Baby Astronaut

And double-blind, so you can only learn after the tests which people had cages on and when. Hell NO. 1. Where do they stop and 2. How's a person of such character (to test on unsuspecting people) ever to be trusted with putting the study's findings to benevolent use?

Nice catch. The 1895 edition has fewer pages (178 total) and the 1901 edition has more pages (304 total), compared to the original 239 pages, but neither edition has anything from the phrase quoted on Creighton University's website in what's supposed to be Hahnemann's own words. There's a search bar on the left of each Google book (to search within it). The university's text... In Hahnemann's words: The thirtieth (dilution) thus progressively prepared would give a fraction almost impossible to be expressed in numbers. It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence. (Organon § 270, 6th ed.) I suspect the 1895 book might be the sixth edition, as inside the book says "Translated from the fith edition" and goes on to speak about editions 1-5 below that. And if so, it's the book as referenced at the university's website. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok, strangely it's there Wow, an old alternative/complimentary medicine book that, humorously, references old medical concepts such as "vital force" -- that was mainstream in the author's time

After following Cap'n Refsmmat's links and reading the quote below.... In Hahnemann's words: The thirtieth (dilution) thus progressively prepared would give a fraction almost impossible to be expressed in numbers. It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence. I went to investigate the original quote in Google Books.... http://books.google.com/books?btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=consist+really+only+of+this+underdeveloped+conceptual+essence then got the following... Sorry, this page's content is restricted Limited preview Inside you see "Copyrighted material" and a few blocks of pages missing. Wtf? Anything older than a hundred years is public domain and I never saw Google Books do that with any other public domain books -- especially older than the 1900s.

Well, that's a bit eye-opening. Knowing the math is helpful. So if you diluted all the entire universe worth of atoms to 40C, you'd be left with one molecule half of the time. Well, anyone doing more than 40c leaves nothing in the water, guaranteed. Ok thanks. How do you identify a metastudy from a real one?

Yeah, I meant interference on gravity having a measurable net effect on the distant planet. Wow, so even at a trillion light years it would cause a teeeeeny acceleration. Incredible.

Citation.

I didn't know about the water memory, just looked it up. The older stuff I've read was probably from before the 1988 publication. Why on Earth did Nature allow that publication into the journal? Anyway, do you realize that homeopathy involves actual parts of the chemical to water? There's no such beast as "water memory" in traditional homeopathy. The guy who published in Nature's journal made up his own version, totally bastardizing the original concept. You know, it's pretty ironic. The subject was closed to me until now. Yet when I see a blatant misrepresentation coming from on high, an impulse drives me to look further into why there's a need to misrepresent it -- especially when they can just debunk it with the actual facts. It'd be as if official reports were circulated that young-earthers believe our planet was created a hundred years ago.

That's why I put it under Classical Physics So let's just say that each planet was at a standstill, the universe otherwise empty. Would the distance prevent their gravitational attraction from moving them nearer?

It has infinite reach, but tapers off. So Earth's gravity can't affect a planet in another galaxy, for instance, because of competing and stronger gravitational pulls interfering along the way. However, let's say Earth and that planet were the only mass in existence, but separated by a hundred million light years. Also, no cosmic expansion. Would the gravity of both Earth and the other planet eventually cause them to slowly draw nearer, i.e. would the gravitational tug be significant enough across the vast distance (without competing gravity from the other absent masses)? Or is there a limit, where gravity has zero effect after a certain distance that's relative to the size of both objects?

That's just a completely inaccurate and reverse description of their premise. I haven't tried it, nor would I advocate its supposed benefits, however I've read up on it just as I have browsed various things of interest. The way it supposedly functions: if an ingested chemical produces symptoms that happen to resemble the known symptoms of an unrelated disease, then the chemical -- if diluted to a very tiny amount (so as leave the patient unharmed) -- should have a curative effect on that disease. But only if the symptoms of the disease and chemical would've matched in a larger dose. Even if homeopathy is fantasy, the rebuttals against it seem fantasy as well. At least, in the BBC link by the OP, it reads... "We would support the call for scientific research and evidence gathering on the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. This would help our patients and customers make informed choices about using homeopathic medicines." Whatever gripes anyone has, their invitation of science is more than we can say about the majority of weasel organizations. Looking up studies, I found an interesting one. Nothing even close to definitive, but still interesting. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9884175 Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. ..... CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies. Don't know what they mean by "individualized" however.

iPad, some use it about once a month.

In regards to showing a 4D (or higher) on a lower dimension. Can we show any of those on 1D? whap2005 asked if that's possible: not exactly a scientific question. It might be possible, just not scientific if can't be measured, observed, tested...

