iNow

What I'm mainly annoyed about is that they're spending money on local pet projects and then telling us that they don't have enough money to pay for things we told them to pay for. The very same people who neglected these duties are the ones who are asking us for more money and promising to spend it correctly.

I think all of us are annoyed by that, and it's not party specific. The system itself has become overwhelmed by ideologically cancerous representation. Where it hits home with me is healthcare. I can deal with some offroading in the truck due to a bit of cracked pavement or shaky supports, but when kids die by the thousands because of faulty spending, that's pretty sad, and speaks very poorly of the integrity of the system.

I wonder if Donald ever served as an apprentice...

Not to but it but sense you guys seem to know what you are talking about maybe you could help with a curveball I cant seem to hit.

 

On the quantum level there is a relationship to the rest of the visible or known universe right? As if carbon and oxygen for instance have quantum effects going on, but they have natural and predictable behavior, as in carbon for instance wont instantly decide it cant bond with oxygen after the fact.

 

So what I would like to know is simply how stable is a quantum system? From all the verbs tossed out from QM that I vaguely understand it sounds as if the universe should just randomly turn into a microwave with a slice of pizza in it, or basically just not be able to persist in time in any regular form?

 

Am I off truly on my understanding of things?

This is a big post, foodchain, and warrants it's own thread. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you start a thread on your own for this? Perhaps a title of "Quantum Systems and Material Consistency - I need help on the basics."

Collapsing wave functions in an entangled way...

Two quick points:

1) That $155B is to fix existing problems, yet roads and bridges degrade each day. Hence, suggesting "problem solved in 2 years" only considers the current state, not future disrepair.

2) Why not raise more money AND spend it more wisely? It seems unecessary to treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive.

Further, the tax on gasoline is an added incentive to get the populace to support... no, demand... renewable energy. I'd say that is a step in the right direction. Do I like paying more for gas? Absolutely not. It sucks actually. However, I'd sure rather not keep polluting our planet and would appreciate having some better options available to us than our current dino fossil drinkers with wheels.

London bridge is falling down... falling down... falling down...

I'm 24 -

<...>

It's just all strange, but in a way alright how I can treat my body like crap and get away with it all i.e. stay in perfect health.

Perhaps an analogy will help.

If you construct a building using straw and cracked twigs, it will stand. It will provide you shelter, and a place to sleep protected from the outside. For a while. Since the foundation of the structure is relatively weak, each environmental stimulus has a greater impact (it takes a greater amount of damage with each gust of wind, each drop of rain, each day of hot sunlight)... and, eventually, the structure just collapses. You'd have to build a completely new one.

If you were instead to construct a building using high quality materials, taking care and effort to engineer how they go together, making each bond a point of strength instead of a weak spot, and doing so with an awareness of what the environment will bring so you can improve your building's ability to survive the elements... that building would last despite what the weather brought... and would last for decades. No need to rebuild.

Now, replace "building" with your "body," and replace "poor construction" with "treating your body like crap." You are what you eat, and you're building your body with crappy materials. Also, you'll never have the opportunity to just "build a new one" when you body "collapses."

Even a cardboard box can be used as shelter, but a chateau is much more enjoyable through the years.

Hi spooky,

One possible route for you to follow is to type the term "describe modernity in sociology" into a google search, then try to look at just the ".edu" addresses.

Alternatively, you could just do a search of the term "modernity" on scholar.google.com.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=modernity&hl=en&lr=

After that, I would just suggest doing the same on whatever today's equivalent of Lexus/Nexxus is at the uni's libraries. Good luck to you both on the project!

EDIT: Apparrently, the term "great transformation to modernity" is a direct quote from a dude named Giddens. Maybe this will help.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=great+transformation+modernity+Giddens

I suppose it's helpful that the evidence about global warming is far more extant than just one NASA study.

The eggs are in many baskets.

ok 1st... whats a factor...

I believe the poster meant that it was a portion of the speed of light.

3nd ther r scientists on this forum? like real ones?

What happened to number 2? Of course there are real scientists. Many kinds. There are also people who are "just interested in" science, and people who know very little. Science is an approach to the universe, and some people are just lucky enough to get paid pursuing that path.

4th... questons

 

im moving at .5c relativ 2 earth.... the star im going to is 10 light years away.. i shoot a gun and the bullet is now going 1.5c relative to me..

