BhavinB

Label the three sides of a triange as A, B, C if I know A=30 and B=8, what is C?

Although evolution has been said to be a mechanism for increasing 'information', saying it is intelligent might be a stretch.

I know what you're asking dunsapy. But you're incorrect again...it does not matter how evolution started to show that it exists.

I thought this thread was about evolution (and specifically about natural selection)....not about abiogenesis. I hope dunsapy realizes the difference.

If this analogy were to work, something would have to play the role of natural selection. I'd like to also point out obvious errors in your statements on DNA. It has been shown time and time again that our DNA is far from efficiently encoded. It has also been shown that our DNA is quite similar to that of many other animals. It has been shown that DNA modification in chicken eggs can cause the appearance of 'dinosaur like' qualities in the resulting fetus (such as scales and teeth). It has been shown that vertabrate fetuses have their information drawn from the same region of DNA during growth (always), no matter the vertebrate animal. These are all evidence FOR common ancestry. Coupled with the fossil record which clearly shows a trail of common ancestry and change, the case for evolution is RIDICULOUSLY STRONG. Your hand waving claim that there is no evidence merely means you are not a scientist, don't truly understand science and don't know (or want to know) the mountain of research which supports evolution.

RF analyzer + RF generator + computer interface and programming?

I suppose thats true...but most people interpret it as the other way around. A square wave is composed of many sine waves. The distinction is important because sine waves are eigenvectors or linear time invariant systems (applicable to ALOT of things) but square waves are not. As to the OPs question: Swansont's answer is correct.

This is not an answer to the question asked. The only reason colors are sometimes measured in temperature is because of the peak light emission of a blackbody. This relates back to particles of mass and not photons. Photons themselves have no temperature.

even an ensemble of photons don't have the property of 'temperature'

I don't believe such a concept exists.

I believe this is a common issue. There are sometimes floating items inside the eye which is probably what you're talking about. Go see an optometrist. But you can't see atoms.

Strange how that is though. I hope cosmologists and astronomers understand the tentative nature of these theories.

LOL, yes. Are you in research? You have no idea the fudging I have to do to explain 'what I do'. Let alone the total misrepresentation I have to spout just to get a girl at a party to not run away. More practically though, scientists / engineers don't seem to realize how others view what we consider as easy to understand. Perhaps it stems from a social naiveness.

So ironic that everyone wanted better developed, more secure drivers and now that Vista requires that, it causes its own downfall. Though other than my Outlook 2007 crashing every other day, I have absolutely no issues with Vista...I actually enjoy it more than XP.

It's time we learnt how to speak to the media

Perhaps its important to note that Micro Black holes themselves are an unproven concept. So, so, many "if's".

how about using Paschen's Curve? http://www.duniway.com/images/pdf/pg/Paschen-Curve.pdf

I'm not exactly sure how this setup can use a relatively cheap and available lens and huge spotlight which loses alot of its output because all of it can't be focused (its bigger than the lens and divergence is higher than the NA of the lens).

You will lose quite a bit of that 1000W because it won't be within the numerical aperture of the lens. It's easier to do this experiment using a mode-locked high-power laser but that depends on your budget.

Side side side note: don't conduct at room temperatures or typical voltages / power (see diamond electronic devices)

It's subtely connected to Entropy...basically saying entropy changes in a system restrict the engine from transferring all its energy into work.

Statement: If you can fool a mouse multiple times at it still doesn't get it, it is not self aware. Statement: But monkeys and dolphins can be self-aware. Hypothesis: If a monkey can be fooled multiple times without it figuring out its predicament, then a monkey, like the mouse is not self-aware. Evidence: suppose I show an experiment where a monkey is tricked many times into doing something. Re-assessment: Either the initial statement that monkeys are self-aware is incorrect or the definition of self-awareness is incorrect. So now the question becomes...if I can find even one slight example of such evidence, what does this mean to you? I think really, it just means your definition is incorrect and your claim is incorrect. There is no animal on this planet that is smarter than the cunning human so really there is no animal that stands to your definition.

Wow...that was an extremely long reply to my two lines. Really, your argument is so far ranging and definite, with no room for specifics that it can only be incorrect. Can we predict most animal's behaviour in most situations? Ofcourse...they are merely simple beasts. Can we say they NEVER act against their normal instinct? Most definitely not. you can never argue to know that an animal is not making a decision and rather working on just 'programming'.

self-aware and consciousness are different things in my opinion. Either way, I believe your over-simplification does little justice to the complexity of an animals brain.

I'm not sure what you mean by self-aware. I've read all the posts and the definition seems not specific enough or incorrect. For example, a mouse can know when food (appealing to its 'emotions') is in a dangerous location (can cause pain). Doesn't this imply it is self-aware?