zapatos

I ran across an article on Daniel Kish, (National Geographic, July 2013, p. 104) who taught himself echolocation after losing both eyes to retinal cancer when he was 13 months old. According to Daniel, "Each click is like a dim camera flash. I construct a three-dimensional image of my surroundings for hundreds of feet in every direction. Up close, I can detect a pole an inch thick. At 15 feet, I recognize cars and bushes. Houses come into focus at 150 feet." I found this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kish And this YouTube video of him riding a bike.

Why do I get the feeling that Windevoid is simply trolling?

Can you explain what you mean? It sounds like you are saying that 'you will see motion that is not moving'.

Hahahaha. That was great.

I am implying that you could be tricked, dreaming, hallucinating, mistaken, part of a simulation, misunderstanding, or any number of other things that could keep you from being 100% certain.

My in-laws have a cabin on a river way out in the country. It has running water, electricity, a bathroom, and is furnished with all of the junk no one would want to have in their own homes. Basically it is one step above sleeping in a tent. The cabin was broken into several times a year, requiring repairs of broken windows and the like each time. I wondered how he could possibly stop that from happening. His solution was to keep the doors unlocked and put up a sign that read "Unlocked. Please close door on your way out." People still enter periodically, but since there is nothing worth stealing, the only change for my father-in-law was that he no longer had to replace broken windows.

I mean the ability of one person to believe something, to be able to teach those beliefs to another, and for that other to understand and remember what they are taught. Orangutangs cannot do that, and at one time neither could our ancestors. But of course you don't know that your scenario is correct and that mine is wrong. It just seems more plausible to you. The real reason could be mine, it could be yours, or it could be something else altogether. That is why I said "You need to be careful when trying to find an explanation in evolution for a particular behavior or attribute." Just because something seems more likely does not mean that it is true.

You need to be careful when trying to find an explanation in evolution for a particular behavior or attribute. Sometimes the behavior is simply a by-product of something else. For example, you can look all you want, but you are not likely to find a link between our ability to play basketball and evolutionary pressures that derived on the basketball court. Meaning, we are not tall and quick so that we can play basketball, but rather we can play basketball because we are tall and quick. Racism may not exist because of the obvious possible reasons such as 'tribes' or 'differences'. It may come from something totally unrelated, such as our ability to convey beliefs. Similarly, our tendency to be theists may come from the fact that some dolt 10,000 years ago was the first person able to teach his children what he believed in (gods) and it has been passed down ever since.

I of course have no idea what they are since we don't know what is required for life other than our own. However, if comets are your concern, perhaps there are planets without a Jupiter like planet where life simply starts later in the evolution of their stellar system, when impacts are less frequent. Perhaps life evolves on larger planets where comet impacts are not global catastrophes, but local catastrophes. Perhaps stellar systems form in such a way that comets are not nearly as common as in our system. Regarding weather mediation, perhaps life develops in areas of planets where wild swings in weather are naturally mediated, such as beneath the surface of the planet. Perhaps you are right that Jupiter like planets and large moons like ours are required, but have we looked at all the other possible alternatives?

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that planets with intelligent life are likely to be rare based on the evidence that we would not be here without the moon and Jupiter. You seem to be making the assumption that a large moon and Jupiter like planet are somehow required for intelligent life. There could be millions of different configurations that are conducive to life and evolution.

You can never be 100% certain you moved from A to B. However, using GPS should instill a great deal of confidence.

I am trying to see things from your point of view but I cannot get my head that far up my ass. -Unknown

AFAIK, that is correct. Yes. Basically, yes. The reason for the qualifier is because other factors may be in play (as long as we are just speculating). For example, remember that the distance between us and distant galaxies is increasing not because the distant galaxies are moving through space away from us, but because the amount of space between us is increasing. Let's say a galaxy is one billion light years from us when it begins to shine. Because the space between us is increasing, the light may end up traveling two billion light years to get to us (and of course, it will have taken two billion years). So (back to the speculation about the sudden change of direction of the distant galaxy from 'away' to 'towards') if its sudden reversal of direction is due to the 'contraction' of space (although I just made that up as the opposite of 'expansion'), the light may have to travel less than one billion light years to get to us, and thus we will see its blue shift in less than one billion years.

