gib65

Although you are correct in a few of these points, I suppose I now know how to push your buttons. I think I'll be putting this to good use if we ever got into a heat discussion in these forums.

A friend of mine was trying to convince me the other day that thought can travel faster than light. His example was this: you take a stiff rod of some solid enough material and long enough length (long enough for light to take a humanly noticeable amount of time to travel). Take two people and put one at each end. Have one person send a message to the other by pushing on the rod length-wise (that is, on its end). Have the sender do this according to some binary code (like moris code). The recipient will receive the message instantly (faster than light) therefore proving that thought (or information) can travel faster than light. My qualm with this scenario was that I had a funny feeling that not all parts of the rod would move in unison. Although it may seem like all parts of some everyday object all move together when it gets pushed or pulled or whathaveyou, I suspect there is a slight time delay between those parts that are in direct contact with the pushing/pulling force and all other parts of the object. Isn't it true that the solidity of an object is maintained by the electromagnetic bonds between its constituent atoms/molecules, and that for any one atom/molecule to move with another it is bonded to, it must wait for the photon (or whatever the messenger particle it is that keeps them bonded) to travel to it from the first atom/molecule? If this is the case, then when the message sender pushes on the rod, the only instantanious effect he has is on the local atoms/molecules in the rod. For other atoms/molecules to move, they must wait for the photons/messenger-particles to get to them. Essentially, the message gets sent down the rod as a wave. And since photons/messenger-particles travel no faster than the speed of light, thought travels - at best - at the speed of light, or - worse than best - slower. Is this right?

Let me put it another way: Do dominant genes ultimately lead to a phenotype that has the greatest chances of survival, or are these completely unrelated? Could a couple have 3 out of 4 children who are "weaker" than the fourth child? Gib

Thanks. Those were good reads. It leaves me with a question though. I've always thought that THC must have some effect on increasing/decreasing the activity of the left and right brains. But the site you gave me says nothing of this. It only says that THC interacts with cerebellum and basal ganglia which are involved with motion and coordination, the hippocampus which is involved with memory, and the limbic system which is involved with emotions. Although these ring true with me based on my subjective experiences with marijuana, it hardly explains the whole experience. I had a theory that THC must supress the activity of the left brain and heighten the activity of the right brain. It makes sense if you think about it. All left brain tasks become exruciatingly hard when your high: reading, writing, speaking, comprehending speach, thinking logically, doing math, using common sense, etc. Meanwhile, all right brain tasks become extremely easy: visualization, creative thought, poetic fluency, wholistic thinking, inerpersonal impressions, metaphorical thinking, intuition, etc. I even used this theory to explain why some insights seemed undeniably true when high but then its flaws or stupidity became more and more appearant as I came down. That is, since the right brain is the more creative thinking brain, it comes up with all our spontaniously conceived insights (eureka moments) and then passes them over to the left brain for assessment. At the end of the day, the left brain has the final word on whether it's right or wrong, logical or illogical, acceptable or unacceptable, or whathaveyou. Since the left brain is seriously handicapped when high, it can't make these assessments, so whatever your right brain comes up with is accepted almost unconditionally. Basically, what I want to know is, is there any evidence supporting my theory?

Okay, okay, sorry about the wording. But from what you're saying, it seems like the concept I was trying to get across is correct. From the POV of someone higher up in the gravitational field, a clock that is deeper into the gravitational field will appear to be running slower than one that he is carrying. If the deeper clock is also falling then the observer higher up in the gravitational field will see the deeper clock, at a given point, moving even slower than if it was still at that same point. Right?

Hey TseTseFly, I would certainly like to see a study on some of the lighter drugs such a marajuana and mushrooms. People tend to call them "safe" drugs, but to what extent is this true?

