Dekan

Why all this stress on "heated water". Can't cold water be used for essential purposes such as drinking and washing?

You mention the "animalistic drive for instant reaction". That's like when you accidentally tread on the cat's tail. She feels pain, and instantly reacts by growling and clawing at your foot. You mumble an apology "Sorry Puss". The words aren't literally understood by the cat. But she gets the drift from your placating tone of voice. And when you add further placatory measures, by gently stroking her back in a friendly, reassuring manner, she goes peacefully back to sleep. The incident is over, all forgotten. Does this show that animals don't have a concept of "revenge". I'm not sure. Suppose you deliberately and repeatedly trod on the cat's tail, every time you encountered her. Obviously, she'd soon learn to fear and avoid you. Running away from you on sight. But would she entertain thoughts of "revenge" in her simple cat mind? Almost certainly not. Animals don't do "Revenge". It's a strictly human desire. We constantly think about it, but don't often get to do it, for fear of the consequences.

I think post #3 by wisejanesm is very valuable, in pointing out that worms and lizards have simple, small, biological structures. These structures, for example in the form of a lizard leg or a tail, contain only a small amount of tissue. No more than 20 or 30 grammes, perhaps. Such a small weight can be speedily regenerated. Whereas, the situation is very different with human structures. A structure such as a human leg, is quite a massive affair. It weighs several kilos, and contains variegated components like bone, muscles, tendons, veins, skin, hairs, and the like. All these components take a long time to grow. We note, for instance, that a human baby takes several years to fully grow its legs. This shows that human regeneration is bound to take a long time. And this length of time is, I think, the key to understanding why humans haven't got the ability to regenerate legs. Consider humans in their primeval, natural, condition. Before they got civilised and invented doctors and hospitals. Suppose some primeval human fell down a cliff and smashed his leg. If he didn't die immediately from loss of blood, he'd soon fall victim to predators. His broken leg would make him unable to run away from them. And would also make him unable to forage for food. So he'd soon starve, even if he hid from the predators. Either way, he'd be dead within a week or so. So - what good would the ability to regenerate a leg in 6 months do him? None at all - he'd never live that long. Even if he had genes with the potential to regenerate a leg in 6 months, that genetic potential wouldn't get transmitted to his offspring. Because he wouldn't have any offspring, and his genes would die with him. Doesn't that explain it?

@ Sensei #6 and Enthalpy #7: Thanks, and I appreciate your detailed and well-reasoned posts, which I've studied as best I can. The arguments and information they contain are impressive. But sadly, I still retain a kind of "gut-feeling" that an "electron" is more a real thing than a "photon" is! Cheers, and thanks again for your replies.

That's a very good observation. A lot of confusion is caused by abstract nouns like "infinity". The noun makes us think, that there's an actual thing called "infinity". Which could eventually, in theory, be reached. Even if it's a very, very, long way away. So when we say: "natural numbers extend to infinity", we think of "infinity" as a kind of far-away goal - an end-point, an ultimate destination. But suppose we replace the noun "infinity", by the adverb "endlessly". And say: "Natural numbers go on endlessly". Doesn't that get rid of the phantom "infinity". And allow us to think more clearly.

Do you mean that there aren't really any photons? Just a continuous spectrum of radiation. And the "photons" are only a kind of Physicists' invention. Devised to break the spectrum into imaginary discrete bits. Which can then be used to do Physics calculations. Like breaking the continuous surface of the ocean, into imaginary discrete lines of Latitude and Longitude. Which can then be used to do Navigational calculations. I can groove with that. But are so-called "photons" really in the same class as electrons - ie real, genuine, point-like particles?

I've just re-read Sun Tzu, in the translation by Ralph D Sawyer. The thing that struck me was this - Sun doesn't give much consideration to weapons. He assumes that the weapons will be the same on both sides in a battle. That was true in the pre-scientific past, when Sun wrote his book. Then all the weapons were just Iron-Age swords, spears and bows-and-arrows. Which were all about equally effective for the fighting troops on both sides. But in modern battles, surely the side with the best scientifically-designed weapons may have a decisive advantage. This advantage was not considered by Sun-Tzu, who was ignorant of such modern scientific developments as guns, missiles, tanks and aircraft. So why bother reading him for guidance on modern warfare? Isn't it like reading an 18th-Century book on caloric-fluid and phlogiston, for guidance on Physics?