It is important to remember that distant galaxies are not moving away quickly (compared to nearby galaxies), but instead the distance between us and is increasing at a high rate. If you were on that distant galaxy looking toward the Milky Way, you would notice that the galaxies near to you do not appear to be receding rapidly, but those at a great distance, such as the Milky Way, DO appear to be receding a rapidly. Which ones are receding quickly and which ones are receding slowly is completely dependent on your vantage point.

I don't know what that means. Can you elaborate? Based on most definitions of 'universe', there is nothing outside our universe. Our universe contains everything there is. I don't mean to sound flippant, but what if mole men live under my finger nails? Unless you have some evidence to believe something is true, 'what if' is just a game.

ACG52 answered that in post #4.

I'll address some of your questions but I'm a bit concerned that you might lose the forest for the trees. Be sure the keep the overall structure of the universe in mind when you are trying to understand the details. The universe is similar everywhere. We are not in a unique position where we are near the 'young' part and further away is the 'old' part. We are not in the middle, or on the edge. The way things look from here are the way things look from elsewhere. Stars, galaxies, and other structures are forming, changing, and dying, everywhere at the same time. Nothing happens here that doesn't also happen elsewhere. The complexity comes in because the universe is LARGE, and that affects our observations. (I am leaving out complexities due to expansion, etc.) The further away you look, the older the light is. The universe is the same age everywhere. Imagine your friend in California takes a picture of his child and sends it to you. Snail mail being what it is, you receive the picture 10 years later. You are seeing the child as he was 10 years ago. Same thing with the distant galaxy. We are seeing a picture of the galaxy as it was when the light was sent to us. Sure. Galaxies form throughout the universe. Some form sooner than others. Some of the earlier formed galaxies are near us, as are some of the later formed galaxies. That statement is a bit confusing for me. If we want to study examples of the early universe we need to look at distant parts of the universe. The further away we look, the older the light. The older the light, the closer it was to the beginning of the universe. Further means older light because it took longer to get here, and that is how we are able to see the universe as it was near its birth, when it was quite young.

That is not accurate. You need to remember to make the distinction between the age of a galaxy, and the age of the light from that galaxy that we are seeing now. The light from a distant galaxy has been traveling toward us for a longer period of time than the light from a nearby galaxy. Therefore, the light we are seeing from the distant galaxy is older than the light we are seeing from a nearby galaxy. That does not necessarily mean that the age of the distant galaxy is greater than the age of the nearby galaxy. Galaxies started forming throughout the entire universe at the same time. There are galaxies nearby to us that are older than galaxies far from us, and vice versa. When we look at more distant galaxies, what we are seeing is older light. The same would hold true for someone in a distant galaxy. When we look at them we see light that has been traveling to us for, say, 12 billion years. When they look at us, they see light that has been traveling toward them for 12 billion years. Our galaxies may be the exact same age.

The Hubble II will take us back to a point in time (just after the Big Bang), not a point in space. You can look in any direction to see back to the point in time just after the Big Bang.

It seems the socks and the pens may be meeting up for clandestine liaisons! "Ever wish you could take your favorite pen and use it for both a pen and a stylus, without having to spend an arm and a leg? Well, now you can with The Fylus Pen Sock. Simply slip The Fylus Pen Sock over the end of your pen and instantly turn your pen into a stylus. It really is that simple!"

I think the Comments on Moderation thread is a great idea. It is nice to know what you are thinking.

My dad taught me to not buy something until I needed it. If you buy the extra set of refills you are just as likely to lose the pen or find a better one, and not need the refills anymore. I never took his advice. My house is filled with items in their original packaging that I have no way to use.

Ah yes, that seems likely. Probably selling cosmetics or something. Thanks.

Nearly every day I receive notifications that someone (Adannarib, eljbepuqejevu) has replied to the thread 'real beauty', a thread in which I participated. As far as I can tell though, no one has responded to that thread since 05-Jun-2013.