JohnSSM

Madness isnt really a term I would use, but ASPD is certainly created by an uncaring emotional environment. Anxiety, depression, BD and MPD are also linked to traumatic experiences. I don't refer to any of these conditions as madness or insanity, as they are all reactions to environmental discomfort. I think "madness" describes psychotics and schizo effectives as well as most dementia sufferes, depending on the intensity. Lacking empathy causes many emotional problems and without the limbic system doing it's job well, the human experience will be drastically altered. Affective empathy is an autonomic process our brain's use to evaluate dangerous events as well as the emotional expressions of others. Affective empathy is NOT lost in sociopaths and psychopaths. Cognitive empathy is the same thing as sympathy, and every sufferer of ASPD has a limited cognitive empathy. This also leads to sadistic personality disorder and masochistic personality disorder as well as narcissism and the entire dark triad. When people are placed in a harsh and uncaring environment, many of them will react by being harsh and uncaring, thus creating a more harsh and uncaring environment. This type of behaviors seems to spread and grow.

Thanks for the link. I took a deeper look with some of those leads and found this. http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/11/11/licking-rat-pups-the-genetics-of-nurture/ "These findings translate previous results from rat to humans and suggest a common effect of parental care on the epigenetic regulation of hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor expression." The hippocampus is a key part of the limbic system where our emotions and empathetic responses create lots of brain activity. My theory suggests that some children, due to bad emotional experiences, can consciously start ignoring their empathetic systems and responses, leading to a lack of empathy for others, and can lead to sociopathy and ASPD. It also suggests that this "strategy" for dealing with bad experiences has existed long enough to be worked into the human gene. Some folks have the gene and some dont. Being born with this gene doesnt guarantee a psychopath, but in this case, the brain triggers an epigenetic change in the brain of psychopaths when they experience many, or long term emotional traumas as kids. Its the same solution to the same issue, but one is done consciously, by some, in a defense against negative emotional content, and the other is a gene responding to negative emotional content. In either case, the person loses contact with empathy due to painful experiences.

After reading a good amount of material about psychopathy, empathy and epigenetics, I have a bunch of information that I'm not sure is correlated or not. As I understand, from studies with mice, baby mice who were licked more by their mothers were noted to become more social and more active. Mice who were taken away from any mother mouse, began to exhibit behaviors of anxiety, depression and ASPD. As I remember, but cant confirm through my internet searches anymore, they tested the genes of the mice and found that one gene was epigenetically affected to change its phenotype, helping to inspire this ASPD type behavior. I cant find the reference to the actual epigenetic changes anymore. IF you have info about the epigenetic changes being affected in this study, references would be great. I can still find the study about the mice behaviors but not the info im looking for about epigenetics being involved. Im looking to answer this series of questions. Is there any proof of epigenetic changes, influenced by the environment, that occur to affect one's empathy in humans? I havent found any theories.. But, if we believe that psychopathic traits are hereditary in genes, and we believe that epigenetics can change the gene expression, would this explain the results of the Twins experiments dealing with psychopathic traits to any degree? In this perspective, one must be born with the gene or genes that affects empathy (for instance), but not every gene of this type will create conditions that limit empathetic reactions, until they are triggered by elements in the environment as epigenetics suggests. Thoughts? Directions?

Hmmm...the fact that light is massless but is also effected by gravity kinda stumps the original idea i had. I knew it was too easy. ha

I dunno about this guy...He says "Furthermore, the force we know as gravity results from the bending and stretching of the geometry of spacetime by its energetic contents" and "gravity makes curved lines straight!" Did someone forget to tell him about the binding energy and the dragging effect of field interactions?

Is that it? You allready mentioned that the weak force uses the higgs field. So it's the influence of 3 fields on various particles. I can handle that.

That was most helpful! The explanation did hit a few different light bulbs and I hope what you said is accurate because im excited to get it. I must say, what I see is a field that guides this process. Its not just "mass" in your example, that creates curved space. Its the wbosons within mass or matter which interact with the higgs field, changing it's inertia and making it seem like spacetime is curved. I mean, that makes total friggin sense and I dont know why someone hasnt said it like that before. Truly. I can find a lot of writting that describes the higgs field interaction and one of them compares the higgs boson to a snobbish waiter making its way through a crowd. I never would have used the fabric of spacetime analogy. Its simple enough to say that some of the quantum particles in mass create "drag" within a certain field, changing the inertia, and yes, direction of objects which are allready moving. That's essentially how you steer a canoe and i think most people would get it. The fabric is simply there to create the same types of curves that are created when moving objects encounter drag from different direction. The fabric is only a model to recreate what those curves end up being. I totally get it. It cant be that easy. Did i lose it? None the less, it does seem that a field is key to GR and gravity, not just mass or inertia with certain particles.. The field is necessary. Thats new news to me. Ive looked at these things many times. I know it represents a tensor field. Do the four columns and rows have some unmarked significance ive never realized? What do those 16 numbers relate to? I have no idea what Im looking at.

