Sisyphus

Let's all try to emulate the Great One's civility, here in this thread about name calling.

If you're asking if mushrooms come from lightning strikes, then the answer is no. They are living things that reproduce with spores, just like plants spread seeds. However, spores which are already present but not growing can be triggered to start growing by heavy rain, which usually accompanies lightning.

It might help to think of life as an activity rather than a property. A "living thing" is just an object that carries out certain actions. Physically modify it to the point that it can no longer carry out those actions, and it's no longer alive. That, broadly speaking, is what we call "death." The reason the (accurate) analogies with mechanical objects aren't taking hold seems to be the eric is stuck on the notion of "living" vs. "dead" as some non-physical difference, i.e. that a freshly dead body is physically identical to the live one moments before. This is not true, any more than a freshly crashed computer is physically identical to the functioning one moments before. And just like a computer, you can't answer "well what is the difference" except in the most general terms, because there are lots of ways to die, all of which could be described as a "rearrangement of atoms" of one sort or another.

If the only answer you'll accept is "a scientist working in the field" (what field?) confirming that you are in fact psychic or in a time warp or something, then you're never going to get a satisfactory answer. But only being willing to accept the answer you're already looking for is a terrible way to approach any question. Especially if you rule out the obvious likely answer, a "trick of the memory," and therefore wouldn't accept the professional opinion of, say, a neurologist. Anyway, I anticipate and imagine events that might happen all the time. We all do. It would be entirely expected that a few times in your life what you imagine happening very closely resembles what actually does end up happening. It's certainly happened to me, and as time goes by the memory of the anticipation merges with the memory of the event, so it seems like you predicted it exactly. This too is normal - it's how memory works. Now, obviously I can't know for certain what the explanation of your particular experiences, but it is incorrect to say that a "trick of memory" can't explain every such occurence. Of course it can. Why not?

dr.syntax, are you really unaware of the existence of sushi?

"Superior in every way?" But what's the criteria for that, and how are those criteria justified? This is the point. There are no inherent objective criteria for "superiority." What you're talking about are qualities that you subjectively value.

That would make the aliens an invasive species, creating a major change on Earth (basically a third environment different from the ones either species had been evolving in). I don't know what the terminology would be, but I don't think you'd call the aliens "superior." Unless an introduced bacterium that wipes out a human population is also "superior" to the humans it wipes out. I guess in a way it would be, as the bacterium survived and the humans did not.

But that would be a huge change in the environment. That's like saying, if the oceans dry up, whales wouldn't stand a chance! No. There is no more or less evolved. If there is any "measure" of success, it's the ability to survive, reproduce, and pass on your genes (in whatever environment you happen to live, bearing in mind that you yourself are a part of your environment), not the ability to beat me up on a spaceship. Although in certain specific situations (like being trapped on a spaceship with the aliens from Alien), the latter would probably help with the former.

Yeah, and the ability to walk on land and in the air meant that individuals could survive who were poorer and poorer at extracting oxygen from seawater, until we lost the ability completely! Degradation! Seriously, though, there's no such thing as "de-evolution" or whatever. The environment has changed, that's all. That's not a "rationalization," that's understanding the definition of natural selection.

It is mathematically valid in general relativity that two black holes could be linked, but there is no known process by which such a link might be formed, and no evidence for the existence of any. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No. "X,Y,Z directions" is exactly what is meant by "dimensions." (This isn't the only inaccuracy in your post, it's just a pet peeve.)

Moderator action: thread closed. The same thing was recently discussed here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43178

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that it's a real problem. It seems like they're approaching it in the wrong way, though. It seems extremely silly to try to outlaw sharp stuff. It's like the "guns don't kill people" argument taken to extremes. Obviously the problem is not the availability of sharp bits of metal. (That said, I definitely agree with banning knives in specific circumstances, like schools and courtrooms and such. Just not scouts in the woods learning to use a tool. There is no more "appropriate setting.")