Yeah, that whole bowling-ball-and-trampolene analogy probably causes more confusion than enlightenment. The biggest misunderstanding one is apt to get out of it is that the warping of spacetime results in objects being pulled towards a heavier object because there is some all prevading gravitational field all throughout the universe that pulls all objects down (i.e. not towards the center of the heavier object), and both the light and heavy object are "sitting" on a certain 2D layer of the spacetime continuum, and the smaller object only moves because it "slides" down this layer where it's sloped. The obvious problem with that interpretation is that one must subsume gravity into the picture beforehand, explaining how the smaller object slides down a sloped spacetime plane, but then nothing's been explained about why gravity exists in the first place. The best way to understand the warping of spacetime around masses is to image a universe with 1 fewer dimension than our universe has. How? First, understand what Aeschylus means by a 4 dimensional spacetime: 3 space and 1 time. Save the 1 time dimension and get rid of 1 space dimension in your imaginary universe, and then imagine the time dimension as if it were the 3rd space dimension from the 4D universe. This is OK since the whole reason we consider time to be a fourth dimension is because it seems to have all the same properties of the 3 space dimensions, and therefore its only difference may just be in how we experience it. So imagine that the 2 space dimensions compose an infinit plane. Now, since all objects in the universe must occupy all spatial dimensions, then all objects in your imaginary universe must be 2D. An object like the Sun or the Earth would be discs. Now visualize the time dimension: if you've got a flat plane for the 2 space dimensions (like the ground), then you must imagine time as a vertically oriented dimension (like lamp posts or anything extruding upwards from the ground). In effect, what you end up envisioning is a 3D universe which is still 2 space and 1 time, but indistinguishable (visually, that is) from our familiar 3D universe of spatial dimensions without taking time (4th dimension) into consideration. Now you've still got these discs floating around in this 2D plane. Let's fix that: because all objects (whether 2D or 3D or nD) prevade throughout all time, then they exist at all points of the time dimension. A rock just sitting there may only exist in a limited volume of space, but it still exists in that volume at time t1, t2, ... tn, etc. This passing of time can be visualized in your imaginary universe as multiple layers of 2D space planes stacked ontop of each other, and in each one of these planes, the discs representing objects continue to exist at their coordinates in the 2D plane (if they're not moving). So you end up getting a series of discs stacked on top of each other. This can be simplified from a multitude of discs to one long cylinder. That's right, objects like planets and other discs are actually cylinders in our 3D (2 space, 1 time) universe. So now you're ready to imagine the warping of spacetime: take your verticle time dimension and imagine that, instead of being parallel to all the cylinders, the time dimension actually bends towards the cylinders. The more massive the cilynder, the greater the bend. What happens after the time dimensions intersects with the cylinder's surface? I don't know, I guess it gets "sucked" into the cilynder never to be seen again. Finally, apply the principle of "the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line" to all lighter objects being pulled by gravity due to the heavier objects. With warped spacetime, a "straight line" isn't so straight anymore, but objects still behave as if they were straight. That is, they simply follow the path they've always been following (through time or space). If that path so happens to be curved, they'll curve with it, almost as if they don't perceive the curvature and see it as a "straight line" instead. So you must image the cilynders of lighter objects actually bending along with the time dimension towards the heavier object. And that's that. When you return to our familiar 4D universe, you can now image what's going on when a lighter objects falls towards the heavier object. As it accelerates towards the heavier object, what you're in fact seeing is its position at higher and higher points along the time dimension. What you're looking at when you see the heavier object is actually a 4D cylinder* and at each moment in time, the 3D sphere that you see is actually different slices of this 4D cylinder. The fact that time bends means that it becomes more parallel with the space dimensions, and this means that passage through time starts to look more like passage through space, and this is indeed what's going on. As the object moves through time, the time dimension being curved results in the object changing its trajectory so that it ends up moving more through space than exclusively through time. Does this help at all, or did I confuse you even more? * No, I'm not suggesting that there actually ARE 4D cilynders, I'm just saying that it works as a model for understand GR.

So, I understand that in a gravitational field, time slows down the deeper one goes into the field, but what difference does it make whether one is falling or on the ground? If I understand GR and SR correctly, then I'd assume when one is falling, you simply sum up the time dialation due to the process of falling (SR) and due to how deep one is at any point during the fall (GR). That is, when one is falling, time slows down because of the principles of SR. But in addition to that, when one falls, one ends up at deeper and deeper points in the gravitational field, and at each point, time slows down because of the principles of GR. When one is on the ground, SR would say time dialation = 0, so only GR must be taken into account. So am I right in assuming the net time dialation is the sum of the SR and GR? Gib

Yeah, the exact same thing happened to me when I first tried drugs. Before, whenever I'd dream and I realized I was in a dream, that's what I realized. But now, my first instinct is to assume that I must have taken some drug. I wish it would go back to the pre-drug phase so I can try some lucid dreaming.

If the brain is essentially a densely compacted bundle of neurons with interconnections that allow electric/chemical signals to be processed along pathways, how do scientists figure out these pathways? That is, what techniques do they use to figure out where a signal travels in the brain? Say you are given a starting point in the brain (like a sensory input point) and you want to know where and how far that signals goes, how would one do that? Gib

Sorry, I just checked that link again, and it would be more informative to also read the one before it: http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/accel_particles.html This is where they actually mention particle that "ride" the wave like surfers.

