davidivad

for me it all boils down to the vacuum. i think the interesting thing here is that the amount of energy in a vacuum is supposed to be infinite for quantum mechanics. of course we can't realistically use that energy. my interpretation is that the casimir force is actually the effect of waves not fitting between two plates. once you put the plates together close enough, waves of a certain length no longer fit in between them. the result is a difference in force because the waves do fit outside the plates. this is the way that i learned the concept, however they now use liquid helium films to get better measurements (i just started reading a 2007 arxive paper by alfred hucht which shows how long it has been). i agree that dark energy is offset by the gravity of our neighborhood. whether or not it affects the measurements of the casimir force is a good question. when you bring einstein into the equation, an infinite amount of energy would have an infinite amount of "mass." this is clearly not the case. if i have missed something you may have to bring me up to speed.

science nor religion will find a place for you in this world. you must find this place yourself. you are the answer

let me retry this. i want to convey the importance of first building a public image with the community before expecting the said community to accept your views. you have to build a reputation for being right before others will consider your ideas. if you are hard headed like me, then you are going to bump a few shoulders. go ahead. just make sure you get a few of those rep points along the way.

my man, you would argue the ear off of corn.

"Sorry to break it to you, but an actually accurate model is probably beyond you lifetime away." you are correct.i believe our disagreement may be due to my consideration of popular vote within the community of science. since i do not have all the answers, i use a sort of statistical approach to attack the problem. the way i see it the dice of probability lay in my favor because i use popular vote (only from professionals of the community). i may be wrong, but i have effectively reduced the likelihood. of course this has no bearing on you, but i urge you to consider the things you don't yet know. you will laugh about it later on. yeah, who am i kidding. carry on the good fight.

thank you, i appreciate the clarification as i am not well versed on the topic of genetics. so it is not that they are mutations as they are all mutations in that sense. it is possible however that certain combinations are associated with a higher risk. this sounds about right from what i have "browsed" online. i appreciate your time and comments on the topic. if you find the time to contribute more, please fell free to do so. i will take all the information i can get. especially from a fresh perspective of a biologist.

do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart? do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart?

consider it a management level decision. can you prove that any other location is not the center? consider it a local phenomenon. we also consider any particular part of space to be roughly the same as the rest although it is clearly not. if you do not like this idea i would consider filing a complaint with management. wherever that is, lol

please ask ajb, he has a better solution.

the hardest part, i think, is learning not to interact with the voices even the good ones as they draw you into the abnormal thought pattern. even harder is realizing where the disease begins as it is your perception itself at stake. the greatest tool one can have is an external source of logic that is not affected. friends and family are the most solid ground to be had. remember that logic can be a red herring to your perception. you have to decide what your measurements mean to you. a rolling stone gathers no moss... i once thought that i had found the meaning of life hidden in plain view. it was the question i argued that was the answer. what a better place to hide the truth? i had to realize that it is the question that drives us to do the things we do it was the answer. in the end i had to realize that the question can drive you mad as it is a paradox. i still ask the question to this day. what was the question? it is the answer to life. sometimes it is better not to ask the question. it keeps it safe. i am schizophrenic

now that you mention it, i am curios about the biological aspect of these things. it is clear to me that when there is so much debate about the actual cause of such diseases we must be missing some underlying fundamental cause. do you have any thoughts or ideas on the possible mechanism beyond mutations of various genes?

just for clarification what was the question?

i would think it is unreasonable to assume i have all the answers. you are asking a question nobody can actually answer. i think it is reasonable to assume that you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. there is no instance of it in the entire universe (it's a big universe). i clarified for you that it is not the higgs boson that imparts mass. i clarified that waves travel at the speed of light and everything has a wave function. i said c is a constant (what better argument is that against super-luminal travel?). this is a common type of argument here which is a fallacy. here is the fallacy... if i do not have an answer i feel is adequate then nothing i say is credible. the fallacy goes futher as to imply that if i submit to a higher authority (i don't have a better explanation than ajb) then i must submit. why would i have to submit twice? the fact is that taking apart an analogy is a fun thing to do. but as the author of the said statement, i maintain the right to express how far it should be taken. i appreciate your response, as it is great argument exercise. a very important tool in science.