I know people who hated Bush to the point of being irrational, and people who hate Obama in the same way. That isn't what's weird. What's weird is parents refusing to let their children hear the President speak. And not even just on a particular subject - he literally can't say anything, even "stay in school, kids." That isn't just an echo chamber, that's refusing to participate in the same reality. And I don't think that's a symmetrical thing, either, I think it's a characteristic of social conservatism. The "I wouldn't let my neighbor speak to my kid alone" quote kind of freaks me out. What kind of adults are these ultra-sheltered kids going to be?

That's hilarious. I keep hearing reports like this that seem to show British people terrified of their own children. Not "teens running wild," which I think has always been a fear in most societies, but actual children, like, 11 year olds with butter knives. I don't know how much truth there is in that, but the buzz is amusing. Anyway, is there even any indication that scouts carrying knives have caused any problems? If not, why is this being discussed? And what's the deal with clamping down on sharpened bits of metal, anyway? How do you guys eat steak?

Ha, from the thread title I thought you were talking about Lost. The LHC is one of the main Big Scary Science Things of the moment, and decades of pop culture mad scientists (and a few actual sciencey "doomsday devices" in the form of nuclear weapons) have made it seem plausible to a lot of people that it could do basically anything. Like electricity originally, then radiation, then genetic engineering, etc. So basically, "a wizard did it." Once it's fully operational, we'll probably move on to something else. Or maybe not. I can imagine plots where an evil scientist working at the LHC tweaks it for his own nefarious ends, by Reversing the Polarity or something, and creating a doomsday device. Maybe a "plasma beam!"

Well, to be more accurate, that's what they use to detect temperature differences. Infrared isn't itself heat, though. It's EM radiation. It's just that things which are around the temperature of humans give off blackbody radiation mostly around the infrared part of the spectrum. Things which are much hotter would give off visible light (like a flame), things which are much colder in the microwave, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

In addition to what Capn' said, it does not follow that if it were true that brains gave off "brain waves" through the air (they don't, to be clear), that that would imply that they would be perceptible. For example, we give off infrared light but can't perceive it. Also, even if if it were perceptible, that wouldn't make it coherent or understandable as actual thoughts. I can hear the hard-drive of my computer spinning, but I can't read files by listening to that sound.

Depends on the nature the "interface," I guess. I wouldn't want what he suggests: no thought reading. If it was just, for example, a direct replacement of monitor with visual cortex stimulator, and something like a virtual keyboard and mouse that operates similar to the way paralytics can move cursors by simulating moving a limb or something (or something more cleverly taking advantage of freedom from physical interaction but not fundamentally different), and it was unobtrusive and could be reliably turned off, I'd think about it.

The problem seems to be just that we are macroscopic objects whose direct experience is limited to objects within a few orders of magnitude as ourselves - the realm of close-enough predictions by classical physics. So it's natural to insist on thinking of things that way, in which case QM is totally weird. "How does it do that?" Well, how do classical objects do what they do? How do you only walk through one door, and never seem to interfere with yourself? It's just a matter of what seems "normal." And I still don't know what definition of "magic" is being used in this discussion.

I think he's just saying you can block light but not gravity. True, but not clear what his point is.

I expect I see things every day that nobody has successfully and fully explained yet. I just don't know what they are, because I don't have exhaustive knowledge of everything that anyone has ever figured out.

Something with mass moving at C would have/would need to get there infinite kinetic energy. Light, however, has zero mass (and don't have a size or shape in the conventional sense). They possess finite energy. If a photon ("light particle") were the size and mass of a human, it wouldn't be a photon.

I don't think anybody is going to watch that. If your first and only post is just a redirect to another site, that pretty much just makes you a spammer. You are free, of course, to discuss your ideas here at SFN. (Otherwise I'm just going to delete this thread. The purpose of this site is not to give you free publicity.)

The upper limit on what you can get out is what you put in, i.e. 100% efficiency. 100% efficiency itself is impossible, but there's no theoretical limit to how close you could get.

And similarly, the top of the wheel is always moving at twice the speed as the vehicle as a whole. Wheels are fun.