mooeypoo

I don't think "feels human" is the only rule, though. If we program it to "feel human" but have nothing other than that, then what? is it still human? I'm not sure. There needs to be a bit more than that. If it has consciousness, is my idea. How do you test it? Well.. that's.. a different (harder) question.

Orifiel, if you have a theory, you're supposed to be able to explain it. If you're only here to preach and run away from questions, you shouldn't post here. Restarting this thread over and over again so no one can see the questions you can't answer is *not* a scientifically valid method. Either follow the rules and participate in mutual a debate, or don't post here. ~moo

Right, I have emailed my physics professor and asked for help about this, and tried to see if it would be wise to use lagrangians to represent 2 "subsystems" in the overall system. He wrote me back that it might work, but we will need to meet and work on it together (so I dont' yet have the actual math). But my idea was that I should represent 2 systems -- one is the movement the slinky from top stair to the next lower stair, using mass balances. The second is the movement of the entire slinky down teh stairs. Combining the two "sub systems" will give me a whole movement. The reason I picked lagrangians is because I think it will be a MESS representing it with "regular" Newtonian math.. F=ma and such will result in a huge mess. Lagrangians seem to be much easier. I'll try to work on it a bit, at least present a basic concept and post it here, see if we can take it from there. ~moo

Aren't we all but complex biological machines? If a machine is indistiguishable from a human being -- if it has consciousness and thought process and believes itself to be a human being, then we might not CALL it human, but we would probably consider treating it as human, or at least giving it some rights. Perhaps call it a person, instead? Otherwise, well.. we would have to explain what's so special about a biological human as opposed to a non-biological entity with consciousness.

This is the third thread you've opened on the subject. You already have a thread open with UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN IT. Do not post another thread on the same theory again. Orifiel: Read the forum rules. ~moo

That does not constitute "answering questions". You can do better than that. You *need* to do better than that if you plan on following the forum rules.

Bignose, I think I am going to join the request for more examples. I'm over this course already, and I understand enough to solve equations and I *think* get the point, but I still don't QUITE get where this is useful in practice. That is -- why would we need to use this type of distribution (it's very unique looking, at least to me..) for physical cases? I'm not sure I understand why the need for the Dirac Delta exists. It sounds statistical to me, while I always thought physics is quite definite -- if you calculate the mass of an object, why insert a mass distribution that looks like that? How do we know the distribution isn't unique for the object? Where is this type of distribution coming from that it's being used so broadly (as in, we use it for a lot of physical cases)..? That's at least what I would love to know.. from the examples you wrote I understood the basic function of the dirac delta, but I am not sure I know where it's coming from and why it's useful. I hope that also fits roshanisilwal question.. if not, he's welcome to post his own, of course ~moo

No, that's not what he said, north. You are again dropping to a logical fallacy (this time the Strawman). Read what swansont actually wrote, not what you want him to mean. Motion doesn't cause time, was what was said. That does not mean time is a force. You are the one making a claim here, you are the one needing to prove it. Did you even spend half a second reading the speculation policy after your time off, north? I recommend you do that. That wasn't the claim that was made, and it isn't what needs to be proven. There are a few things you must do if you wish to continue this debate, north: Stop making claims you can't prove sound like they're facts. Stop rephrasing people's claims into what they're not so you will have it easier to counter. Read the Speculation policy again, and follow it, specifically point number 1 (bolded, for your convenience): The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. Have fun. There will be no point continuing this discussion if you refuse to follow basic rules of debate. Avoiding logical fallacies and giving the other side enough respect to listen to the claims made (rather than rephrasing them to what you want them to be) is a huge step forward. Try it. ~moo