Might it be possible you're asking for how to measure the world line of light? In physics, the world line of an object is the unique path of that object as it travels through 4-dimensional spacetime. And might you be wondering if Earth's movement through space potentially affects light's speed here in one direction more than another? For example, if light moves "with the grain" of Earth's direction of travel, its speed would be greater than if moving "against the grain" of that direction? Finally, might you be wondering that light's path from one measuring device to another isn't straight due to Earth's and the sun's movements, thus light's path would actually be a longer curve (than revealed by measurements) from start to finish? If so... Then you might want to check out the following info. • (YouTube) The basic gist is how speed slows down time. It's an important reason for the speed of light remaining a constant -- in space and on Earth -- regardless of direction. (I had asked questions related to that a while back on the forums) • Observations of events are relative According to the theory of Einstein, all observers will automatically measure identical speeds of light. This has bizarre results, which is mostly explained with the following example (of Einstein himself): Suppose somebody outside the train standing in a station, sees a flash of light in the middle of a train riding along at the very high speed. As the train is moving, he will see the light a fraction sooner in the back of the train than in the front. Somebody inside the train sees the same flashlight, however he sees the light travelling at exactly the same speed to the back and the front of the train. The distance of the flash of light to the front and the back are equal, therefor back and front will be lighted-up at the same time. The conclusion one can derive from this that an event, which is experienced by somebody at the same time, may be experienced by somebody else at different time intervals. • (YouTube) Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear. But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first. Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events. • http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/relativity.htm If you conduct an experiment in a moving vehicle (provided it is moving at a constant velocity, that is, a constant speed in a fixed direction) the experiment will give exactly the same result as one conducted at rest. This is why we can drink a can of soda just as well in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity as we can when we are at rest relative to the ground. The first postulate says, in effect, that it is impossible to determine whether it is we who are moving, or the ground, or both. The most we can do is to determine our speed relative to something. The Earth goes around the Sun at a relative speed of 30 km/s. But this value is the speed relative to the Sun. The Earth also moves relative to the galactic center. Einstein proposed that there is no absolute meaning to the phrase: the Earth's speed through space. All we can ever say is the Earth's speed relative to something. That something could be, for example, the Earth's speed relative to the cosmic microwave background. The second postulate says that the speed of light is always observed to be the same however we, or the source, might be moving. It is a universal invariant. The consequence of Einstein's two postulates are radical: time and space become intertwined in surprising ways. Events that may be simultaneous for one observer can occur at different times for another. If not... Then I've no freakin idea what you're trying to get at

(...and something went *bump* in the night)

Update. I had a few email conversations with newscientist, they knew of the problem and fixed it. So according to them, the malicious software wouldn't have been downloaded unless a customer duped by the fraud opted to download it. I wanted to to know the name of the malicious program, and run a check for it specifically, just in case. But they didn't know, finding it very difficult to gather any information on that problem. Did a Malwarebytes check, then Ad-Aware. Both updated, neither found anything. Hopefully everything's clear, even though when it happened I just shut all the windows down instead of clicking "no".

I meant some time after the collapse process is done, will it begin to un-collapse by itself? Also I just found info on Wikipedia that might be referring to exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse#History_and_context However, when the wave function collapses -- process (1) -- from an observer's perspective the state seems to "leap" or "jump" to just one of the basis states and uniquely acquire the value of the property being measured, ei, that is associated with that particular basis state. After the collapse, the system begins to evolve again according to the Schrödinger equation or some equivalent wave equation. Could they mean after the wave function collapses, it all eventually goes back to a superposition again (i.e. the reverse of collapsing)? Ok small parts of two questions remain. # 1 (have replications of temperature dependence failed or just never been attempted?) 5 (does a collapsed wave function eventually return to its undisturbed state?)

Agreed, but I did mention a range of environments that it'd be adapted to. Enough to survive overall if a few environments "go bad" Definitely the first one. No significant changes whatsoever, as mentioned in the article. Pretty easy: if the jaw changed, or anything significant did, the organism's no longer unchanged. Living fossil is a perfect enough term far as I'm concerned. Interesting to know. Though I'm referring to no significant evolution from morphology as well. A good description I'd say. But more precisely, I just found it thought provoking to consider a scenario where an organism's best chance for survival would be to not evolve any further. Past a certain stage it'd work against the organism. So from then on, an environment it must survive against is evolution itself.

I'm thinking like water boiling, the measuring scientist's not going to know which molecules convert to steam and rise first, but they can determine the "half-life" of the process as a whole. Heat produces more action over a period of time, I'm guessing. The exact process of decay might just be currently unmeasurable, making it seem random, but it's possible we'd find that whatever causes it might be sped up with heat, in lab tests. By super exciting the atom, it might in turn excite all its subatomic processes. A better test might be to see if a half-life gets "delayed" by keeping the material in nearly 0K temperature? I'd just like to know: would that still occur if more distance were put between the slits? I'm thinking a wave's going to expand and therefore should hit both, but at a certain distance apart it won't. "Black Hole" was coined by John Wheeler in 1967. Yet physicists already had long been in discussion over whether they existed -- since relativity predicted them. If no one had called it a black hole previously, what name did they use?