According to classical mechanics (this is where you'll hear the name Newton brought up), this seems likely. Like, if you're in a car going 50 miles an hour, and you throw a ball in front of you 10 miles an hour, the person standing on the road sees the balling going 60 miles an hour. However, your example above cannot be accurate, because of c (the speed of light) being a fundamental maximum speed any object can go.

1st... in my perspective... will the bullet get to the star in 5 years.. and will i get to the star in 20 years?

Well, the fastest the bullet could get to the star is at the speed of light... c. So, if the star is 10 light years away, and the bullet is moving at the speed of light, it will get there in 10 years. It cannot get there any faster.

and to the earth.. will we both reath the star at the same time? or maby the bullet will reach the star in 10 years.. and ill reach in 20?

Well, if you shot the bullet, it would be going faster than you. However, it still could not surpass the speed of light. So, to the folks on Earth, the bullet would get there before you because it's moving faster than you are.

wut will i c? and wut will the peeps on earth c?

Again, the bullet will not go faster than the speed of light... That said, you will definitely see the bullet get there before the people on earth see the bullet get there. This is simply because you are closer, and doesn't have much to do with relativity (that I know of anyway).

If we are both driving down the highway and pass a gas station at the same time, but then I pass you, and you are going 50mph and I'm going 100mph, who will the people at the gas station we just passed see arrive first at the exit down the road? Same with your bullet example.

Where it gets somewhat odd is when relativistic speeds are involved. Did you check out the simulations I shared at the below?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=352768&postcount=33

So I take it there is no formal proof. Seems a good guess anyhow.

Here's a nifty little link across which I just stumbled:

http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/extras_particlephys.html

Particle Physics is a constantly changing science. It seeks to understand the fundamental building blocks of everything - the particles that cannot be broken down into anything else. Over the decades, it has spawned many new sciences based upon what it once thought was fundamental.

 

Here you will find a relatively complete overview of particle physics. This page will not delve too much into the mathematics nor physics of the subject - there are many college and graduate school classes that teach this - but you will be able to learn about the basics, and you will be able to find enough information here in order to understand the terminology in the rest of the site.

 

This page starts from the ground up, starting with the fundamental forces and then building up with Bosons and Fermions. Then, the page talks about heavier particles that are made of parts of quarks, continuing with a brief discussion of atomic physics, and culminating with a discussion of antimatter.

Be sure to click the link to see the real meat of the page.

.

UM.... like i said in the above post... explains what happens....

Go make yourself some popcorn, get a highly caffeinated soda like Jolt, and enjoy.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

This article aims to give a gentle, non-technical introduction to the theory based on geometrical intuition and explain some of the terminology and formalism involved. A more advanced, encyclopedic description will be found in the parent article Special relativity. It will be helpful to approach relativisic mechanics by first studying some properties of the classical (Newtonian) picture.

Animations:

1. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/MichelsonMorley/MichelsonMorley.html

2. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html

3. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html

4. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html

5. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html

6. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TwinParadox.html

7. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/Foucault/Foucault.html

8. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/GenRel/Flash/Precession.html

It would probably be beneficial for those discussing this to first agree on a definition of energy.

You can see, after just a handfull of posts, great amounts of disagreement on the specific questions, much of which I think would be ameliorated by first agreeing on a definition.

iNow, what do the labels on the axes of the diagram mean?

Hi Athiest,

I'm not sure how much you do or do not understand, so I might wind up explaining parts you already knew. Sorry if I do.

The y-axis shows the number of cases of schizophrenia (for each 1,000 participants measured) found in the study. The x-axis shows number of times the participants in that study reported using cannabis. The trend implies that, as cannabis use goes up among participants, so does the likelihood of schizophrenia.

The chart was taken from the following study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=2892048&query_hl=15

The association between level of cannabis consumption and development of schizophrenia during a 15-year follow-up was studied in a cohort of 45,570 Swedish conscripts. The relative risk for schizophrenia among high consumers of cannabis (use on more than fifty occasions) was 6.0 (95% confidence interval 4.0-8.9) compared with non-users. Persistence of the association after allowance for other psychiatric illness and social background indicated that cannabis is an independent risk factor for schizophrenia.

