BhavinB

Label the three sides of a triange as A, B, C

if I know A=30 and B=8, what is C?

Although evolution has been said to be a mechanism for increasing 'information', saying it is intelligent might be a stretch.

I am not asking about the start to life. I am asking after some life is already started ,how does evolution work from then on?

I know what you're asking dunsapy. But you're incorrect again...it does not matter how evolution started to show that it exists.

I thought this thread was about evolution (and specifically about natural selection)....not about abiogenesis.

I hope dunsapy realizes the difference.

Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint.

If this analogy were to work, something would have to play the role of natural selection.

I'd like to also point out obvious errors in your statements on DNA. It has been shown time and time again that our DNA is far from efficiently encoded. It has also been shown that our DNA is quite similar to that of many other animals. It has been shown that DNA modification in chicken eggs can cause the appearance of 'dinosaur like' qualities in the resulting fetus (such as scales and teeth). It has been shown that vertabrate fetuses have their information drawn from the same region of DNA during growth (always), no matter the vertebrate animal.

These are all evidence FOR common ancestry. Coupled with the fossil record which clearly shows a trail of common ancestry and change, the case for evolution is RIDICULOUSLY STRONG.

Your hand waving claim that there is no evidence merely means you are not a scientist, don't truly understand science and don't know (or want to know) the mountain of research which supports evolution.

RF analyzer + RF generator + computer interface and programming?

I suppose thats true...but most people interpret it as the other way around. A square wave is composed of many sine waves.

The distinction is important because sine waves are eigenvectors or linear time invariant systems (applicable to ALOT of things) but square waves are not.

As to the OPs question: Swansont's answer is correct.

actually it does, and is used quite frequently in Photography, color temp is measured in Kelvin.

here`s a few references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

This is not an answer to the question asked.

The only reason colors are sometimes measured in temperature is because of the peak light emission of a blackbody.

This relates back to particles of mass and not photons. Photons themselves have no temperature.

They have energy, which is proportional to frequency, but not temperature. Temperature is derived from an average kinetic energy of atoms, so it doesn't really apply to a single particle.

even an ensemble of photons don't have the property of 'temperature'

I don't believe such a concept exists.

I believe this is a common issue. There are sometimes floating items inside the eye which is probably what you're talking about. Go see an optometrist.

But you can't see atoms.

We don't know almost anything for sure about Dark Energy. However, this is a very highly regarded theory.

Strange how that is though. I hope cosmologists and astronomers understand the tentative nature of these theories.

You mean lie?

LOL, yes.

Are you in research? You have no idea the fudging I have to do to explain 'what I do'.

Let alone the total misrepresentation I have to spout just to get a girl at a party to not run away.

More practically though, scientists / engineers don't seem to realize how others view what we consider as easy to understand. Perhaps it stems from a social naiveness.

What IA said. What else could it be? "Random crashes while doing things" are the very hallmark of driver-related issues. That's always either heat, lack of power, bad hardware, or buggy drivers.

 

I agree with the posts above -- load Ubuntu or Windows XP (whatever you've got drivers for) and see if the same computer produces the same problems. If it does, it was obviously a conflict between Vista and its drivers, and you'll already have the problem solved.

So ironic that everyone wanted better developed, more secure drivers and now that Vista requires that, it causes its own downfall.

Though other than my Outlook 2007 crashing every other day, I have absolutely no issues with Vista...I actually enjoy it more than XP.

The basic problem is you will never get a physicist to say "zero" when he/she can say "extremely small."

It's time we learnt how to speak to the media

Perhaps its important to note that Micro Black holes themselves are an unproven concept.

So, so, many "if's".

how about using Paschen's Curve?

http://www.duniway.com/images/pdf/pg/Paschen-Curve.pdf

I'm not exactly sure how this setup can use a relatively cheap and available lens and huge spotlight which loses alot of its output because all of it can't be focused (its bigger than the lens and divergence is higher than the NA of the lens).

You will lose quite a bit of that 1000W because it won't be within the numerical aperture of the lens. It's easier to do this experiment using a mode-locked high-power laser but that depends on your budget.

side side note: and that`s why Diamonds don`t conduct at all

Side side side note: don't conduct at room temperatures or typical voltages / power (see diamond electronic devices)

It's subtely connected to Entropy...basically saying entropy changes in a system restrict the engine from transferring all its energy into work.

yes you can. it is for one necessary in order for evolution to be able to have given us emotions. second a mouse never works anything out. there is a saying fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. well you can fool a mouse as many times as you want and it will never figure out it is being fooled, it will only be conditioned to longer act that way, and i'm not even sure if that will happen with a mouse.

Statement: If you can fool a mouse multiple times at it still doesn't get it, it is not self aware.

Statement: But monkeys and dolphins can be self-aware.

Hypothesis: If a monkey can be fooled multiple times without it figuring out its predicament, then a monkey, like the mouse is not self-aware.

Evidence: suppose I show an experiment where a monkey is tricked many times into doing something.

Re-assessment: Either the initial statement that monkeys are self-aware is incorrect or the definition of self-awareness is incorrect.

So now the question becomes...if I can find even one slight example of such evidence, what does this mean to you?

I think really, it just means your definition is incorrect and your claim is incorrect. There is no animal on this planet that is smarter than the cunning human so really there is no animal that stands to your definition.

in what way do you think they are different?

 

I know, your reaction is common. some people can get really upset if I say this to them, like telling a religious person god doesn't exist.

 

the simplest solutions are generally the best.

 

I challenge you to find an instance where an animal (not one known for intelligence like monkeys or dolphins) is capable of acting against its emotions. your pet will never learn to trust you. if they fear heights they will never trust you not to drop them even if you have never dropped them before, and their fighting you may cause you to drop them. the only way to get them to act differently from what their emotions tell them is to change their emotions.

Wow...that was an extremely long reply to my two lines.

Really, your argument is so far ranging and definite, with no room for specifics that it can only be incorrect.

Can we predict most animal's behaviour in most situations? Ofcourse...they are merely simple beasts.

Can we say they NEVER act against their normal instinct? Most definitely not.

you can never argue to know that an animal is not making a decision and rather working on just 'programming'.

self-aware and consciousness are different things in my opinion.

Either way, I believe your over-simplification does little justice to the complexity of an animals brain.

brain activity is not sufficient for self awareness. many animals display brain activity yet are not self-aware. you would need this sort of equipment in order to perform tests that could establish self-awareness.

I'm not sure what you mean by self-aware. I've read all the posts and the definition seems not specific enough or incorrect.

For example, a mouse can know when food (appealing to its 'emotions') is in a dangerous location (can cause pain). Doesn't this imply it is self-aware?