Sione

LOL. Sorry if I was not clear. I meant to say that GR and the rest of physics is in disagreement with SR about the Lorentz force' date=' reference frames or both. Anyway, as for peer reviewed and actual science, here is a little bit of reality about Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: [b']Z-pinch[/b] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch) - "The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts." DO YOU SEE THE ATTRACTION? Have you ever seen a lightning? That's just a warm up, ready for some more reality? - Various Z-pinch machines can be found in various institutions such as Sandia National Laboratories (USA), Ruhr University (Germany), Imperial College (United Kingdom), Ecole Polytechnique (France), and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel). p.s. Don't let me even start on GR, you don't wanna know.

Since I'm the only one who actually has insight about experiments, it is your theories and opinions that are speculative. Every single theory in modern and classical physics very much disagree with SR about this particular case, including GR, so what is all the fuss about?

Reality and experimental measurements. That's all what matters now and everyone should check it for themselves, it's one click away.

I don't have time for a decent search to find a good reference on this' date=' but I suspect a physics text might be the best course of action. [/quote'] It is not about me believing claims of some particular theory. I took every possible course of action regarding all the theories and conclusion I have is confirmed by practical experiments. Your conclusion will, or will not, be confirmed once you too find the time to check experiments and see what reality thinks about it. No, Electrodynamics or Classical Electromagnetism says clearly otherwise, it simply works even thought they use absolute reference frames, like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: F= q(v x B) B= v x q*k*d/r^2 Quantum Electrodynamics does not even have equation for this interaction, but if it had it would either agree with Classical equations or Quantum Mechanics, which confirms this via electron pairing due to spin and magnetic dipole moment. The Maxwell equations and therefore the WHOLE of electrodynamics, as those 4 equations contain all of the information, are a completely relativistic theory... 1.) Maxwell equations ARE NOT "relativistic theory", but CLASSICAL Electromagnetism, using absolute reference frame like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: F= q(v x B) B= v x q*k*d/r^2 Maxwell's equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Special_relativity -"In electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations... Individually, the equations are known as Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction. These four equations, together with the Lorentz force law are the complete set of laws of classical electromagnetism." 2.) ...therefore, four Maxwell's equations ARE NOT WHOLE of electrodynamics, especially without including spin magnetic dipole moment and induced torque. It is as if I'm high-school boy with homework and you are helping me sort out my confusion. I've been working for the last five years in this field, as a numerical modeling and analysis software engineer, so I know all about this stuff and if you too want to know about it, then it is you who should be doing some Googling and realize what I told you is not my imagination. Don't believe me, of course not! Just Google and see it for yourself, once you find the time.

Yes, that would be in agreement with SR and all I want is some experimental study that confirms it, because all I found points the other way. Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force. I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations. Why would anyone do that if more simple equations can do much better job. Is there any software that uses SR equations to model free electrons? I do not know of any, while on the other hand I know some that model electrons and magnetic fields interaction with classic equations. 1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other." 2.) anything about modeling magnetic interaction with SR that actually works and is not superfluous next to classic equations.

Sheesh, what happened here? V for Vendetta, eh? Dear V, I see you fiddled with my beautiful definition, very good. Everything seems to be defined now and the conclusion is that people just don't like to agree, eh?

Well, my intention was to have conversation where we could try to find conclusion together, not be convincing each other of anything, but sharing information about it. You seem confident in your current opinion and you do not seem to want to research the subject further, which is fine. Anyway, this is my reference, together with the whole WWW: To me, this paradox seem very simple and obvious, easy to demonstrate, confirmed in experiments and equations in everyday life. I do not mean to claim or insist on any particular conclusion, nor to have empty argument, so I can continue to research it by myself and you are free to join and share with me how do you explain the paradox to yourself.

If you were alien indeed you would understand' date=' anyway it is nice to see humans care for each other. To answer your question, they do talk about all that in the movie, they give reference to: genetic evidence, fossils, pictures, tests... Have you seen it? You sound threatening, how sweet of you. Proof is in the pudding, evidence is in the videos, but I can not transfer that information telepathically, not to you, so you have to see it for yourself, if you care. If you prefer not to know, that's fine, don't be confused about my desire to have conversation with your disability to be friendly.

I accounted for everything and all the experiments confirm electron attraction increases due to "absolute velocity", not their relative velocity, since they attract more the faster they are going ALONG each other, in parallel, without any relative velocity. I agree, of course there is no "absolute velocity", it seems velocity is relative to "FixedStars", kind of like "Aether". Can you give any reference, experiments or links that show otherwise?