Has a name been given for the evolutionary "halt" when an organism is so well adapted to its environment that any genetic mutation is detrimental or unnecessary? A prime example: the fossils of certain diatoms and mosses species found in Antarctica... "To be able to identify living species amongst the fossils is phenomenal. To think that modern counterparts have survived 14 million years on Earth without any significant changes in the details of their appearances is striking. It must mean that these organisms are so well-adapted to their habitats that in spite of repeated climate changes and isolation of populations for millions of years they have not become extinct but have survived" said Ashworth, the principal paleoecologist in the research. Other examples might be turtles, certain insects, plants, etc. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI visualize it as so... The evolutionary branching for such an organism had gone on as usual, then at some point later, the branches reach a platform from which they start looping back to the platform. There's not going to be any further evolution -- at least not in that range of environments. (also, if the thread could be moved under Evolution it'd be appreciated)

There's no evidence the mind's sitting in another dimension, but even if the mind were to reside beyond our 3d senses, that'd probably also make it extremely difficult to test. So it can only be a speculation at best, for the time at least. Until (and *if*) someone finds supporting data. Now if we're assuming the mind did interface with the brain from another dimension, then we can make other assumptions from there: if the brain's damaged in 3d, that communication might become damaged as well, the mind still functioning elsewhere and the brain severely distorting the communication and/or its back-up memory files corrupted. However, again that's all pure speculation which doesn't give us much except in the form of really interesting philosophical conversations.

You've answered the other three very nicely, I'd just like more info on this one. If the slits were positioned double that, say 20nm apart, would the particle not be split into two? Exactly what I sought. Thanks. Ok, #3, 4, and 7 fully answered by npts2020 and Horza2002. Still to go... # 1 2 (partly) 5 6 Anyone care to give them a whirl?

From your link... "It reflects a beautiful property of the quantum system - a hidden symmetry. Actually quite a special one called E8 by mathematicians... Which by a funny coincidence, just the other day I happened to read about the detection of E8 in nature on that same website. (And, I've the feeling ajb probably would like it) 'Most beautiful' math structure appears in lab for first time Mathematicians discovered a complex 248-dimensional symmetry called E8 in the late 1800s. ........ Now, physicists have detected the signature of E8 in a very different realm – experiments on super-chilled crystals. Not sure if the golden ratio is simply a lesser part of E8, or what. But to just model E8 seems to have needed an incredibly vast calculation, as you'll find in the text below. Also imagine how if the golden ratio's only a minor part of E8, the rest of it might eventually influence architecture to create a "golden metropolis" Possibly on an interplanetary scale. Mathematicians Map E8 Mathematicians have mapped the inner workings of one of the most complicated structures ever studied: the object known as the exceptional Lie group E8. This achievement is significant both as an advance in basic knowledge and because of the many connections between E8 and other areas, including string theory and geometry. The magnitude of the calculation is staggering: the answer, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan ........ Even after we understood the underlying mathematics it still took more than two years to implement it on a computer." And then there came the problem of finding a computer large enough to do the calculation. For another year, the team worked to make the calculation more efficient, so that it might fit on existing supercomputers, but it remained just beyond the capacity of the hardware available to them Related... Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything? By analysing the most elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces, including gravity - or so he hopes. ........ What Lisi had realised was that if he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points, it might explain, for example, how the forces make particles decay, as seen in particle accelerators. ........ The crucial test of Lisi's work will come only when he has made testable predictions. Lisi himself accepts this, saying that although his theory is beautiful to him, "nature may disagree". To fill E8 entirely will require more than 20 new particles not envisaged by the standard model.

Two more very small (in diameter) but technically massive questions. 6. Before 1967, what did Einstein and others call black holes in discussions about their prediction by relativity? 7. In Wikipedia's entry for Pauli exclusion principle... It states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. What does that actually mean? I had originally understood it as no two electrons can be in the exact same position. i.e. no total overlap. Basically what I mean is a person's exposed to radiation, not on shoes or direct contact but just through air. Will some of the radiation leave with them? I mean nuclear waste radiation, the typical stuff we often hear about. With their high energy, it'd seem a radiated particle would travel quite far. Yet also it seems a person would generally be safe if a good distance away from a radioactive pile laying in the middle of some open field, say hundreds of yards distant? Not really sure of how radiated particles would move though.

1. If heated, will radioactive decay occur quickly? For instance, will the half-life of an element's decay be shortened? (while under enough of a heat increase) 2. Triple-slit experiment. Caused me to wonder....in a double-slit experiment, how far apart can the slits be and the particle-wave still manages to enter through both? 3. If you hovered airborne over a radioactive spot, so that you were hit by the radiated particles, then you exited the area in a few hours, would the particles that hit cause you to give off radiation later? 4. How far does a radiated particle travel in air? i.e. does it get slowed by collisions with air particles? 5. Does a collapsed wave function eventually uncollapse? (if so, quickly or slowly)

That definitely seems most logical. It's not as if photons would be unable to escape from within the event horizon yet they'd somehow be able to reach the inner wall of the event horizon no problem. As for seeing nothing ahead of you once inside the event horizon, just turn around. Better view