we are inside the explosion according to the theory. and the explosion is so big that we cannot pick a central point. therefore for all intensive purposes, you can pick any point in space and you are at the center. we cannot prove otherwise, so it is useful. so much for an answer, but that is what we have so far until something better comes along.

my analogy can only go so far. it is an analogy. if you beg an analogy you can get a false statement. did you understand the concept that we are made of waves and that they move at the speed of light? this was my goal. you probably have a much better grasp of the subject at hand than i do. i invoke your skills for a no doubt better explanation.

you do make a solid argument. i guess that the real way to answer the question is by funding studies that verify the concept. i am concerned that monetary pressure to find a solution will skew the results of many studies. i myself had considered a solution based on eye movements and thought processing. i felt that removing auditory hallucinations did not solve the abnormal thoughts. i then considered that these abnormal thought conditions might be the source of auditory hallucinations (just speculation). as we process abnormal thoughts, we give off slight cues that specific training might detect. not much unlike the method police use to detect if you are lying, the patient telegraphs him or herself. there are many problems with this such as how long the patient has had these abnormal thought patterns (a good liar) and emotional flattening. it would therefore probably be a better solution for juveniles. my argument is that the abnormal thought is of much higher value than auditory hallucinations as there is an entire spectrum being ignored. if a patient is conditioned then how do the people around them asses if they could possibly be having dangerous thoughts. if you patch the wound it can still get infected. the idea of cognitive behavioral therapy or thought conditioning would be a better hook for me if i did not believe that schizophrenia is a biological disorder and not due to a conditioned response. if conditioning the patient does work , he or she will still require supervision beyond that of the time it takes to return to equilibrium with the internal environment. no better than hypnosis. i am still interested in seeing the results of this approach as it still has value (nothing is 100%). i started my own thread on schizophrenia but did not get many responses. i look forward to further conversation on the subject.

i am laughing. i had to look up what a 5 pence was...

well; the lhc really packs a punch. my guess is, and i could be wrong, but the particle beam is larger than the chip. scaling down the number of particles might decrease the overall power requirements but you would lose the most important thing about the lhc. the number of collisions required to make a statistical analysis. think about how long they had to run the lhc to find the higgs. and a particle has a decay time that would place decay outside of the chips dimensions. like schneibster said, the detectors have to be big. beyond that, that little chip would have to have some big leads.

there are some new papers out on the subject. i haven't had the time to read any. i think will have to read more tonight over some coffee. that's the greatest thing about science, there is always new material. i will respond on this paper after i have read it.

i like your quote from feynman. you are right, i have firm roots in quantum field theory. you can feel the weight of a quantum field theory book in your hand, but can't technically prove a thing. you just have to accept it.

while i am inclined to agree with scheibster, there are other theories floating around out there. take for instance the steady state theory. there are also possible mathematical solutions that can explain red shift under a different light. however, these theories do not give us anything new or prove what inflationary theory already does so well. i will keep an eye out in case they figure out how to do something that inflationary theory cannot do. for now i will stick to the idea that space "pushes" at two plates.

if you are almost treking along at the speed of light, you yourself would experience the roasting of a lifetime but the headlights would work. a non-speedy observer would never get to see you roast. at the impossible speed of light, you would not be able to ever get around to turning on the lights. however, if the lights were already on, i would imagine Cerenkov radiation might be observable to said non-speedy observer in some way or fashion. of course this is just speculation. come to think of it i would guess at this "sonic boom" in both scenarios.

you misunderstood me. i should have been more clear. the coupling of the higgs field DOES relate to mass. this has nothing to do with the higgs particle. the higgs particle is an excitation of this field. it looks like a sombrero hat according to Wikipedia (sorry, i don't normally fall back on wiki just pressed for time). the importance of the higgs particle is that it proves that the higgs field exists. let me try to explain the second part better. the speed of light is the speed at which disturbances such as waves move period. it is a constant. everything in the universe can be expressed as a wave function. interaction with fields such as the higgs field creates a gradient between two fields. if light is a constant then you can create a graph to plot the effects of relativity. the effects naturally come out as a consequence of comparison.

i agree. the evidence for dark energy is incontrovertible. in my opinion. it can be measured in a lab.

yep, and it can get messy depending on what you have been consuming. according to statistics.