Phi for All

Chill my man, it's safe but John Titor's got the keys! Unless I like misunderstood the question? Bare ass me again!

Okay, so you're like making out with Madonna, Whoa! (air guitar!), in the past, and suddenly she like gets into the Kabbalah and wants you to call her Esther in the present (BOGUS! Like who makes out with a chick named Esther?), and you're thinking, "Dude, if you slip her the tongue now (snicker, elbow), what'll she want in the future when she gets into like Scientology?", then what was time doing? Did it party on in the same direction or did it rock in ways we cannot comprehend? Excellent question!

 

(Swirly dream sequence) BRANES WORLD! BRANES WORLD! Party on, dude! (Fade the swirlies and cue reality) Excellent!

I'm, like, totally charmed by the rockin' idea that you proposed about each of the 3 dimensions being able to party on in like the past, present and future, dude! This would mean that Time would like have fixed axes for movement in each dimension, like wouldn't it? But if temporal movement in the past was backward, and movement in the future was forward, like which way would you party in the present? Chuh, its like boggling my tiny mind, dude!

These forums are pretty boring alot of the time because nobody seems to have much of a sense of humour. So my new rule here is always go for the laugh.

Go here to see the Official Jokes section of SF. It was YT's idea and one of his best!

 

When you've picked yourself off the floor, come back to this thread though!

YT, I was hoping you'd say, "Way!"

I believe you are referring to "braneworld" scenarios.

I am. Has there been any correlation between higher dimensions and parallel universes?

 

I guess there really is no answer to my original question about the functions of higher dimensions, since they are completely theoretical and are only required to make the maths work in string theory. I can also theorize, based on what perspective the third dimension gives the first two, that each successive dimension is dependent on those beneath it to make it necessary. The fact that our eyes are not made to view above the third spatial is easily acceptable to me. Might there be ways of perceiving higher dimensions other than visually or mathematically?

forgive my imature outburst there

No way!

Since space=time and space is multi-dimensional, it makes sense to me that there is no need for multiple temporal dimensions.

 

Where would parallel universes fit in? I've read recently that GR is thought to be spread across parallel universes and thus is weakened when localized to our own universe. Greene also suggested this in The Elegant Universe.

All countries and all people can do it, but because it is inconvenient, they let the road be used and don't let it cure as soon as it has been finished.

This is what I have the biggest problem with. Our need for convenience plays right into the hands of those who stand to profit most by having bad roads. We pay so much more than we need to. We all know that we are capable of doing it the right way, the smart and efficient way that will give us value for our taxes as well as Autobahn-like roads to drive on, but we get sold (out?) on convenience.

 

Have any of you ever driven on the Autobahn and experienced true road engineering excellence? Makes my nipples hard just thinking about it!

 

For the last six years, every time I see American road workers leaning on their shovels or swerve to miss a pothole or hear about how many millions my state is planning on spending on roads this year (our governor is a former road builder), I get so angry and frustrated. To me, this is the true definition of road rage.

Definitely, although it might be really inconvenient not being able to get into your garage. I don't think your driveway is going to get the kind of traffic that normal roads do that cause so much deterioration.

I could be wrong here, but I think invisiblebrain's original question was meant to ask us where our ethics would lead us were we to be faced with a situation where our patriotism conflicted with our spiritual beliefs.

 

For instance, what would you do if a member of al-Qaeda bombed a building you were in. No one else was hurt but you are trapped beneath some wreckage. The terrorist then enters the building, pulls you from the wreckage and saves your life, explaining that this was the first time he'd done something like that and realizes now he was misguided. He asks that you forgive him and not report him to the authorities if he agrees to leave al-Qaeda if he can.

 

Do you forgive him if your spirituality tells you he is repentant and let him go free, or do you report him as an enemy of your country, following the laws of your nation?

"Find a penny, pick it up, and all the day, you`ll have good luck"

My mom used to say that. She understood that Life is in the details. Thanks for making my day YT!

 

Has anyone ever found something besides money (cool shades, expensive pen, etc) that had no apparent owner that they kept or were tempted to keep?

Medieval? That's c. 500-1450 AD.

 

When were the mid-range planets discovered? I know the Dutch didn't invent the telescope until 1600' date=' but we can see Mars and Venus with the naked eye. What about Mercury and Jupiter?[/quote']Apparently the ancient Greeks knew about the planets out to Saturn. They still placed Earth at the center, but they were able to observe the planets without telescopes. Here is one reference for now, http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec02.html, and I'll post more after I get some other work done.

1.religeon

 

2.nation

 

so when it gets between these two choices what should a person choose?

what about individualism? i dont care what nation i'm from. i am a freelance philosopher.

The original question in the thread doesn't allow for individualism. It asks for opinion based on limited choices.

I'll check my references, but I've seen orreries that were represented as medieval that had both Mercury and Jupiter.

In medieval times, "scientists" had long ago realized how absurd the flat-Earth theory was. They had studied EVERYTHING and came to the undeniable conclusion that Earth was round. Then they built orreries, a physical depiction of the solar system much like a mobile to show how the sun and the planets interacted with the Earth. What was at the very center of the orrery that these scientists had constructed with their state of the art technology? The Earth, with the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter all orbiting around us, the center of the universe.

 

We are convinced as a species that what is good for us is good for the universe. Until we wise up, we put our whole ecology at risk, mostly for our own convenience.