Me neither. Wrong equation? Can you give us correct one? What's worse that is exactly how real world experiments work. It is not that I want you to accept existence of absolute reference frame, I want explanation too. I mean, the mere fact that we have ELECTRON BEAMS (cathode ray in TV), means that electrons can actually travel in parallel, for some time at least. We should know from practical electronics the amount of repulsion/attraction of electrons in such beam, would that prove it? Thought, experiment with two parallel wires is actually the same, only the existence of wires makes people think the velocity is relative to wires, but equations suggest that is not the case and experiments with free electrons should make that clear. Parallel wires and magnetic fields: http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires 1.) velocity relative to field ? 2.) velocity relative to wires" ? So, what do we do, any idea? I have links that talk about electron attraction. This is not unknown at all, in chemistry and QM we accept for granted electron coupling, so it is not a question of whether electrons can attract, but whether that implies the existence of some 'absolute reference' frame or not.

I was not proving anything. I was asking you for the correct definition. There is no more points I need to make, I made my point. I did not make up any meanings, the meanings are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your definitions seem to be wrong or you failed to understand them. Why don't you just look it up, pick your favorite encyclopedia and check it, then you may realize, or at least you might be able to copy/past what you think is the correct definition. You always have to start from somewhere, even if it is completely wrong we now know what needs to be defined. You offer no better definition, you do not point what and how to improve and what is actually wrong, your comment is emotional rather than rational, it was unpredictable. YOU SAID: -"Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion." ...you actually agree with me, you just need to realize it, again. Not to worry, because I can explain everything. My dictionary is simply wrong? At least I tried, sorry for that. No problem, and I'm sure glad that you do know the correct definitions used in the field, so can you please tell us, according to what definition my definitions are wrong, please give us correct definitions: Life = ? Memory = ? Feeling = ? Thought = ? Emotion = ? Instinct = ? Intelligence = ? Consciousness = ? --------------------- Processing System/Nervous System = ? Information = ? Information INPUT = ? Information OUTPUT = ? Until then, fully working, mathematically logical definition, like mine, is good for start. At least I know what is state, what is process and what is reaction, you have no idea what you consider "input" and what you consider "output", or do you?

We are talking about simulating AI, what are you talking about... me? I'm flattered. Now, would you like to participate in the discussion and talk about what this thread is about? Don't make me repeat, I said my DEFINITION is evidence, Ok? Now, we need to see what evidence you got, can you talk? Can you answer these, so we at least know what is your position on all this: a. You do not understand definition? b. You understand definition and agree? c. You understand and disagree? (provide your definition) Thanks in advance for your input that is related to topic and constructive, insults are welcome as well, they are amusing, taa. Stop hitting yourself! Your conclusion is correct, but your refusal to accept definitions from the dictionary and encyclopedia will make you hurt yourself like that often. If you could understand that everything is defined by definitions, everything. So everything is true or false ACCORDING to some definition. And according to some of those definitions, yes they are "spiritual". "Spiritual", Synonyms: Immaterial, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiritual - what part do you not understand? You know what "synonym" and "immaterial" mean, right? Ok, I know I'm great, but lets talk about SIMULATING AI and definitions we need to be able to achieve that. Can you offer better definitions or articulate what part you do not agree with so we can improve it, please? ======================= Variables & Units... Life = living status, Yes/No Memory = max capacity, Byte Feeling = information input, Byte Thought = information output, Byte Emotion = memorized input(felt), Byte Consciousness = produced output, Byte/Sec Instinct = emotion biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec Intelligence = thought biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec --------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding System/Nervous System = whatever, say physical volume, mm^3