Blike, I'm going to go over the fundies' thread, but here's something that immediately popped into my eyes: That's not true. Special relativity doesn't require relative time, its application results in the fact that time dilates. I just finished an Electromagnetics course that was an introduction to relativity. When we left Lorentz and Maxwell "behind" (not really) and started talking about actual Sepcial Relativity, the notion of time dilation didn't just "pop up".. we derived the situation of electromagneticism in motion, and concluded that there are two aspects to the resulting 'effect': Time dilation and length contraction. It's not as if Einstein just popped up and said "Time must be relative! Now fit all your theories into mine." Special relativity is a direct derivation of Lorentz and Maxwell's laws. In fact, the way to see if a 2 events are "spacelike" or "timelike" (if it can occur simultaneously in some inertial frame or if it occur at the same spacial position at some inertial frame) is to use the "Lorentz invariant". Einstein did not make up special relativity, he "just" proposed that the Ether wasn't necessary and went on to produce General Relativity. The statement that the theory "requires" time to be relative makes it seem like we first wanted time to be relative and then we came up with the theory. That's absolutely not true. We first examined the effects of electromangetism laws and movement, and out of THAT came the conclusion that there's time dilation. Big difference. ~moo

You know, that's a good point, but I think there's another distinction to surgery -- it's controlled. It's true that we technically hurt the body (we cut, sew, etc) but we do it in a controlled manner, where a wound is uncontrolled tear. That allows us to be *clean* and control the way the body fixes itself later. That also connects to one of the biggest problems of nano technology replacing the current "surgery" method - control. We don't yet know how to control these nano particles. The theory and idea that we should use them and that they'll probably be better than a surgery exists out there and there are a lot of groups trying to figure out ways of achieving it; we're just not quite there yet. Don't forget that the body is EXTREMELY complex. Different parts of the body behave differently even in terms of blood flow, their own repair, types of tissue, etc. You will need to have full control over nano technlogy in any and all parts of the body to get them to fix the body. That's the hardest part. Also, we have nanotubes already doing some pretty nifty stuff - but tehy're "dumb". They aren't able to "change behavior" depending different situations, they just act a single way (connecting to one another, usually) and produce some items we can use. To get from that to a surgery, where a zillion things need to be worked-on at once (and 'surprises' must be addressed quickly) is a huge step. We're getting there, it seems, but we're not there just yet. I actually read not too long ago (I am trying to find the reference, this was uber cool) that scientists found a way to 'seal' wounds using a laser beam and some sort of nano tube 'dust'. It was only about sealing a wound (I believe it acted like heat searing the wound together, only - again - controlled). There's still a lot to go from that to an actual inner repair. btw, things like these: http://www.physorg.com/news143718880.html (nanotube sutures) help the body heal faster and with less chance for lasting damage or complications. There are some cool strides forward in nano technology, we're just not quite where we think we can eventually be.. ~moo

I got a 10. I think I should find another forum.

I completely agree the U.N should conduct this investigation regardless of Israel's willingness to cooperate.. it's like asking a suspected thief if he agrees for a search in his apartment. Obviously, the "agreement" is irrelevant. However, the U.N in general - and the Human Rights Council specifically - were accused multiple times of being biased against Israel. I think it would only be fair to have yet another group, unbiased and separate from the U.N, Israel and Gaza, to conduct its own investigation as well. Having a third party that isn't accused of being biased will also validate whatever conclusions are drawn from the investigations.

The people who post in this thread are reminded that there is a serious "Hazardous Material" rule in SFN rule book. Posting instructions that can result in people potentially getting hurt or hurting others is not allowed in this forum. Please be advised that sodium is a hazardous material prone to violent reactions and any preparation of it is inherently dangerous. No preparation method is without severe hazards that range from property damage to blindness, and possibly death in the most extreme of circumstances.

We are a science forum, not a fantasy committee for the sake of listening to garbage preaching. If your intention isn't to provide actual science, and you insist on ignoring questions, you should not stay here. You are - once again - urged to read the rules. If it wasn't clear from the other posts we put forth, this isn't a recommendation, it's a demand. You agreed to these rules when you signed up. It's about time you start following them. ~moo

There's a reason threads are separated. They're discussion by topic. Please don't hijack the thread for your own. If anyone has anything to contribute to the thread you opened, they will in your thread. This isn't the place for it. ~moo

Moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations. This thread is closed pending moderation review, for possible double-thread and religious topics. The poster is URGED to read our rules and speculation policy.

