toastywombel

Nature is often violent, Man is often violent. Simple enough.

I have heard a lot about it and I read the wikipedia article, but could you explain exactly what eucalyptus does, in laymen's terms lol. From what I have read it allows software data on one system to be used by everyone in the cloud? Instead of it having to be on a server?

True, sorry for going off topic. But I think it has more to do with history, I am not arguing on a religious standpoint. To prevent controversy I'll stay off this topic. Sounds like an interesting book though, would I be able to find it at a local bookstore such as B&N or Borders?

To my knowledge there are very few references to Jesus outside of religious texts. There are a couple references in the old Jewish Records, referring to a character called Yeshu, who fits some of the descriptions of Jesus. Could anyone talk me down on this subject? lol

True true, I notice it runs really really clean. I think the problem is that flash probably has not come out with a complete version for Karmic yet. I am depending on it getting better with time as more people work on the bugs. I noticed the scroll lag with firefox was gone, and this was why I initially started using opera. So I guess I'll take the good with the bad. I remember someone, one of the moderators, said a while back that this site is hosted off of the desktop edition and not the server edition. My question is what program/software do you use to do that.

Here is the frame of reference you were maybe looking for, I got it off of this website http://www.davidparker.com/janine/nucleus.html. It is referring to Rutherford's model of the atom. " Rutherford used his theory to estimate the size of the nucleus. He found it was less than 6 X 10^-14, or 0.00000000000006 meters across. Today we know it is about a fifth that size. The atom is about 10^-10 meters across, nearly 10,000 times the size of the nucleus. The nucleus fills less than a billionth of the atom's volume. Here was a picture of the atom nobody had imagined--a vast, nearly empty space with a tiny charged sphere in the center. If the nucleus were the size of a marble, then the atom would be nearly one kilometer (0.6 mile), across. Somewhere in that space were even tinier electrons. In a few strokes of the pen, Rutherford had transformed the solid world around us into empty space. " Hope this helps

I am curious to if anyone has tried it out and what they think about it. I have to say it has some great features, but I am somewhat disappointed. Mostly because opera does not work really at all with flash in karmic.

As far as we know your definition of a classical vacuum does not exist in the universe. There are virtual particles.

I am curious as to how to did a double slit experiment with one photon? How did you observe that there was only one photon? If you did observe it there would obviously be more than one photon in the environment you were experimenting in, or else you would not of seen anything.

Many scientists use to believe that the quantum world is full of empty space, but our view of empty space is starting to change. Especially since the concepts of virtual-particles that really took-off with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. It is believed that empty space is not nothing, its more an expression of an anti-particle, particle pair. These are called virtual pairs. Here are some links, the first one about hawking radiation the second about virtual pairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle Finally, I don't know for sure but I am leaning to believe that your scales of atoms and subatomic particles are in-accurate. I always thought that the atoms nuclei were much bigger than the scale you mentioned, compared to electrons, and that electrons are much further away from the nuclei than the scale you used. I do not know for sure and I am in somewhat of a hurry so I'll leave that to someone else. Hope this helps!

What do you mean it was the most correct answer. Many Worlds is an interpretation of quantum physics partly based on Feynman's Sum of Histories (lol gotta defend my viewpoint). But. . . If you look at the original post Rusty was asking about what theory referred to parallel universes because he is mentioning it in his book. The answer he wanted was obviously the Many Worlds Interpretation. No one was trying to answer which interpretation is more accurate. And who are you to decide the Many Worlds Interpretation is a weakness of some physicists? Are you not aware of the three interpretations of quantum physics. There are three schools of thought on the subject and although Multi-Worlds is not the most accepted (Copenhagen most likely is), it seems from reading your previous posts about "virtual particles" that you are really trying to stir-up trouble with your somewhat out-dated views on quantum mechanics. Read the original post before replying.

One obvious fallacy, that I would like to point out and end on, is that fox often puts out is that the United States is a "center-right country". According to their logic Obama is the most liberal president ever, and the democrats have huge majorities in the house and senate. If the United States is so "center-right" how is it that the more liberal party controls all the elected portions of our Government. Furthermore, the Democrats didn't just eak out a win last election they shellacked the Republicans. Another final point to make against the "center-right country" argument that fox puts out. These are the numbers of registered voters and their party affiliation 63 million registered Democrats 47 million registered Republicans 32 million registered Independents or other affiliation to a minor party. The previous stats are from USA Today, and Here is a differing set of stats given by WikiAnswers: 'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.' 'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.' http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_Democrats_are_there_in_the_US http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/neuharth/neu057.htm Doesn't look center-right to me.

Fox is not a news organization, neither is MSNBC. They are both political opinion channels. The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that MSNBC does not label its snake poison as vitamin tonic, if you can understand that analogy. Let me explain: MSNBC- The Place for Politics FOX News- Fair and Balanced You see fox in its slogan and title suggests they are a news organization and that they are fair and balanced, when it is obvious from their entire line-up that Fox is not news and even if they reported honest news they are certainly not fair and balanced. Your World With Neil Cavuto (right wing) Glenn Beck (crazy right wing) Special Report With Bret Baier (right wing with a dash of watered down left wing sometimes) Fox Report with Shepard Smith (right wing in the bases that it selects conservative-friendly news stories) O'Reilly Factor (right wing) Hannity (right wing) Notice there is no liberal or progressive voice on the entire line up. Furthermore look at the list of the major Fox contributors. Karl Rove (right wing) Michelle Malkin (right wing) Fred Barnes (right wing) Billy Crystol (right wing) Oliver North (right wing and an involved party in the Iran Contra Scandal) Megyn Kelly (right wing) Steve Dooci (right wing) John Bolton (right wing) Steve Forbes (right wing free-marketeer) Ann Coulter (right wing) You can find a full list of all Fox News Anchors and contributors at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_programming#Personalities These are all noted Fox News contributers. It may be possible to debate whether Fox is news, but it is obvious that they are heavily polarized, even more so than MSNBC, not to say that MSNBC does not have a slant, but they do not claim to be "fair and balanced" or "the place for real journalism". Instead MSNBC uses a more appropriate slogan "the place for politics".