Thanks for all the responses. A few are from fellas who have heard this question from me a few times over the past couple years, so I appreciate your patience. At 46 years years old, ive embarked on a psychology degree, so my chances of studying math and physics is dwindling. Ha. As far as my "why" question goes, it just seems so amazing to me that folks have the geometric math to explain and predict gravity, but they dont obsess to know what is creating the effect that their math predicts. As Mordred says, mass curves spacetime, and my very natural follow up question is "how does mass curve spacetime?" Must there not be some mechanism? I really tried to wrap my head around the notion of relativity, but I havent found any explanations for how those relative effects of motion and time could create a force that acts upon the physical world in a real and measurable way. I guess, to me, relativity is an observer effect, and how could the observer effect create a force that effects the observer in a real way in the form of gravitation? I suppose, with the kinda obviousness of asking that question, that I cant find more folks asking it or discussing it. For Mordred and AJ specifically, did you ever wonder why? Even in your early years when you first heard about GR and gravity and the theory? DId you ever wonder how or why mass curves spacetime? I think im feeling lonely in these thoughts...I cant be the only one who has questioned this...Than again, I am a rare dude. ha

It seems that either the polar or the cartesian coordinate systems could be used to accurately map out curves and positions in space. Why bother switching between them?

I wasnt looking for anything specific other than my continued (mis)understandings of GR. And you have not helped me...Ha! Of course, Im still trying to grasp WHY matter curves spacetime in the first place. It's all just so matter of fact in the stuff I read. Matter curves space, and space then guides matter...but why? Its a pretty big question to leave unanswered, but after reading through lots of stuff for years, I still dont get it. Then again, yes, I suppose I was looking for some type of space contraction to go along with time dilation. IN terms of space-time, can you curve one without effecting the other or do they follow the same curves? Ive always considered them sharing the same geometry which means you could not effect one without the other. So in my layman's mind, i thought..."If time is changing near sources of gravity, space must also be changing near sources of gravity in some sort of proportional or equal way to that of time"...If that isnt true, then my understandings are wrong. I tried looking for reading material on this subject but didnt find anything that answered that specific question. Im still trying to grasp it all without understanding the equations.

Great info. Why is the transformation of cartesian to polar coordinates so important to the eventual curvature of space-time? I see that polar coordinates seem to represent a subjective reality radiating out from a singularity at the center, which is presumably, the observer and experiencer, and the cartesian coordinates seem to represent an objective view, but why does switching between them become such a key in figuring the curvature of space?

As I understand it, the person near a black hole will appear to experience time slower than someone who isn't also near a massive object, from their perspective. As I understand it, the presence of more gravity will slow time as one approaches the presence of gravity. Does this slow down even the quantum processes? It seems that it must. Chemical reactions, electrical reactions, radiation....wouldnt all those processes also be slowed with the time? I know the person experiences time and it runs the same speed for them, even as they enter gravitational fields which slow the passage of time more and more. And here is where I get more confused. If space-time are somehow linked together, and gravity is changing time, wouldnt it also be changing space in the same ways? If time is being slowed due to gravity, is space also being "stretched or compressed" due to gravity? The term space-time seems a bit misleading if you can effect changes in one without effecting changes in the other, to me. How do physicists "see" what is happening to space-time as it nears gravitational fields? TIme is slowing, but what is happening to space?

