GutZ

the anti fluoride proponents often remind me of this:

 

http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/08/04

Outstanding!

I try not to insult people for lack of intelligence because many people dwarf me in that subject, but that's not even trying!

[citation needed]

I can't stop laughing! make it stop. I love the humour, you don't seem to really see that here.

Awesome! thanks that solves it for me.

There is no way in hell Palin ever get elected. Even if she offered to preform oral sex on every single American (fi they choose), and have a way of carrying it out, she still would not be elected.

She has to be giving up.

C6urw_PWHYk

I like his use of the world absurd.

I am starting to get sick CNN and MJ. I go there to read some worldly news first page is covered with MJ. "In other news: Half of civilization is dead"

Yeah I gather that part, but are they actually points in space? I've been told this was an incorrect description of what space is like.

Say an electron is flying through space...Is it charged by the field? or are particles either inherently charged a specific way?

What is the difference between a field and space? Or do you actually have to create a field? Like a Electromagnetic field How does is relate in space or...lack of a better word; fit in space?

Or is it all just more of mathematical model as in it follows nature to a tee, but the physical properties are not really physical in that sense.

Werewolf biology is very underfunded due to lack anyone ever seeing one.

Yeah it's a bit much for me lol.

btw lol (laugh out loud) I say it all the time and forget not everyone is down with internet lingo.

dude! purple text = bad.

pT=b

also

(bT) + (pT) = vb

Proton:

For me not so much because I don't know when that would be relevant.

when does the cannonical momentum become crucial to add?

I'd kiss you guys...good thing this is a forum!

*dances with glee*

I still need to do some research and take a few math classes, but I am not hopeless it understand it seems.

joy.

Do waves really go on forever? So you need a wave to be in a specific eigenstate to get a precise value? (or is it more in a eigenstate when you can get a precise value) A wave a can either be localized or plain wave, and It just so happens that one state gives you precise position and the other momentum, and because you can't measure something that is in both states at once we are limited to know either one or the other precisely?

So its more an intrinsic property of the wave and not so much the instrument, that would make more sense as HUP is theorical principle, not just a limitation of technology.

Closer? lol

This peaked wave can be decomposed into a sum of lots and lots of plain waves, each of which has a well defined momentum. This is called a Fourier decomposition.

Why would it be a sum of alot of plain waves? is that because waves cancel out? Is this theoretic waves or is a peaked wave actually a sum of mulitple plain waves?

Oh is because waves or particles (and it's a particle because it's localized) are actual in all possible states at once? As in multiple plain waves? oh God wait that superposition....

I think I am jumping all over the place. I think I am just going to have to take a physics course or two.

Yeah clearly i need to read up on it more..."eigenstates" I dont even know what that is so...but thanks for clearly that up at least.

Proton let's put it this way. Say you have no carpentry skills and you ask my help with explaining it to you. Now assume I am know everything about it. Now let say I explain it to you as if you had my level of knowledge and experience with carpentry, What do you think the probability of you being able to build that deck? Remember you have like virtually no experience or knowledge.

My sole purpose was to help you build a deck, so although my skills are great I have to take into account that another person might not be. If it doesn't make progress or if the deck doesn't get built the interaction is meaningless. We tend to waste both our times.

There is goal involved. That is your goal for replying right? I see you generally want to help, but you are just making it harder on yourself as well as wasting your own time.

Thanks Severian you are the man. You the man. The whole particle thing was throwing me off...not that I totally understood everything you said but that's exactly what I need to hear.

I am all visual when it comes to thoughts. It's all pictures and videos so the particle/ wave thing was really starting to bug me because it seems like it was two different properties separate from each other.

So when it has energy that is localized it referred to as a particle. When it's diplays wave like properties is the energy distributed amongst the wave?

I am getting this?...If I could visualize this I would be to problem...so frustrating converting back and forth.

I would need a deeper understanding of both math and physics to really get the gist of what you are saying.

