objective demarcation between "I" and "Other" is not as clear cut as we'd like to think, we still have our clear, if subjective, demarcations that we follow as a matter of the way our brains function. "I" am never "Other", unless things go wrong.