I think sadomasochism deserves a much deeper look than it has gotten, as one of the very foundations of human psychological operations. As the common definition is known, sadism seems to be "a sexual enjoyment of inflicting or viewing pain or humiliation in others". But a real look at sexually sadistic behavior offers the view that pain and humiliation are only tools of a "power exchange", where sadists seek an increase in power, through role playing and fantasy, and masochists seek a reduction in power, through role playing and fantasy. Sadomasochism being focused on pain and humiliation has been misleading as to what SM actually is. SM focuses on power. More intense pain and control are seen and felt as powerful. With sadists, viewing this type of distress in others in imperative to their own sexual arousal, seemingly because they have become conditioned to believe or feel, the emotional expressions of power with sexual arousal. Many chemicals come into play, and so does the past emotional experiences of the sadist. Our true subjective self seems to exists in our brain's emotional system (formerly known as the lymbic system) and this is where emotional associations take on traits like "Sexual, fearful, funny, or sad". IN short, sadism is learned and believed, by the sadist, in their emotional system through conditioning. What seems to be overlooked, is social sadomasochism, which is also a perspective of valuing, judging and treating others, based on their apparent social power, not for a sexual pay off, but for a social or ego pay off. This makes racism, genderism and eliteism, all socially sadomasochistic perspectives. OF course, those themes are often used in sadomasochistic sexual fantasies, but they seem to exist as social fantasies as well. What sadism seems to represent is our natural drive to survive. We feel driven to empower ourselves in this world to stay alive. But, sadists believe that lowering the value of others, increases their own. What makes this psychopathic, in my opinion, is that it isnt true, and it is deeply held as the ultimate truth by sadomasochists. It's a deep delusion, to use our natural will to survive to belittle others, which does not actually increase our ability to survive, although it may solve certain problems, without actual empowerment, and only the belief of empowerment. I think it's obvious to note that because of emotional insecurities, sexual sadists long for expressions of power, to break the block in their insecure intimacy, and become empowered to become sexually aroused. What isnt obvious to others is why some people are do determined to lie, manipulate, coerce and threaten others, and seem to enjoy it. What they enjoy is what they are getting out of it. Some type of social pay off, usually money or social status or plain old ego boosts. Ans they learn to associate that pay off, with the socially sadistic behaviors. Like greed, cultural relativism, religious fanatacism. There is nothing humans cannot justify if they BELIEVE the pay off is great enough. Are those beliefs considered psychopathic, because they are justified by emotions that allow others to be seen as less, and then treated as less?

Regarding the Tokamak reactors they are using in Germany to create fusion, I had a couple questions. If fusion, in stars, is catalyzed by huge gravitational pressures within objects massive enough to create fusion, are they using magnetic fields to essentially contain that amount of pressure in the Tokamaks? Is this how the plasma is enabled to reach the temperatures it needs to become a plasma? They have to contain it, yes? And not only contain it, but contain it with the same amount of force that you would encounter within the gravitational pressures of stars? And they do this with magnetic fields in specific geometrical shapes? Does that at all describe what is happening within these fusion reactors? Amendments, corrections or additions? Thanks much.

I have a question about the subject of gravitational waves that LIGO is searching for in their split laser light experiments. The question arose after i read an article about LIGO. The article describes the 2 detectors separated by 1865 miles, because the scientists have estimated that the wavelength of gravitational waves would be 1865 miles. Considering that general relativity is based upon geometry and math and no medium is actually described, even though they often use "fabric of space time" in such ways, do they consider gravitational waves to simply be geometrical entities as well? I grasped the possibility of the idea that gravity can be explained by relative motions and energies, and that it is a geometrical phenomenon that creates a relative effect we call gravity. But now, thinking about waves travelling through space, driven by an event which is billions of years old (big bang), its hard to imagine that geometrical and relative effects could account for that. Other general questions about gravitational waves. DO they have a direction or vector as other types of waves? Cant we use the direction that a waveform is travelling to figure the origin of the wave? OR at least the direction from which the wave was last influenced? If they were trying to encounter the wave by estimating the wavelength, wouldnt they also need to set up the experiment on the proper vector of the waveform? Many antennas work in this way. Is LIGO essentially a huge antenna? If so, it just makes gravity seem much more real than a geometrical effect of relativity.

I suppose there is always that lingering notion that we might see something that every other human being has not. Its like trying to love a hooker...If it was worth it, someone would already love the hooker. So yes, I do suspect you are right about the effect I describe being noted by one of the thousands of folks who have made these subjects their life's study. And they have not. Im still trying to wrap my head around fields at all. Are they simply metaphors for the total amount of particle perturbations? Or does the field spawn the particles? Its the chicken or egg question posed to fields and particles. Which came first? Are they both effects of something else, or are they mutually causative? Or, does one cause the other? Does it become another metaphor like space-time, representing two different aspects of one thing? The bummer is that this is kinda my theory, so no one else has sought to disprove it and I don't have the ability to disprove it. You present wise evidence, but it's circumstantial at best. I would like to learn about the different theories which proposed how and why gravity might work differently for massive galactic objects, because GR has no results for explaining such an effect. Or, i should day, GR uses dark matter and energy to explain these effects. Ill be much more comfortable to trash my theory as they get closer to proving theirs! Creating one's own theories is rewarding. So, you may have to distort a few of the puzzle pieces to make them fit, where they probably do not, noting the resistance to make them do so, and that is akin to having a childlike faith. So maybe it's just fun.

