Kygron

Look at a similar animation of a NORMAL cube rotating. You'll notice your description applies there as well, an I'm sure you'll agree that a cube exists.

Mods: was this post originally in the psudoscience forums? If not I don't think it needed to be moved based on a few people expressing those types of views. But that's just my opinion.

Ah, but aren't beetles FAR more complex than the original life forms? I suppose I should add one more item to my previous list of requirements for complexity: Competition for limited resources(and simmilar evolutionary pressures). With that, an organism has a choice, do something different, or do something better. One method of the latter is to gain in complexity. I don't even claim that it happens often, but it DOES happen. Even a single instance will increase the "average complexity", and the "greatest complexity". Either way, evolution HAS led to complexity! And why is this a problem? This is an excellent AID for evolutionalry pressure. When an organism has become sufficiently advanced there may not be any other reason to continue to gain complexity. But then! You have previously complex organisms becomming parasites to feed off of that extra energy. Without it the complex organism is "thrown back into the ring" and must again compete for resources. And that competition leads to more complexity. Sure, I'll agree that complexity is rare, and intelligence singular, but I claim that that is the nature of the process. The tallest pyramid has the largest base, so to speak. Therefore, evolution leads to complexity, and intelligence, being a form of complexity, is a natural, even inevitable, result.

As soon as there's a question, there's someone trying to find a solution. As soon as there's a solution, there's someone trying to extend it in order to have the solution apply to future problems. As soon as there's a solution without a problem, there's someone who thinks it's a game and starts playing with it. Wow, I like that, I'm going to have to apply that to other things

Tesseract's avatar is one of those images of a hypercube. Visuallizing in 4 dimentions is tricky because your mind isn't used to doing it. Also because any drawing of a hypercube, for example, has to be projected twice. By projected, I mean, "flattening" it. You could possibly put on 3D glasses and look at a computer-generated single-projected hypercube. It would look like the two cubes connected at all the corners. You'd have to have it transparent to see all the way through. I'm going on and on, but the "standard" way is to use the mathematical formulas themselves and not even bother trying to "see" it.

A hyper-volume, and various other names. I believe you'll find this topic well-explored. For example, you know how if you draw a circle, you can also draw six other circles of the same size around it so that they all join? Well, if you extend that to 3 dimentions it doesn't work any more. But I read a Science News article once that said that in 4 dimentions it works again, and again in 10 and 26! Now try imagining 26D space if you will?

metatron, I wanted to comment on your writing style. It seems to me that you're mixing your analogies into your descriptions, especially in the original postings. You're then compounding analogies by using one to explain another. I realize that you may not be doing this intentionally. You've spent so much time with this work that no doubt you're invented new ways of looking at it. Then you're come up with analogy for a new viewpoint. THEN you've changed the viewpoint, changing the analogy in the proccess! When you describe it you're forced to explain each layer of analogy until your text correctly represents your mental impression. Unfortunatly, your audience gets lost in the representation and therefore misses the content. Another problem is that you've got yourself into a mindset that reflects the novelty of your subject matter. You're used to thinking about how one thing relates to another, and you end up jumping around in your descriptions as if your audience understands the connection. You're used to things forming around the central attractor, so you write descriptions that form around your main ideas, without enough emphesis on the main ideas themselves (beating around the bush). My conclusion is that while you may have many new and interesting ideas, you've trained yourself to think in a way that helps the theory, but hurts your description of it. In order to comunicate with people who don't share your frame of mind, you'll need to set yourself into THIER frame of mind. I'm not too sure of the best way to do this. Perhaps since you're practicing writing anyway, you could practice writing about TRADITIONAL subjects without adding any of your new ideas. Compare that with a textbook and when the styles are simmilar, you can move on to writing your ideas in our style. (I must admit I may suffer from a simmilar failing, so I hope this explaination is helpfull and readable!)

I purposely ignored it. The thing I read that led to this showed a conceptual planetary model of a hydrogen atom and calculated the electron's angular momentum. They clearly stated that the QM model was more complex, but for the basic math the planetary model was sufficient. I was hoping to do the same general thing. I've temporarily abandoned this quest, because in one of the references I looked up I found that the electron had been modeled as a spinning, charged black hole as soon as that BH model was available. This was somewhere in the '60's - '80's, I forget exactly, but it was enought to discourage me since I hadn't heard of it it prob'ly never went anywhere. I'll have to look up that model again when I'm feeling up to it.

again, not what I meant in the first place. I don't know of any of those kinds of things.... well, I heard of one once, but I don't remember anything about it.