Thanks Swansont. Could you just clarify this please. Is "light" an actual "thing", or just a human-invented collective noun for lots of photons? 1

In considering this question, the most important thing to bear in mind is this: Most people are vulnerable to flattery. So, in order to manipulate a person, just follow these two simple rules: 1. Identify the person's point of weakness - the thing that most worries them. What LRH in Scientology, called their "ruin". Sometimes this is a physical thing, like ugliness. It can take many other forms. You can usually suss it out fairly soon. 2. Then, having identified their "ruin", flatter them repeatedly with words which deny its reality. Say things like: "you're not ugly, you have a very kind and spiritual face". Or: "You're not stupid, you have a very perceptive mind" And so on. Keep saying these things. No matter how vapid they sound to you, they will have a favourable effect on the target person. And will eventually induce the person to yield to your desires.

Could it signify this - that there isn't one, single, primary, "thing" which deserves the name "mass-energy". Rather, "mass" is just a different form, or manifestation, of energy. Just as "heat" and "light" are different manifestations of photons. I suppose we could invent a new name: "heat-light". But would it be scientifically useful?

I've read Sun -Tzu's book in two different English translations. These revealed that owing to the ambiguous nature of Chinese logograms, it's not easy to convey the author's meaning by exact English words. So much depends on the decision of the translator. Therefore it wouldn't be wise to judge Sun's book by a translation. But of course Sun has not been the only Chinese writer to consider questions about war. They've been addressed in more recent times by Mao Ze Dung. He wrote some "4-character" lines, which go something like this: (I'm quoting them only from memory, but that's probably sufficiently accurate) Enemy advances - you retreat. Enemy camps - you harass. Enemy tires - you attack. Enemy retreats - you pursue. In considering these lines, we should bear in mind Mao's experience. Which was of a war where his forces were weak compared to the enemy. So he more or less had to adopt the above strategy. If his forces had been stronger, he'd probably have gone for a more direct approach to victory. Still, whatever their military value, I think his 4 lines have an impressive pithiness. Don't they stick in your mind, more than Sun-Tzu's stuff?

Thanks Sensei - I think I take the point. If the program isn't a single continuous listing of code, but is divided into separate self-contained "blocks" - or "bricks" as you well illustrate - then one such "brick" can be recompiled without necessarily affecting the rest of the structure. Rather like having "local variables" in the old BASIC subroutines or Procedures. I think programming has moved on since my day in the 1980's. Back then, we didn't have to consider "thousands of separate source files" linked together! Our old-fashioned programs had to be written using original analysis and logic. Whereas modern programming seems to consist of tacking together ready-made blocks of code. Without any need to understand what's actually going on at deep level, within each block. I suppose this is good in a way, as it saves mental effort.

We can't know for sure, unless we can somehow overcome the speed of light. If we had FTL technology, we'd be able to conduct a fast survey of our Galaxy, and the whole Universe, to look for other intelligent species. But we can't do such a survey while we're restricted by "C". This stops us knowing anything about what's really happening in the Universe. There might, right now, be a growing Galactic Empire in the Milky Way. A potentially full-blown Asimovian Empire, with Emperors, Seldons , Mules, and all. But - if it happens to have started at the opposite end of the Galaxy - tens of thousands of light-years away - we don't know anything about it. Even it started within 200 LY of us, we'll still be in complete ignorance of its existence. There could be fleets of Imperial starships out there right now. Engaging in conquest, subjugating planets and disembarking tax-collectors. Even the Dendi and the Troxxt could be battling for Galactic control, grinding whole star-clusters into swirling cosmic dust in the process! And as long as all this activity hasn't approached to within 200 LY of us on Earth, it's unknown to us, because "C" stops us getting the news. So I think that before we can get proper information about what's going on in the Universe, we have to find a way to transcend "C".

Aren't interpreters best for experimental programming. They allow a programmer to freely change any individual line, then run the program again - immediately - to see what effect the change has on the outcome. Whereas compilers won't permit the slightest change, without re-compiling the entire program. This seems very inefficient and wasteful for the computer, in terms of all the unnecessary processing it has to do. As an analogy, suppose you were writing a book. And you wanted to try the effect of changing, say, a single word on line 7 of page 548. But you couldn't do it, without going right back to page 1, and writing again all the text until you got to p. 548, and made the simple change to line 7. That would seem stupid and exasperating to a human. Yet Isn't that what compilers force computers to do?