This is speculations, so I need a bit of leeway just to express these thoughts. But don't hold back with ripping it to theoretical pieces, because I need that to erase these thoughts from my mind. Ive done a good amount of research about quantum mechanics and GR, but I dont have enough knowledge to disprove the thoughts I have. Here they are. In my understanding (which is probably where the issues will be) The gluon field exists as vacuum energy, which is to say, the gluon field is always present, regardless of the amount of matter or energy present. The gluon field is that which supports gluons in their role with QCD, quarks and their role with hadrons. Quarks make up hadrons, and hadrons are a large part of matter. IF the gluon filed is at some energy level when no matter is present, it would seem, as matter enters the gluon field, the gluon field energy must increase to support the quark interactions of mainly, protons and nuetrons. Is it possible for enough matter, to exist within the gluon field, where as the gluon field does not have the energy to support all the quark interactions, and must draw energy to support the gluon field, in those locations, with energy from the gluon field surrounding the matter? This in-flux of gluon field energy into "places" with much matter, would create gravity, compressing the matter into smaller spaces, raising the need for more gluon energy to support those places of highly compressed matter...and in-flux of gluon field energy into these places of compressed matter, which may seem to create gravity (massive or compressed objects, or objects of high energy) is doing so by literally "dragging" along other matter which is caught in that constantly inflowing gluon field energy. In this perspective, Dark matter represents our lack of understanding about how gravity may seem to increase exponentially, for huge objects, like galaxies. And Dark Energy represents the spread of spacetime in order to gain more gluon filed energy to support the entire system. Which is to say, as the need for more and more gluon field energy is created by the presense of more and more gravitational influence on huge scales, it is on the quantum level of the gluons and the gluon field which must support "more matter in a smaller and smaller area"...SO spacetime expands to get more gluon vacuum energy to keep up with demand, and that demand is only growing and growing as gravity tries to pull it all back together. I hope anyone understands this, even just to disprove it with some good thoughts and references. Thanks much

I was gonna say, im pretty sure space and time are the same thread...ha

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection

I read an exciting new article today about entangled particles being connected with wormholes, and this network of wormholes makes up the "fabric" of space time. Ive done lots of reading about entanglement and still have one huge question. How does one entangle particles? How do particles get entangled? I assume that entanglement begins at some common source, but what is that source?

Yes...good point... It will be easier to begin the flip when the mass is above the CG, but how about stopping the flip? Does it also become easier? That is what these pilots claim. That top loaded batteries make it easier to flip and roll... The top load seems to start any flip easier, but ending it would take more power...and on bottom, starting the flip is harder, but ending it takes less power...less power equates to a more accruate control of power...so it seems that top loaded drones will flip and roll easier... But how about turns? When a drone makes a turn, and does not flip or roll, how does a top or bottom CG effect that? It seems the bottom loaded drone may also drift more in turns, since it banks in the same direction that it turns and seems to "throw" the bottom balance out, creating a slide...what do you think?

I am a drone hobbyist and there is an argument in that community about where to place one's battery packs. They can either be placed on the top deck, strapped and hanging from the bottom deck, or ideally, they can be near the middle or center of gravity...Many folks cannot put the battery in the middle, or near the ideal center of gravity, so they must choose strapped to the top, or strapped to the bottom. I talking about a four engine craft that tilts in the direction that it moves... Is it ever advantageous to have the majority of the mass on top of any vehicle? Some folks claim that it can flip and roll better with the battery on top, but does this make any sense in physics? I think we all agree that having one's mass at center is best. But if you have to chose top or bottom, does it really make any difference for the agility and moveablity for the craft other than how far it is off center? On some drones, the top of them is close to the center, on other drones, the bottom would put them closer to center. Any thoughts and or proof to offer these other fellas on this subject?

Good answers, all

Here is a somewhat related question to this topic. If light were particles, as they were emitted from a source, wouldnt they begin to spread out, leaving empty space between them? And if you were very far away, and moving laterally to the source, the source would "blink" on and off as you "detected" one particle and then the next. I mean, either the particles spread out as they travel away from a source, or a distance must form between them,. Or the source emits a photon at every possible angle, which seems to be an infinite number, and that doesnt seem right... No matter how many straight lines you draw, radiating from a source, at some distance, there will still be an inch between those lines...so how do we see a continuous stream of photons from very distant objects as we move?

I suppose the reason I asked is because Im associating radiation with entropy. I think im still confused about both. Im confused about light's purpose as a gauge boson for electromagnetism, and Im confused about the transfer of heat...is it separate from light? Is heat a type of light or a trait of light? Its the smallest things that seem to have totally lost their meanings...or maybe I just never really thought about heat and temperature until recently...