A man in a bar has a couple of beers, and the bartender tells him he owes $4.

 

"But I paid, don't you remember?" says the customer.

 

"Okay," says the bartender, "If you said you paid, you did."

 

The man then goes outside and tells the first person he sees that the bartender can't keep track of whether his customers have paid.

 

The second man then rushes in, orders a beer and later pulls the same stunt.

 

The barkeep replies, "If you say you paid, I'll take your word for it."

 

Soon the customer goes into the street, sees an old friend, and tells him how to get free drinks.

 

The man hurries into the bar and begins to drink high-balls when, suddenly, the bartender leans over sand says, "You know, a funny thing happened in here tonight. Two men were drinking beer, neither paid and both claimed that they did. The next guy who tries that is going to get punched right in the nose."

 

"Don't bother me with your troubles," the final patron responds. "Just give me my change and I'll be on my way."

That is different then just finding a dollar on the sidewalk. I'd pick up a dollar if nobody was around and it's on the sidewalk. How do you return it then? Post it on a billboard?

I didn't mean to imply I was more noble than you, Cap'n. I agree, if it's on the street with no clear owner, even if it's $100 it's meant for the first person who finds it.

Yes, Ive never taken money that I have found.

Unfortunately for me, I have taken money that I've found. It makes me feel lucky and good for about an hour, or until I've spent it. I can't recall how much money I've made that way.

 

I have also made an effort to give money back that I have found. It still makes me feel good when I think about it. The sense that I've gone beyond materialism is priceless. Four times now I've found money inside a store near the registers and have given it to the cashier, telling them to make sure they don't come up short at the end of the day. Once I got cash at the drive-up window at my credit union and the teller gave me an extra $20. I pushed the call button and told her she'd been too generous and I sent it back in the little pneumo-tube device. I put my money in my wallet, wrote some notes on my to-do list, and when I drove out all four drive-up tellers were standing up, smiling and applauding me as I drove past them.

 

I smiled for at least a week afterwards and I'm still proud of what I did that day.

first of all, can u define what u mean by dimension.

The first three spatial dimensions are length, width and height. We can only see in three dimensions. Length and width alone are invisible to us. We need height for light to illuminate an object so we can see it. Even a flat piece of paper has a measurable height, as would pencil markings on the piece of paper.

 

String theory states that there are probably seven other spatial dimensions that give further perspective to to the first three. I would assume that you can't have a fourth dimension without the first three, a fifth without the first four, and so on.

 

My question is why are so many perspectives necessary? Do the higher dimensions have another function besides perspective?

Here's an interesting article in Science News, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob1.asp, a few years old though, suggesting that the higher dimensions may not all be at Planck's length. Could navigation of the universes be accomplished using these dimensions? Are they why gravity appears so weak compared to other forces.

A yuppie in a BMW tries to pass a slow bus and ends up sideswiping a semi. Everyone is OK except the yuppie. The sideswipe took off both of his left side doors AND his left arm.

When the sheriff shows up the yuppie is in the front seat moaning, "My Beamer, my Beamer."

The sheriff winces and says, "The car can be replaced, sir, but I'm afraid your left arm is gone at the shoulder."

The yuppie looks down at it and his eyes widen. "Oh my GOD," screams the yuppie. "My ROLEX!!!"

Sophia probably has a psychological problem...

You are to be commended for your tact and sensitivity, sir.

 

Maybe.

 

Someday.

 

Not today.

Any site that is trying to hype perpetual motion is probably not the best source of info on ZPE.

I agree with swansont here. The Zero Point Field is an idea based on Heisenburg's uncertainty principle and deals with the incredibly vast amount of near-nothingness with which the universe is filled. Since matter at even absolute zero never comes to a complete rest, the minute amounts of energy could theoretically be tapped to provide more energy than all the stars put together.

 

To put it in terms of perpetual motion is ludicrous at best. It's more like using the Force, Luke.

Women claim to like guys with a sense of humor, but they are, shall we say, 'highly nonlinear.'

Women like men who make them laugh. "Sense of humor" is highly subjective. Never tell a woman a dumb blond joke if you want a second date because many women just read "dumb blond" as "dumb woman".

 

I'll let you in on a big secret. The main mental difference between men and women has nothing to do with logic. It's all about FOCUS. Men are focussed tactically on the situations facing them immediately. We see a fire, we put it out. Women are focussed strategically on the big picture. They worry about EVERYTHING all at once. They see a fire, they think "If I let it burn it could hurt somebody, but it could be good for the forest, but it may get out of control, but it may provide a better ecosystem, but rain may put it out without spending effort, but smoke could cause problems in another area, but it could...". Men tend to think this is illogical but it's not, it's just a different focus.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to get philosophical. I owe you a joke:

 

A bum asks a man for $2. The man asks, "Will you buy booze?" The bum says, "No." The man asks, "Will you gamble it away?" The bum says, "No." Then the man asks, "Will you come home with me so my wife can see what happens to a man who doesn't drink or gamble?"

At the cinema the other day I saw an old man and his dog. It was a sad funny kind of film, you know the type. In the sad part, the dog cried his eyes out, and in the funny part, the dog laughed its head off. This happened all the way through the film. When the film was over, I decided to go and speak to the man.

 

"That's the most amazing thing I've ever seen," I said. "Your dog really seemed to enjoy the film."

 

The man turned to me and said, "Yeah, it IS amazing. He HATED the book!"