@barfbag #30: Thanks for your kind reply. I offer these thoughts: 1. On the quotation from the Canadian site, about bears. This seems to be written in a kind of pseudo-scientific management-speak . As revealed by the almost hypnotic repetition of the vague word "mitigation" .And by convoluted and abstract expressions such as "managing human-use levels". It's not easy to work out what that actually means, in concrete terms. I was especially intrigued, and disconcerted, by this slightly ominous bit: "Educating people as to proper behaviour when viewing wildlife along roads or railways." What exactly is the "proper behaviour" demanded of us? It sounds almost Orwellian! 2. On your point about humans evolving again in a few million years - that might happen. But would the "new humans" be able to recreate an advanced industrial civilisation like ours? Probably not, because our civilisation has used up most of the easily-available close-to-the-surface natural resources like iron-ore, coal and oil. With these gone, the new humans would be in a kind of "Catch-22" predicament. They have to dig deep for their metal and coal And they can't dig until they build machines. But the machines can't be built, until they get the metal and coal. So they'd be stuffed. 3. Which is why I get a bit disappointed with people who, from the best of intentions, keep harping on about "conservation", "protecting the environment" and such like.. These are backward-looking ideas. Going back isn't an option. Human industrial civilisation is a strictly "one-off" endeavour. It can't be repeated on Earth - not at least until geological aeons have passed, and new coal has accumulated, and crustal upheavals have moved ore to the surface. 4. So shouldn't we make the best use of this present opportunity? Exploit the Earth for everything we can get out of it! Build hundreds of atomic power-stations, and, as soon as we can, starships, to go out and explore the Universe. The Earth won't mind. It will go on after we've left. And the bears will roam the Rockies unmitigated.

Does the Earth really need anyone to "look out for it"? It's been doing its own thing, very successfully, for the last 4 billion years. During those years, the Earth had to cope with all manner of misfortunes. Such as biosphere-smashing asteroid impacts, and continent-wide volcanic eruptions. Which caused, or contributed to, violent global climatic fluctuations. Leading to alternations of freezing Ice-Ages and sweltering-hot Carboniferous-type periods with bizarre giant dragonflies. Yet, these vicissitudes didn't knock out Mother Earth. She continued on her way, undaunted. She is a tough and resilient Mother. Who will survive whatever puny mauling her latest children, the humans, try on her. What if the political humans vote for cheaper gas, and cover China with coal-fired power stations! It doesn't matter. The C02 emissions from such stations will never heat the Earth into a second hot-house Venus. Earth is secure. Even if the humans start a global nuclear war, the radiation will completely decay after a few million years, and the Earth will carry on as before. Let's not get too conceited! The Earth doesn't actually need humans to run it. It manages by itself.

Could you offer some more guidance, please, on the subject of the chanting. The questions which worry me, are these: 1. Is it OK to have illicit sex, gamble, do drugs, and eat meat - provided the Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra is chanted? You seem to suggest this. 2. If so, must the Mantra be chanted before engaging in these activities in order to neutralise their harmful effects. Or can it be used retroactively - eg, suppose I've just eaten a nice dinner of roast meat. Will the Mantra still work if I chant after dinner. If so, how long can the chanting be delayed - a few minutes, a few hours - are there any reliable guidelines? 3. Following on from this, on a more general level: a. How long should each session of chanting last - in your post you mention "5 minutes". Is that the optimum period to achieve full efficacy. Would any additional benefit be gained by continuing to chant for say, a further 10 minutes? b. How soon does the effect of the chanting wear off. For example, if I chant each morning, will it have worn off by evening, and require a repeat session. Or does a single chant provide full 24-hour protection? Your further advice will be appreciated, many thanks.

What about the bit in front though - the blue symbol? Isn't it a schematic of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus. That seems to represent Atomic Power. And the blue suggests hard radiation. Which may have been good back in the 1950's, when Atomic Power was the leading thing in Science. But is it suitable today. Nowadays, we're all supposed to be into Green Renewable Power. Like Wind. To reflect this, shouldn't the SFN symbol be changed into a Green Windmill. It could easily be done - fill in the orbits and change their colour to soft Green. That would also make the symbol resemble a pretty Flower, which we could all hug. Cool!