These particles do exist as said previously in the post. This is how black holes give off thermal radiation. Have you ever read any Hawking?

Its not about biased or unbiased its about credibility. I do not think that the majority of the scientific community would find Rixon (who believes Obama is part of the occult) or PLIM (who believes 911 was a sign that Armageddon is upon us). Furthermore the study you cited is not even a study, they are reports from a religious retreat. That is hardly scientific.

I decided to do some research into the "study" that you listed. Maybe it would help if you found a study that was not funded and conducted by members of the Universalist National Memorial Church. It is somewhat a conflict of interest. Especially considering these are their goals as stated on their website: "We create a loving community for worship and service in the spirit of Jesus Christ. We welcome all and respect individual beliefs as we grow together." This study is not peer-reviewed or published either, it is essentially part of a PLIM Retreat Report, and PLIM is a not a very credible source either. This is also from their website: "PLIM INC is a a 501c(3) nonprofit, metaphysical, philosophical, biblical, research, and educational organization." Furthermore here is the link to the groups website: http://www.plim.org/indexgraphic.htm After reading just a little bit from their website it is easy to see PLIM is not a credible scientific source. According to my opinion they even seem a little crazy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne more thing, I noticed on the original post you cited Rixon Stuart. Here is a link to his website so that the members of this forum can take a quick look. I think most, like me will conclude he is somewhat off the deep end. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10440 It is important to take in knowledge from more credible sources and not crazy conspiracy theorists.

No I did get it lol

There have been some physicists who believe that the way particles appear to us is dictated by our sub-conscious (Kaku and others), Although I would agree that Psychology and Neruobiology explain super natural phenomenon better, if we were able to link the sciences of the brain with quantum physics it would have some very interesting implications.

Lol, fair point, you were just stating your opinion in opposition to mine. We'll I concur, I guess we will have to wait for Rusty to tell us. My argument though is that both of our responses are correct to a degree. I apologize for getting so upset.

Well to say that its not true is rather ridiculous. I said "I think you are referring to Richard Feynman's Sum Over Histories". To imply that that statement is not true at all is to imply that you know what I think. You could argue that you don't think that, that was what Rusty was referring to but to imply that my statement is dishonest is rather insulting. Plus when he said "if it can happen, it does happen, but in parallel universes" the part up until but has much to do with Feynman's Postulate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, you said, "Feynman's Path Integral formulation of QFT is not suggesting alternate realities. It is deeper reasoning for the principle of least action." That is true but just because that is true does not discount my argument. Although Feynman's Sum Over Histories does not suggest alternate realities, the Many Worlds Interpretation is an interpretation of the implications of Feynman's Postulate. Feynman's Sum Over Histories said that State A reaches State B by every possible path or history and because of that the amplitude of a specific set of events is the product of the amplitudes of all possible events. Rusty: "If it can happen, it does happen." Feynman: "State A reaches State B by every possible path or history" Now compare those two statements how can you say that I am completely wrong? I would conclude that we are both right to a degree, both Feynman's Postulate and the Many Worlds Interpretation have to do with what Rusty was talking about.

what specifically in my post is not true at all? tell me. Rusty said: "'If there is a probability that something can happen then, it does happen but in parallel universes.'" up until the "but" part has to do with Feynman's Sum Over Histories. The parallel universes part has to do with many worlds. Furthermore the many worlds interpretation is in-part based of Feynman's Sum Over Histories. I did not say anything in-accurate in my post.

I think you are referring to Richard Feynman's Sum Over Histories. A system gets from "state A" to "state B" by every possible path or history. Its also known as Path Integral Formulation or Sum over Paths, and it is a description of quantum theory. A sound description too, it is accepted by many physicists and mathematicians, including Stephen Hawking. Here are some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/spotlights/path_integrals/index.html From wikipedia: "Feynman's approach is often used to explain in words the seemingly bizarre conclusions derived by mathematics and experimental results, in particular the famous double slit experiment, which was a starting point for the investigation of quantum mechanics (and is often a starting point for students of physics)." Hope this helps Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedmore information from the third link I posted above: This refers to a proof for the Feynman Interpretation. This interpretation is essential to quantum mechanics as we know it. "There's even an exact proof, found by two mathematical physicists, Konrad Osterwalder from Switzerland and the German Robert Schrader: They proved a theorem showing that the properties of a quantum theory formulated in the space-time of special relativity can indeed be reconstructed exactly by using the Feynman recipe on an imaginary-time version of that same space-time."

Thats like me saying look I solved 1/0. Then when everyone says I am wrong, I respond saying, well I know, but at least I deserve some merit because I tried.

Oooooh, my bad lol Insane_Alien. Either way good point

Man you always gotta 1-up my explanations iNow. Lol but good to mention that the sum of the velocities is zero, very key.