It does help, sort of. I was just going by what the website said (see link in my previous post). If you read just that one page, it seems to be saying that in a particle accelerator, magnetic fields are used to get particles moving. Now I assume that in order for this magnetic field to move particles, the magnetism involved is the same thing as the electromagnetic field surrounding charged particles, and thus has positive and negative values, and that if it is used to push particles away it is essentially the same thing as a charge whose value is the same as the particles being pushed. It just gets confusing when they start talking about the particles "surfing the wave" because then the dynamics seem much more mechanical, and you get all the conundrums described in my previous post.

Hi all, First off, I'd like to thank all moderators and members of this forum for answering my questions in the past, as they've shed tons of light on my understanding of the world. Anyway, here comes another one. I've been reading through the particleadventure website (highly recommended) and I stumbled across a certain model for how electromagnetic fields interact with particles to give them a push: http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/accel_ani.html According to this model, particles "surf" the electromagnetic wave. But after thinking about this, I can't conclude anything other than that this model only works when the charge of the field and the particles are the same. That is, positive fields will repel positively charged particles and negative fields will repel negatively charged particles. But what happens when the charges are opposite? The particles would obviously have to move towards the source of the field. But then what of the surfing-the-wave analogy? Do the waves travel inwards, converging upon the source of the field? Would they be coming out of pure space? But that's not exactly the crux of the problem. The problem is when you start talking about particles attracting other particles (get rid of the field). For the sake of my question, I'm going to assume outward eminating waves correspond to a negative charge and inward converging waves correspond to a positive charge (the reverse case would yeild the same problems, so it doesn't matter). So then, electrons with their negative charge would repel each other via mutual wave-surfing of each others outward propagating fields. No problem there. But now protons should attract each other!!! Protons being positively charged should have inward converging waves and thus, if they are to surf each other's waves, pull each other closer. Furthermore, you take any two particles with opposite charges and you should see a chase. Take and electron and proton (again). As the proton attempts to pull the electron in with its inward converging waves, the electron pushes away with its outward propagating waves. The result is that you should see the electron chasing the proton. Of course this is all incorrect. So my question is, what's wrong with my understanding of this model? Is there something wrong, or is it just that the model is limited to repelling EM fields? Gib

So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that we don't know if space is something or nothing, but what we can say for sure is that the effects of gravity can be described as though space were curved.

So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that we don't know if space is something or nothing, but what we can say for sure is that the effects of gravity can be described as though space were curved.

I think that something like that would correspond to a neurological circuit which is not being stimulated (i.e. has no electric signal running through it and/or no chemical transmissions), but can be at any time. So, when it's active, we're thinking about it, and when it's not, it's "stored". I think there is a school of thought along those lines. There's also a school of thought (perhaps the same one) that proposes that it's not so much what the brain is that gives rise to consciousness, but what the brain is doing. In other words, it doesn't matter that the brain is made of neurons, chemicals, metal, plastic, or even bubble-gum, so long as the function that it carries out meets certain criteria. And I would presume those criteria amount to "behaving as if with consciousness". I don't know, but I think it probably had something to do with the fact that consciousness seemed immediately to cease upon cutting off one's head. You chop off one's arm, leg, or mutilate one viscerally (word?), and he/she is still conscious (at least, for a short while), but chop off one's head and they immediately die. Of course, this still doesn't imply causation, but in times of old, when people weren't savy logicians as we are today, it's eas to see how they would come to that conclusion.

I think that something like that would correspond to a neurological circuit which is not being stimulated (i.e. has no electric signal running through it and/or no chemical transmissions), but can be at any time. So, when it's active, we're thinking about it, and when it's not, it's "stored". I think there is a school of thought along those lines. There's also a school of thought (perhaps the same one) that proposes that it's not so much what the brain is that gives rise to consciousness, but what the brain is doing. In other words, it doesn't matter that the brain is made of neurons, chemicals, metal, plastic, or even bubble-gum, so long as the function that it carries out meets certain criteria. And I would presume those criteria amount to "behaving as if with consciousness". I don't know, but I think it probably had something to do with the fact that consciousness seemed immediately to cease upon cutting off one's head. You chop off one's arm, leg, or mutilate one viscerally (word?), and he/she is still conscious (at least, for a short while), but chop off one's head and they immediately die. Of course, this still doesn't imply causation, but in times of old, when people weren't savy logicians as we are today, it's eas to see how they would come to that conclusion.