I don't think it would be a good thing if all governments were destroyed. That would result in anarchy, with people starving to death in millions. The existing governments may not be very admirable. But at least they maintain law and order most of the time. Especially - they haven't started any World Wars since 1945. Which is greatly to their credit. Of course, our governments can't stop local wars happening. Like in the Middle East at the present time. However these small wars don't inconvenience most of the world's population. They're just things we watch on television. Most of us lead quite good lives in today's world. We're getting better fed, and cured of diseases. Even in formerly backward continents like Africa, things are getting better. And in Asia, China is a modern marvel of progress. This progress is demonstrated most clearly by the Internet. Here, all the world's people can meet in friendly discourse. Engaging in interesting scientific discussions, just as we're doing here on Scienceforums.net. But none of this would be possible without Governments, to control us. If we lacked such control, we'd be savages, fighting each other all the time. To prove this, let's notice that on Scienceforums.net, the members have to be kept in order by a "Government" of mods, who on the whole, and allowing for human failings, do a very good job.

Could "Math" be the last refuge of Physics. When an explanation of Physics, written in plain prose, exposes blatant absurdity, "Math" comes to the rescue, and explains it all away.

How would you define "the present moment/time"?

When you say "the universe", you're naturally using the word to refer to the universe we're currently experiencing. This current universe seems to have started about 13.4 BY ago. At the point of the Big Bang. But perhaps there were earlier universes. Which were created, expanded, and eventually came to some kind of end. Big Crunch or Heat-Death, whatever. They then got replaced by another universe, in an eternal succession of universes. Constantly created by an eternal God. I think the thrust of your post is that an eternal god might have got bored, in the long time before He suddenly thought of the Big Bang. But that's not so - couldn't His time have been fruitfully occupied in devising myriads of pre-BB universes?

Aren't we humans, creatures who can already navigate through imaginary time? Ever since we invented cinematography, and its more sophisticated successors such as videotape and DVD. These recording devices enable us to speed up, or slow down, Time. As least as far as images are concerned. We can for example, record the image of a glass tumbler slipping from the hand, falling down through the air, hitting the floor and shattering into bits. These events - the slippage - the falling - the shattering, take place very quickly in "real time". So quickly that it's hard to analyse them. Especially the shattering. All we can say - looking at it in real time, is something like: "One moment the glass was in my hand, then it was lying in broken bits all over the floor". That's because the sequence of events lasted no more than a few seconds of "real time". Too brief a period for us to dissect. But - suppose the events are recorded on a movie camera. Which uses film, or digital technology. Then we'll be able to replay the incident. And - slow it down, to show the precise sequence of events. The fingers gradually losing their grip on the glass,. The fall of the glass, its partial rotatory motion as it goes downwards. The impact as it hits the floor, sending fracture-planes shooting through the glass, Making shards detach, and fly apart in arcs. The whole occurrence can be viewed over and over again. It can be slowed down, or speeded up. Or "freeze-framed" to study a particular instant. We can "navigate" through every instant of the event, frame by frame. Or even reverse the time sequence of the event, by running the frames backwards! And doesn't this "navigation" take place in "imaginary time" where the glass can fall, and re-fall, for ever?

A thought-provoking observation. It raises a couple of points on which I'd appreciate further guidance: 1. What exactly is the size of a "large-scale structure". Is it a planetary system, a binary star, a globular star-cluster, a galaxy, a cluster of galaxies? These are all "structures" of increasing size. At what stage do they become influenced by the "expansion of space". Has the size been quantified? 2. What exactly is the "atom level". Is it only the region within the individual atom - protons, neutrons, electrons and so on. Or does it extend outside the atom - to groups of atoms forming molecules. Some molecules are small. But others, especially carbon-based organic molecules, get really big. How big can they get, before the expansion of space starts to influence them?

Surely their rapid reproduction has been overwhelmed by the power of human Science. Modern scientific products - soap, toothpaste, and disinfectant, daily defeat the ancient bacterial hordes. And the same defeat has been inflicted on old insect pests such as bedbugs, fleas and lice. For example, has any poster here, still got lice on their body?