There is one thing you guys can clear up though is the wave/particlce duality thing

Is it really that a wave and particle are the same thing?

as in:

--wave/particle---> ]------------O-----------[

Kinda like a bead on a string?

http://www.astronomyforum.net/search.php?searchid=80053

1) http://www.astronomyforum.net/astrophysics-forum/86001-methane-implies-biology.html

2) http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41094

I wouldn't really care but it takes away from people who actually have legit questions or concerns.

It’s misleading to say that the measurement in one value affects the uncertainty in the other value. The actual situation is that the wave function determines the uncertainty and if you change the wave function so as to decrease the uncertainty then you end up changing the Fourier transform of the wave function and that results in an increase in the uncertainty of the conjugate variable.

I knew I was wrong, that it right there but I have no idea how to simplify it. Proton your knowledge is vst but you need to tone it down alittle for us to fully grasp!

I agree though to make that make sense to a laymen you probably need to make your own course worth of material.

Maybe if someone dumb down that part it might help, and you can help me understand it as well....two birds with one stone....or particle...

lol no I don't need other motivations. I would think that polluting with earth with other chemicals and such might cause an effect later on, so regardless of the debate of GW I was seeing if it was point to argue because there are potential other life threatening problems that could come about as well...

More the fact that it's just a GOOD idea not to pollute. I know NOTHING about this subject so I mean I was see if that were the case or not, assuming GW is wrong (which it probably and most like is not) Does it really matter if we pollute.

example: Maybe at our current level there are no visiable affects other than GW, but say like acid rain or something but it becomes so strong that it's becomes harmful....I dont know you can see the lack of knowledge already coming out here.

That's more my point.

P.S.

You are from Nederlands by chance? I was born there and have a dutch name (Jeroen) but I am more Canadian than anything. I do drink nothing but grolsch does that mean anything?

I am wondering (based on the assumption that CO2 increase doesn't cause GW) is it something that can affect us in other ways? If it's not global warming is there something esle.

Also are we capable especially as growth of world population increase and other parts of the world start to industrialize....

How much pollution power do we have overall?

I am not skeptical of GW, If we predict to be a great possibility of happening, even if there is missing fact or something was done wrong and an tiny error cause us to look at it different.....

Is it just better overall to just stop polluting? Do we really need GW to motivate us? Or is it more that no matter what we do the earth will adjust for our activities?

DrP

Very true, maybe I need a few more years of work to get it. I admit I probably am slightly naive (ok maybe a lot lol)

I need something like work to keep me stable, and as long as it interests me, I want to keep at it. If I retire I hope I have enough knowledge and experience by then to maybe teach. I want to see my kids do well and I am happy, beyond that I really don't need much more time.

After I think I mostly will just do stuff to keep me interested till my time is up...I've never been comfortable in with that.

I think it's just me, I am not saying it a waste of time, nothing really is as long as you get something out of it. Where as people can possibly have the best time of their life after a certain age, I don't see myself doing the same.

Fair enough, but that's how I treat all people, the same standards. The rights of lots of people to me is more important to me, than some guy who is being criticized.

Politicians have to be accountable for what they believe when they have the responsibility of governing a lot of people. That's how I feel and I would expect nothing else from myself.

To me it's not an personal attack....If it was my "team" (I don think that way) I'd still be saying the samething.

I am super critical of Obama too. Joe Biden with his views on drugs.

If you are responsible for the well being of a large population, you better be able to defend your views regardless.

No offence but we got one life, and too short to be denying basic human rights because believes it's immoral with out a solid argument for it verbal or physically.

I am a meanie

The simplest I can think of...there is no certainty in being to measure momentum or position. Once you measure one, the other becomes influenced by it and changes state of being. Something to do with waves; and their nature of collapsing when disturbed.

Don't take my word as truth though. That's how I understand which could be wrong (and most likely is). I just post because it seems people who get that first response in their thread, especially if it's wrong answer will be hounded to be corrected. Trust me

Don't you need particles to make a nuclear bomb....doesn't particle generation require a certain temperature and perimeters in order to make a stable particle?

If this is true how can the big bang be a nuclear explosion without....particles....

Did energy just decide at one point " F&$# it! I hate myself I am going to run in all directions as fast as possible for no reason what so ever!"

I am getting this right? An explosion comes from the repulsion of "something"