This team also did a follow-up study in 1999:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yaal2jhavu8kqta5/

A total of 39 schizophrenic patients with a history of current cannabis abuse at index admission was compared with a control group of schizophrenics without substance abuse matched for age, gender, and year of admission. At follow-up after 68.7 - 28.3 months, 27/ 39 cases and 26/39 controls could be investigated. 8/27 cases (30%) had continued cannabis abuse, 6/27 (22%) had become alcohol abusers. Only one patient of the control group had started abusing alcohol. Patients with previous cannabis abuse had significantly more rehospitalizations, tended to worse psychosocial functioning, and scored significantly higher on the psychopathological syndromes "thought disturbance" (BPRS) and "hostility" (AMDP). These results confirm the major impact of cannabis abuse on the long-term outcome of schizophrenic patients.

Be cautious looking at results in any study though. Some of the studies really only show that schizophrenics frequently use cannabis, and correlation does not prove causation... So just be sure to read closely what you see. I am personally confident, based on what I've read and personnally experienced, that frequent use is associated with greater likelihood of schizophrenic episodes. I hope this helps.

Has anyone else done this? I'd sure like to know...

I'm reluctant to think that you'll appreciate this answer, but I suggest Robert Pirsig did a fine job of it.

Okay... so what's your question? Online essays about what?

cool article - i was wondering tho assuming healthy nutrition, environment, and genetics - are there any professional estimates as to its longevity in terms of years?

Well, it's definitely an interesting question, however, I'm not sure how one would answer it with any certainty. First, there are SO MANY factors involved that, at best, you could get an average. And... to get a meaningful average... one would need to test hundreds (if not thousands) of isolated brains to see how long they would live.

That's just it though... there's not a whole lot of people rushing to sign up to have their brain extracted from their skull to benefit the science of "determining how long a brain can survive."

Also... the brain is but one piece of a very complex central nervous system. Cut off from the rest of it's parts it's just a lump of gray convoluted matter.

I'd advise against worrying much about the religious scriptures which themselves are speculations of human minds, however, I concede it's a rather interesting question. To reiterate, I cannot impress upon you enough that the true answer is... it depends on too many factors to make a reasonable guess, and empirical data is rather lacking.

Hence why I'm asking for proof...

Well, I recognize that we're WAY up to post #25 already, but you may wish to look back at post #19. It's a lot to store in short-term memory, so I won't be too hard on you about it.

I'm not comparing any one individual person on Earth, including you Spiderman; are there any medical professionals here that can state with evidence that smoking cannabis could really induce permanent psychosis?

Did you bother reading the thread before you posted in it?

I'm not against smoking. I smoked for 5 or 6 years daily. I got sad when my bongs would break... Hell, I would name them, and would widdle pipes out of vegetables and soda cans and the most random crap.

However, this doesn't negate the fact that there are heaps of evidence that the effects of smoking herb can lead to schizophrenic episodes, and higher incidence of psychosis later in life.

To foodchain

 

There are a couple of very likely remanants of grooming behaviour in human behaviour. Mothers fuss over their children, including such things as combing their hair. Women go to hairdressers for grooming. People go for a massage etc.

 

However, the main replacement for grooming as a social glue is probably conversation. Where chimps get together for prolongued grooming sessions to build social bonds, humans get together for prolongued 'chin wag' sessions, which also build social bonds.

Additionally, look up trichotillomania. It seems to be more common in individuals who are not as socially active (where proximity is the key factor... clearly posting here is social, but does not involve tactile stimulation from another being).

Depends on one's genetics, nutrition, and environment.

Think of cancer. Think of Alzheimers. Think of living near a smoke stack. Think of being born to parents who are brother and sister. It depends on a combination of factors.

That said... yeah, the brain doesn't have to deal with so many toxins and, although metabolic, really just needs some glucose, oxygen, and electrolytes and it's pretty happy. The brain also tends to be "the last to die."

http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/brain_death_and_organ_donation.htm?print&colour&sch

Most people understand that death occurs when a person's heart and breathing stop. This is called cardiac death and its how most people die. When someone has died of cardiac death, they do not breathe or move, they do not have a heart beat and their skin colour changes since blood is no longer circulating around the body. However, no one actually dies until the brain dies. The brain dies when blood stops being pumped to it. Other organs such as the heart and kidneys can stop working completely and in some circumstances are able to be revived - but not the brain. This is why people who have had a heart attack where their heart has stopped beating can be resuscitated - the heart may have stopped beating for a few minutes but because the brain hasn't died, the person may still be able to recover.