ydoaPs, What part confused you? Perhaps you lack the ability to process? Anyway, to answer your question, the proof of my intelligence is the DEFINITION that we finally have here. Maybe this definition does not make everyone happy, but it works and everyone is welcome to provide better definition. With definition we can talk about simulation, without definition you can only dream about it. Please' date=' have you not noticed that I'm the DEFINITION MASTER? Electromagnetic fields are spiritual (incorporeal), as opposed to material. "Spiritual", relates to e/m fields quite equally as to mind. Please forget religious implications, it simply means "not made out of matter". Mind over matter, free your mind! [b']spir⋅it⋅u⋅al[/b]–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal. 2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life. 1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial. 5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type... Homer: - There's your giraffe, little girl. Ralph Wiggum: - I'm a boy. Homer: - That's the spirit. Never give up. Yes' date=' yes, yes... thank Goddess Chance! That is my point, as I said in my 1st post - HOW TO TEST IT? To test it we need to be able to DEFINE it, just so we know WHAT to look for. Guarantee sound very assuring, but I guarantee opposite. I also have evidence for it, but this is not important for simulation, it is only a matter of determinism and processing power. What's important is the DEFINITION, because it will apply in either case. Fantastic! That's EXACTLY the type of thing I was talking about, great! Soon, we'll be reading your minds! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/soon_well_be_reading_your_mind.php - "No, not really, but this is still a cool result: investigators have used an MRI to read images off the visual cortex. They presented subjects with some simple symbols and letters, scanned their brains, and read off the image from the data — and it was even legible! This is an interesting piece of work, but it has some serious limitations." As far as I am concerned, it does not need to be monkey, it can be the simplest nervous system there is, as long as you can "intercept" information and actually "read/predict" reaction before 'organism' reacted, i.e. "read the mind". I don't think your definitons are very good. My definitions are very much perfect, they work! ...especially considering the number of symbols they use, they are kind of general and not fully defined. Again, my point is that "you" do not have definitions at all, so you could not know what is what, and therefore you can not really judge. If you would like to judge, provide your definitions and we will take better one or modify until agreed upon, but we must have them EXACTLY defined in order to answer these questions properly. I want to work together to make operating definition, so that it applies to all the cases and that we can uniquely agree on all the results our definition produces. We must define ALL of the terms and they have to interrelate so it makes sense and compares with general understanding of these terms. Does this sound fair? The correct objection would be if you asked me to define "brain" and "memory". I was just trying to keep it simple and obvious. I can, of course, explain it in any terms as long as we define them. I do not insist on terminology, we can change words as you like, but those are the TERMS we need to define, whatever we call them. I can demonstrate how those definition actually work very well indeed, in practice. They might not give prediction that are in accordance to your understanding, but they can be applied EXACTLY, and according to those definitions I can simulate all of those terms, sure not everyone will agree, but if you think about it, you may realize that those definitions do model life-like 'information processing entities'. Not too bright, not very emotional perhaps and maybe without purpose, but they will move, they will be animated and they will "feel", "remember" and "react" to external input, produce output accordingly to what they previously "felt" or was built into their "genes". As I said, my definitions work, they do model life-like behavior. -> OUTPUT=INPUT+MEMORY -> INPUT=MEMORY+OUTPUT -> MEMORY=INPUT+OUTPUT && -> e.g. Feeling=Sensation/Perception:INPUT = Thought=Cognition/Intention:OUTPUT + Emotion=Feeling Acquired/Genetic:MEMORY Ok, so instead of to argue personal opinions about meaning, I want us to try and make definitions together, the shorter the better, according to Occam's razor, and so it can be applied to these cases: a. Virus b. Bacteria c. Tree d. Squid e. Bird f. Dog g. Dolphin h. human embryo, 2 days i. human fetus, 21 weeks j. human born, 2 months k. human coma, 21 years l. BlueBrain AI OUTPUT (Thought), is abstract term, not to be confused with physical reaction/response. Anyway, in order to simulate OUTPUT and be able to TEST IT, for all of these we MUST, very EXACTLY, be able to address questions about these attributes of life forms: Life = ? Memory = ? Feeling = ? Thought = ? Emotion = ? Instinct = ? Intelligence = ? Consciousness = ? --------------------- Processing System/Responding System/Brain/Nervous System = ? These words need to be defined and we do not need to be imperative they are strictly in accord to our general understanding, as long as we know what we are talking about and as long as it relates and computes. I'm happy with any wording, but above terms must be defined in some meaningful relation, they must apply to real life scenario, if we are to start simulating. The fact is that we do not have EXACT DEFINITION of life, so the scientific community is actually divided in opinion... ah, definitions again. According to most simple definition, Life = self-replicating molecule. Again, I do not care how we define it, but it must precisely describe the real world, and I do not mind definition that says virus is not life, as long as it works mathematically and logically and can be applied in practice.

I can not explain it if you refuse to know about it. Please, answer this: 1.) "...relative to the field" 2.) "...relative to the ions in the wires" First you said velocity is relative to field then you said it is relative to wire, you have to decide on only one opinion, which one?