That's exactly what I'm asking.

That's exactly what I'm asking.

If it were possible to reform the brain after death in such a way that you reconstructed all neural pathways and chemical balances to exactly the same as they were before the individual died, then might it not be possible to reconstruct it to be whatever you wanted? Say you wanted to bring back your dead grandma (and you didn't care what body she incubated), or a dead president, or a historical figure, or your dream girl/guy.

If it were possible to reform the brain after death in such a way that you reconstructed all neural pathways and chemical balances to exactly the same as they were before the individual died, then might it not be possible to reconstruct it to be whatever you wanted? Say you wanted to bring back your dead grandma (and you didn't care what body she incubated), or a dead president, or a historical figure, or your dream girl/guy.

I see what you mean, but this difference is only in the ether being passive and the "warpable" space-time as being active. In either case, there still has to be something there. In order for space to be a dynamic player with all occupying entities, there has to be a player.

I see what you mean, but this difference is only in the ether being passive and the "warpable" space-time as being active. In either case, there still has to be something there. In order for space to be a dynamic player with all occupying entities, there has to be a player.

So on the subject of travelling into the past when an object travels faster than light: I don't get it. I mean, even though the speed of light is very, very fast, it is not instantanious displacement from point A to point B. If an object travels one light year through space at 300,000 km/s, it will take it one year (relative to a stationary observer, at least). Even if it were possible to breach the universal speed limit, a slight increase in its speed should only mean taking less than a year to travel that distance. To suggest that an object appears at point B before leaving point A means that there is a discontinuity in how the rate of elapsed time changes as a function of speed. That is, as something speeds up, the time it takes to travel a fixed distance decreases continuously, up to the point when said objected reaches the speed of light, after which point the time it takes makes an instantanious leap from a positive value to 0, and then becomes continuous again taking on more and more negative values with greater and greater speeds. But who am I to say this is not the way it works. Maybe these experiments which show particles travelling back in time are more than just hearsay, and I should just accept that at a certain point, this decreasing of elapsed time DOES make a discontinuous leap. What WOULD make sense, however, is if the object in question ended up travelling back in time in its own frame of reference. That is, suppose you had an astronaut on a space craft who had a pocket watch, and who intended to break the universal speed limit (with whatever technology he figure would provide the means). Time on the space craft would slow down as indicated by the slower clock (which only stationary observers would be justified in surmising). Once the space craft reached the speed of light, the clock (along with everything else in the space craft) would freeze in time. If thereafter, the space craft continued to accelerate (if that were somehow possible) then we could say that the clock and all else aboard would reverse their tarjectory through time... maybe. But as you can see, this only applies to the happenings and going-ons aboard the space craft and has NOTHING to do with the speed of the space craft itself. But again, I'm no astro-physicist, and maybe the whole scientific community is laughing at me right now

So on the subject of travelling into the past when an object travels faster than light: I don't get it. I mean, even though the speed of light is very, very fast, it is not instantanious displacement from point A to point B. If an object travels one light year through space at 300,000 km/s, it will take it one year (relative to a stationary observer, at least). Even if it were possible to breach the universal speed limit, a slight increase in its speed should only mean taking less than a year to travel that distance. To suggest that an object appears at point B before leaving point A means that there is a discontinuity in how the rate of elapsed time changes as a function of speed. That is, as something speeds up, the time it takes to travel a fixed distance decreases continuously, up to the point when said objected reaches the speed of light, after which point the time it takes makes an instantanious leap from a positive value to 0, and then becomes continuous again taking on more and more negative values with greater and greater speeds. But who am I to say this is not the way it works. Maybe these experiments which show particles travelling back in time are more than just hearsay, and I should just accept that at a certain point, this decreasing of elapsed time DOES make a discontinuous leap. What WOULD make sense, however, is if the object in question ended up travelling back in time in its own frame of reference. That is, suppose you had an astronaut on a space craft who had a pocket watch, and who intended to break the universal speed limit (with whatever technology he figure would provide the means). Time on the space craft would slow down as indicated by the slower clock (which only stationary observers would be justified in surmising). Once the space craft reached the speed of light, the clock (along with everything else in the space craft) would freeze in time. If thereafter, the space craft continued to accelerate (if that were somehow possible) then we could say that the clock and all else aboard would reverse their tarjectory through time... maybe. But as you can see, this only applies to the happenings and going-ons aboard the space craft and has NOTHING to do with the speed of the space craft itself. But again, I'm no astro-physicist, and maybe the whole scientific community is laughing at me right now