I see your point, and I agree. My only contention is that I, personally, for the sake of avoiding a potential endless-fall into religious discussion, would use the comparison to pseudoscience instead of religion. As in, "Couldn't the same thing be said about pseudoscience". Which it could, and it's a good point, only without touching the 'sensitive' religion button. Just saying. I agree with the point, though. The self-correcting method of science is one of the most important aspects of it. That's how we evolve new understanding of our environment, and how theories are replaced with better theories. It's also the main difference between it and everything else. You won't see astrology having a self-correcting methodology to it, even after pluto was redefined as a "plutoid" instead of a planet (and about 100 other bodies of the approximate same size found next to it). You would, however, find that happening in actual scientific subjects. Good point. ~moo p.s: If it wasn't clear, I am asking the rest of the readers of this thread to avoid getting into a religious discussion about religion. This thread is about science, and the point made was about science, and used religion as an example, not as a principle. Please keep it that way.

White holes are speculative. Their existence has yet to be proven. This following statement relies on the existence of white holes, which, as we said, is speculative. You need to first show that white holes exist (or at least start with "IF white holes exist, then.." and not with an absolute statement for the existence and behavior of these potential phenomena. Furthermore, since we can't be sure they exist, their behavior is even more unknown than their potential existence. For example, even if white holes exist, it is possible they "emit" matter, but not the same matter that is "sucked in" by a black hole. In fact, considering as a BH is limited in mass (proven) and we can calculate the adition of mass as resulted by its increased gravitational field, we can tell that the matter didn't "go" anywhere other than into its core. So.. if the "White Holes" emit this matter elsewhere, you will need to explain where this matter came from, and why we won't see this matter disappearing from the Black Hole's accumulated mass. Notice that you're making strict factual statements rather than postulations. You're talking about a hypothetical phenomena, not an observed fact, so try to prefix your statements with a postulation-fitting statement. Like.. "IF... then... and if... then". What you're typing here are non proven hypothetical phenomena you just base your conclusion on. That would make that conclusion unproven and unbased in itself. Yea you're taking a HUGE leap here from postulating the existence of White Holes, to postulating they're emitting the black holes' matter, to concluding they're emitting the black hole at the center of our galaxy's matter. Any evidence? Any reason for this postulation? Anything to support it? .... yeah, no. We know where the solar system came for. If you have an alternative theory, you need to do more than base it on a non proven hypothetical postulation. You need to give us a reason to consider your theory as valid. ~moo

You should work on your imagination skills, buddy.

Oh, ydoaPs, I'm so sorry.. If there's anything you need and I can give you, don't hesitate to say.

Moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations. Peron, we've discussed the "matter of the universe" and the "particles that make the universe" in countless threads before. A hundred years ago the term used to describe this "matter" was "Ether". Ether was proven to be irrelevant (undetectable, and with absolutely no effect on anything, which makes it indistinguishable from a conclusion that it's nonexistent). Unless you have a way to provide new evidence as to your idea that space is "made of something", then your statement is moot. I'll call your "Something" vacuum and declare it has no effect on its surrounding, which unlike your idea, is actually supported by the evidence. Mystery solved. I think you should go over the rules and the Pseudoscience and Speculation policy thread again. ~moo After further review, this is clear this thread is an attempt to reopen a previously closed thread about the same theory. This thread is closed, with an encouragement to the poster to read the rules of the forum once again.

Srimukh, one thread is enough. You have people answering your other thread. Do not post doubles. This thread is closed. Please refer to the other one. ~moo

Peron, knock it off. You *know* what the rules of the forum are, you're not a new member. You know that shifting the burden of proof is unacceptable. You know that theories are moot without evidence and you KNOW that refusing to acknowledge resources is against the rules. You also know that "word logic" (?) alone is insufficient for a scientific theory. Either put up the math and scientific evidence, or take this fantasy to a fantasy forum. We've been over this for three pages. You're either doing this on purpose, or you're not reading what others present to you. ~moo

Peron, then your theory will wait until you have the means to prove it. The bottom line is that you can't insist it's TRUE without having the capacity to PROVE IT TRUE. *SPECIALLY* when the evidence against the theory are piling up.