moth

now that we know this, is it still true?

cast off the shoes...follow the gourd

aren't the red stretches on the graph by design? starve the beast was the name of the game (cut taxes and spend more to kill "big" government)

are you thinking of shape memory alloy, like nitinol?

maybe you could check out CRT technology. here's a link to a reference with lots of equations from a wikipedia article on CRT http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/877/898586/topics/topic07.pdf i'm not too good with the math but i think the deflection fields would need to be much stronger if the electrons only travel at c.

it's not an interstate commerce issue it's a 16th amendment issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Other Constitutional provisions regarding taxes The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States " excises means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise "may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production or sale of a good," it's the same way the fed regulates automatic weapons and narcotics in general. the story i've been told is you have to have a tax stamp to be in possesion of pot, but you have to be in possesion of pot to get the tax stamp. catch-22

i think it has to do with taxes. and of course "protecting children" here's a link http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/t9.htm

the simple explanation for the reason light travels slower through water than a vacuum seems to be that when light is traveling through water the photons are absorbed by atoms for a short time and then emitted to be absorbed and emitted by other atoms. in a chain reaction kind of progress, the light eventually is transmitted through the water. is this just an oversimplification or is there something that causes the photon to keep moving in the same direction it was moving before being absorbed. why isn't the photon emitted in a random direction ?

it's from feynmans lectures here's a link to an online piece of them http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:J6bghC3tpl4J:www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa09/Feynman_energy.pdf+It+is+important+to+realize+that+in+physics+today,we+have+no+knowledge+what+energy+is&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi9De2Ux8wsHk1Ujto6gi8ZADUnqaF5w1t5bQOIuq8VPGjGCqZoeQXMHOe4H3QTzpN5iMAbj0_w2S5qPYLLD_HJHCY3EYJZ3GbAh3RpYV3y9Iz696vnbCxjxC7hQE7AWqxNCYn7&sig=AFQjCNHL_sWiMirpk4wU6LJiif8rnQCHQg

i think page 20 of the vaas paper (the arxive link) in martin's thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45412 is talking about the mini-verse krauss mentioned i haven't had time to figure out how to download the paper (it's not free) by borde but here's a link http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i4/e043513 it sounds like they first have to discover how to create, then collide monopoles so the idea is pretty out there. in krauss' talk he mentions 70-80% of the mass of a proton is from interactions between the quarks. does anybody know if this is related to moving color charges? thanks, moth

doesnt cosmological natural selection also suffer the same infinite regress problem? if this universe sprang from a black hole in another universe that sprang from a black hole in another ... how and where did the first black hole arise? neither CAS or CNS get us any closer to understanding the origin they just push it back one (or more) steps. sorry if i'm just being dense here. maybe someone could point me towards more papers as i'm not too good at finding them on my own. thats why i enjoy scienceforums so much, all these new (to me) ideas.

you're correct i was reading your link before i was looking at cern

i didn't read the pdf, but from the abstract "Our universe might be understood in terms of vast computer simulations and could even have been created and transcended by one " isn't he just ripping off the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

airbrush have you been reading the cern courier? i just ask because i also came accross that einstein qoute while looking for the source of the 'verse' in a mini-black hole idea stated in the video. here's another ineresting article that seems to suggest a string theory origin for the idea,but i'm still looking. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31860

can spacetime be divided? is the inside of a black hole (or outside the observable universe) seperate from the outside of the black hole(inside of observable universe)? can you divide nothing? the more i think about this video the more my brain hurts.

from a conservation of energy standpoint, could that mean the law needs a corollary like energy can't be created except when a universe is created? or maybe the universe is not a closed system? or the creation of the universe transformed energy into some form that can't be recombined untill enough time has elapsed? i prefer the last, but i'm still running on very little sleep. just enough to remember (any non-zero value)/eternity <>0 so the power idea from my last post won't work.

in ascii 'A' is 20(in hexadecimal) characters from 'a' so you could add hex 20(32 decimal) to each letter in 'COMPUTER' and the result would be 'computer'. 20H = space in ascii so COMPUTER + ' '(8 spaces) = computer. i don't know if this works for unicode charaters i just remember this from my DOS days.

i got the impression he was saying a flat universe means no energy was needed for it's creation and, i'm guessing, if you could somehow account for all the energy in the universe and add it all together it would still equal nothing? edit: i'm having trouble putting this in words but i think something along the lines of the difference between power and energy when time is factored in some things with a lot of energy have a little power. or maybe my insomnia is just messing my head

thanks for the viddy. what a great speaker. frank zappa used to say "nothing is what i want" i used to think he was talking zen,now i wonder if he was talking cosmology. well worth the hour i wasn't in my shop working. EDIT: almost forgot to ask my question:doh: towards the end where he's talking about a "workbench" (uni)verse maybe being created in the l.h.c. he said something like "from the inside it would look like it (the 'verse') was expanding, and from the outside it would appear to shrink" not really a quote but close i think. do you have any idea why this would be? sorry if it's in there and i missed it:doh:

or you could use a foucault pendulum to show the earth's rotation.

one point that is easy to overlook, even when you spin at a constant rate you still experience acceleration because you change the direction you are moving as you go around(mass likes to move in straight lines) , and you can measure that acceleration. so if the guy inside feels a force towards the sides of the barrow he knows the barrow is spinning not the bar.

thank you for the links swansont. the reader who responded to one of the articles with an offer to sell monopoles on a buy one get one free basis was the best laugh i've had in weeks. i guess one of the pitfalls of trying to follow advancements in science through the media is you may learn more about journalism than science.

and i was just beginning to get a little bit of a clue about the lorentz transforms. i wonder if monopoles could simplify maxwell's mess?

are we entering an age of magnetronics? http://www.london-nano.com/content/researchhighlights/magnetricity/ "The research, published today in Nature (1), proves the existence of atom-sized magnetic charges called ‘magnetic monopoles’ that behave and interact just like more familiar electric charges. It also demonstrates a perfect symmetry between electricity and magnetism – a phenomenon dubbed ‘magnetricity' by the authors from the LCN and STFC’s ISIS Neutron and Muon Source ." "The experiment allowed the team to detect magnetic charges in the spin ice (Dy2Ti2O7), to measure their currents, and to determine the elementary unit of the magnetic charge in the material. The monopoles they observed arise as disturbances of the magnetic state of the spin ice, and can exist only inside the material." does anybody know how or if spin ice is related to spin glass? i'm not sure if this should go in speculations, but any speculations about where this might lead ? thanks i see cap'nrefsmmat already covered this in another thread - sorry http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43725&highlight=magnetic+monopoles

i apologize for the tone of my previous post. as i read it this morning it seems like an attack on christianity rather than a question. my question was how can religion be tied to morality when they conflict? are there any fmri studies looking at brains having religous experiences like reading religous material or listening to religous leaders speak? do the same regions become active as when considering a moral delimma like the fmri shown in inow's video?