It mostly just recapitulates what the BBC article says, but thank you.

Well, technically, the BBC just recapitulated what the NYU site said, but you're welcome all the same.

Me too....

 

Bee

The way our society and culture have been positioned, "being a scientist" is a bit like "being a reader." Most everybody knows how, it's just that some people enjoy it more, do it more, or have specialites moreso than others. The fact that you're here posting suggests that you, too, are a curious being who wants to learn and share. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

(btw... very cute head shot. )

"Finds test human origins theory" From the BBC Science and Nature. I don't have access to Nature to read the real article, so I'm just going by the BBC.

Here's another:

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1668

Two new fossils, described this week in the journal Nature, cast fresh light on a little understood and important period of human prehistory at the dawn of our own genus, Homo. The new fossils were discovered by the Koobi Fora Research Project, an international group of scientists directed by mother-daughter team Meave and Louise Leakey, and affiliated with the National Museums of Kenya (NMK). Human evolution over the last two million years is often portrayed as a linear succession of three species: Homo habilis to Homo erectus to ourselves, Homo sapiens. Of these, Homo erectus is commonly seen as the first human ancestor which is like us in many respects, but with a smaller brain. The new fossils are significant because both their relative geological ages and their physical attributes directly challenge these views about our human ancestry.

 

One of the two fossils, an upper jaw bone of Homo habilis (KNM-ER 42703), dates from 1.44 million years ago, which is more recent than previously known fossils of that species. This late-survivor shows that Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived side by side in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years.

“Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” explains Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Instead, both species must have had their origins between 2 and 3 million years ago, a time from which few human fossils are known. “The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition.”

 

The second fossil (KNM-ER 42700), found in the same region of northern Kenya, is an exquisitely preserved skull of Homo erectus, dated to about 1.55 million years ago. “What is truly striking about this fossil is its size,” says Fred Spoor, another lead author. “It is the smallest Homo erectus found thus far anywhere in the world.”

Read more of the article at the link above.

Yeah, I was going to mention that it is probably related to a study I saw that prolonged cannabis use can damage the way your neurons work in some people, but I can't seem to track down the study.

This link has about 30 of them. Maybe you'll find it there.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

And for the folks who don't like reading much, you can get some video feed here:

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050321/default_3.htm

Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis is that long term drug use will undermine the immune system. He covers other risk groups: many gay men tend to be drug users (esp. nitrite inhalants, or "poppers", as aphrodisiacs) ( Documentation here), babies dying from AIDS got drugs via their pregnant drug-using mothers, blood transfusion recipients are often already sick and die from the pre-existing illness (50% die within one year regardless of HIV status), hemophiliacs taking (toxic) Factor VIII get their clotting ability but lose their immune system.

For a note from the SciAm editors on Duesberg, see this:

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html

Readers may therefore be shocked to see Duesberg as an author in this month's issue. He is not here because we have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather Duesberg has also developed a novel theory about the origins of cancer, one that supposes a derangement of the chromosomes, rather than of individual genes, is the spark that ignites malignant changes in cells. That concept is still on the fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are investigating it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer. We consider the case worthy of bringing to your attention, with the article beginning on page 52.

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt

Editors' note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist,

may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the

cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that

claim many times. Duesberg's ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a

root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being

actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked

Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an

endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.

And for an all around fun time, watch the spanking which occurs here to he and others of similar ilk:

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/

Isn't it weird that there is on conclussive evidence?

It's useful to remember that, in science, there is no such thing as absolute fact or certainty. What you have is a collection of evidence, taken in different settings and contexts, repeated over and over by different reseachers. The evidence often implies specific outcomes with a high degree of certainty, and in the case of HIV -> AIDS connection, the connection is overwhelming. However, it's always possible that new evidence will come along the next day to disprove everything currently thought.

Note that the video you linked provides zero alternate information that counters the mountain of evidence currently available to us which is indicative of the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

Maybe it comes from kissing frogs, eh? Or unicorns from the dark side poking you while you sleep?

I doubt killing ODB would have much effect on Islamic terrorism.

I agree. Wu-Tang Clan lost ODB back in '004.

I will state that you cannot stop terrorism with more killing. There are too many heads of the monster to cut off. Terrorism is only stopped by leading in such a way as to sway hearts and minds to your side. Easier said than done, I recognize that, but I stand by my claim all the same.