Yes' date=' it is related/proportional to magnetic field, only it is not "through a magnetic field", in this case, but along with it, "in it", without any relative velocity. Ok, let me explain, look at the other part and consider the whole situation, we have this then: F= q(v x B) B= v x q*k*d/r^2 It should be more obvious to see the strength of magnetic field is proportional to velocity and distance. Now, it is a basic physics knowledge that magnetic field forms when charge is moving, it tell us magnetic field is zero when charge is not moving and we can see the strength increases as velocity increases, right? Magnetic potential vector field increases with velocity, not relative velocity. Perhaps I got the equations wrong? 1.) "...relative to the field" 2.) "...relative to the ions in the wires" First you said velocity is relative to field then you said it is relative to wire, which one then? If it is relative to field, then when two fields travel without any relative velocity there should not be any attraction, right? But there is, so obviously there is some absolute reference frame, as far as charged particles are concerned anyway. http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires/index.html

Look, we agreed we do not know for sure. I accept your theory, thought if it turns out brain is quantum machine, then direction, velocity and spin of charged particles provide much more information than only spatial position in 3D, it would make for a better computer. Beautiful, that is very interesting, can you give some links? However, 'visual stimuli' is INPUT, what we need to know is how to recognize brain "OUTPUT". It is hard to know because the information feeds recursively back into brain, there is no screen to display output. In any case, that is the way to go. Fantastic! I absolutely agree. Yeah, but I heard of this as well: A+B+C = AB, C A+B+C = AC, B Can we test it? What you are referring to is what I call "chemical structure", physical as opposed to e/m fields that are SPIRITUAL, like "spiritual mind". How do you call it? You do not really know what is "information" and how it looks inside the brain. You can only say that thought process is SOMEHOW CONNECTED to physical rearrangements and chemical structures and reactions, but unless you can read thoughts you do not know in what form that information really exists. That's fine, now lets talk about pictures of monkey thoughts. Let me define: Feeling = brain input Thought = brain output Emotion = memorized feeling Instinct = emotion based reaction Intelligence = thought based reaction Consciousness = production of brain output I think all of them have emotions and instincts, even Virus. And here is my argument, which is your argument from above: - "Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion." Feeling=Sensation/Perception:INPUT = (Thought=Cognition/Intention:OUTPUT) + (Emotion=Feeling Acquired/Genetic:MEMORY) So, tell me, according to all the technology mentioned - does a person in a coma feels anything, dream, think or have consciousness? That is my question, I asked first. We do not know even if we have it, then how can we talk about simulating it? This is great! I love it, shame that I have to argue against it. "we just react, then justify it later" - this would explain a lot about human behavior, wouldn't it? - how much sense words like "self-awareness" make with such automatic justification? Do you find it possible deterministic interplay of physics forces had this very moment of you reading this line of text destine to happen, guaranteed based only on physics and positions of particle at the time of Big-Bang? According to entropy and efficiency principle, this seem opposite of what should happen.

Don't curse in my thread, you human! I thought you refused to look into it, proof is on YouTube, in videos where Credo Mutwa tells his story: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=LleNA6dOmKk Note that this is not for the faint of heart, unsuspected younglings should seek parental guidance.

What? What electron? What is velocity relative to again, look: F= q(v x B) ? You seem to not know, can you respond to this: - "Two electrons traveling in parallel with the same velocity, without any relative velocity, will attract each other more the faster they are moving." Do you know about this, you do not know or you claim is false?

That story is a part of the proof and is important to understand the rest. It is prerequisite for this discussion since this discussion is about that story. If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave.

Sure, that is what I offer. However, can you please answer my question first and tell me how did you find Credo's story? Did you find it interesting and have you seen all the parts?

Did I mention Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens? How would you like an idea that you are cross-breed specimen in genetic engineering experiments of crazy alien race? Evidence is documented in peer reviewed papers as unexplained abrupt genome alternations at certain historical points that can be tracked down the time line back to first fossils. These genome sequences appear artificial as they do not fit the theory of evolution and natural selection, but even more dramatically these "modifications" look similar as to what happens when cross-breeding not so compatible species. Credo Mutwa story is part of my argument, not in regards to aliens at all, but more to draw some historical/archeological conclusions. In fact you can disregard the whole alien business in Credo's story, the story is 90% about history. It is very, very interesting story that you can watch on YouTube. He is well known after his books that were all successful commercially. If you do not want to believe it, it is still A++ "Science Fiction" story. Credo is fantastic narrator and you will find it hard not to believe it. It is an epic story about the True History of Africa, World Wars, Religion and Bloodlines. I would like some opinions about it, because if everyone disregard this as nonsense without even looking at it, then it is not worth arguing about. And once you see all that and would like see some more proof, let me know.