Sounds like a question of philosophy to me. I'm not apposed to philosophy, especially if it gives a good point of view to use as a basis for further understanding, but I don't see the use here. He seems to be saying: "My" black holes are exactly like traditional ones, except that instead of a "singularity" they have "dark energy". Singularity is more or less a mathmatical term for "I don't know". Dark energy is more or less a cosmological term for "I don't know". This is why I call this philosophy. The nature article is very unclear.

no, that's what you wanted. I only wanted to slightly modify the hexopod description. books about dragons????? um... ANY library with fantasy fiction I'd guess.

Lol, now relate that right back to the topic of the thread, and you become pro-life! Perhaps I missed your original meaning? Is that what you were trying to say all along? You sure picked a round-about way of doing it!

your post seemed to make it clear that SOMEONE can. and that that decision should be based on productivity in society.

Coral Rhedd, I'm going to try to be nice (meaning simply: don't specifically ask for my opinion please) the law may be black-and-white, but human actions are not. this is why we change our laws, or have many, many loopholes in them. for a discusion of how to "fix" negative behavior and the ethics involved you may check here:http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7664 aside from all this, you DO have the right to assume someone is guilty. you are allowed to avoid all contact with the person. you may leave town and live somewhere else, etc. however these are all things YOU must do, you do NOT have the right to make OTHERS do the work (for example forcing the assumed guilty to leave town) so that you may maintain your life.

Wow, Callipygous, thanks. You see, I'm a VERY productivce member of society, but recently I've discovered that my four children are getting in the way of my productivity by demanding my attention and consuming my monetary assets. Lucky for me I'm also intellegent and have understood your previous post. It's going to be so fun "getting rid" of those brats. I can't wait 'til they get home from school.... (the above in NO WAY represents my actual opinion!!!!)

It was a mutation that split the species in two. It didn't HAVE to happen, it just did and didn't fail. Environmental change. The near-vestigal wings provided a distinct advantage and redeveloped. You mean make me brainstorm it Unless you read books where they decribe one If you're looking to make a hind-leg walker, or a specialized flier or a elephantine cave-dweller-gold-sitter, go right ahead and figure it out, I was just providing a general feature set. Hm... looks like I missed the fire-breathing...

or if the disk was previously formatted in FAT32, as was the case here. In this case it is far easier to run a quick format and leave the file system as is.

Yes, I never said it would be quick. (also, it need not be "purely" terrestrial, perhaps the thing will live in trees like flying squirels or something) On the contrary, show me how losing the wings would be an absolute necessity for the creature to be adapted to a terrestrial lifestyle. In fact I believe my final few sentences that you didn't quote answer this question. The wings would atrophy slowly in the course of evolution. They would not vanish however, and would be available later to redevelop. You seem to be of the opinion that an new organism must be perfectly suited to its environment in order to survive to develop into an new organism. If we re-examine the quote used: "advantage" and "situation" are used here, not "perfect" and "envoronment". I like to think of evolution as an ongoing process. No organism is EVER perfectly suited to its environment. Mutations, racial differences, and genes millions of years repressed are always around and available to resurface. I realize that I'm in the completely hypothetical here, but I'm trying to envision a way to a dragon to evolve. "Six legged dinosaur evolves one set of legs into wings" works, hypothetically. I believe "four footed pterosaur readapts to land" works also, but with a higher probability. You are free to suggest why it would be a lower probability, but unless you believe I've entered the "unreasonable" I don't think it does much good to describe the subtleties of the process. Unless of course, you're doing full research about alternate histories of earth and need some creative encouragement.

Quick format simply marks the files as non-existant. If you did care about data security, you woudn't want to do that because all the files are still accessable with a bit of work. Since you don't care, every thing is fine and I'd be surprized if you have any performance issuse. The old files will be over-written slowly as the drive fills up, but old 1's and 0's won't interfere any more than new 0's in an blank HDD.

My hunch is that in eastern myths you will see dragons comming from the sea.

I was considering how a dragon would evolve throught those intermediates. I'll say that perhaps the forelimbs would become wing-like structures FIRST, and then later the limb-gene would mutate to give them a new set of forelimbs. Once those become fully functional, the wings would further specialize into "true" wings.

I read something about spin in electrons and I wanted to try an idea I have. Unfortunatly I don't know many of the formulas I need, so I'm asking for help. Here's the problem. I want to account for spin by having the electron actually spinning. I figure the fastest it can go is if it were orbiting a black hole. I want a small BH so I'm assuming its mass is the mass of the electron in question. I'll also assume the electron is moving with velocity = c, unless there's a more appropriet velocity someone knows of. For ease of calculation let's use a static BH, non-spinning, non-charged (I'd love to use a BH spinning and charged, but I doubt the formulas will even be legible for me). The electron will orbit at the photon sphere, 3/2 the horizen radius. I don't know how to calculate this circumference. I haven't looked up how to calculate angular momentum in this system, nor how to relate it to spin. Lastly I'd want info about the EM field strength, but that shouldn't be difficult once we have the other info. Anyone know how to help?