Foi4895

But what about ALL the buildings around it? From what I understand there was no structual damage to the buildings surrounding 7. That is an interesting thought YT, about the egg engine analogy, but do you really believe a few guys reportedly trained to fly small private aircraft could aim 'just right'? I'm not saying they couldn't just asking if you think they could.

But what about the building below? It was not exposed to the trauma of having a plane hit it, it experienced it's secondary effects, but surely they built it stronger than that. Like encipher said it gave examples of buildings made of similar materials exposed to similar trauma, not collapsing. I am guessing you aren't talking about chairs and carpeting when you say there was something else flammable. They said it would take hours to weaken that much steel, or very high temps. What kinds of materials would be in a building like that? Maybe propane in the various resturaunts, I've heard those mentioned.... I can't think of anything else, anything glaringly significant. DV8, when there are catastrophic engineering failures it doesn't not hold to logic to have so little collateral damage. Think about the teams of people who train for so long to 'pull' a building with so little damage.

I just watched the '9/11 conspiracy video' and I have to agree, there isn't much truly 'hard' scientifically empirical evidence, save for one fact. The documentary says kerosene burns at 1120 C and that isn't enough to melt either steel or titanium, and you have to keep the heat on it for several hours. But they say that the kerosene the jets used as fuel weakened the reinforced steel they used in the WTC. They have a quote from an engineer at the company who certified the steel in the 70's and said it should take over 3000 degrees for several hours to cause them to be that weakened enough to cause the NEAR freefall collapse of the WTC. Isn't that something you can check. I mean, just those facts should be enough... I would think... Are they lying, just making up the science?

I have recently read that we are all endowed with at least 7 senses. These are the five you learn in school, followed by two more obscure ones. Kinesthesia, the body's knowledge of it's position in space and balance. Thinking of these two as senses is only hard for lack of practice. Stop and define the word sense. The body's mechanism for interpreting its environment. Thusly you could include the two I mentioned before. We cannot make out many sounds without visual input to accompany it. Understanding this it should be a simple step to see how Kinesethisia is a sense. Without it our sense of touch would be much less informative on it's own. If touch is the only sense being used we can make out a great number of things, it is what allows blind people to navigate via stick. But without the body's incredibly accurate self radar, the ability to know where in relation to other things, and other parts of the body that allows the blind to change their sense of touch into an accurate mental map of their surroundigs. And balance allows us, using only that sense, to tell in what direction we are being pulled. If we were locked in a sensory deprivation chamber we would still know when we were turned upside down. Anything we use to make a mental picture of our environtment should truly be considered a sense. And we can use our sense of balance to determine pitch, and that is useful in making a mental map. Do you think these are really senses, I have only heard this from a single source, and I don't want to believe it comletely without some outside input.

The brains ability to recognize patterns is related to us via a physical response. There is a part of the reward center of our brains is stimulated when we recognize a pattern. The nature of the pattern and the situation in which you are in determine the physical response to the recognition. With this said the brain does not need to actively remember and recall any specific event in order to recognize a pattern. The feeling you get when your brain recognizes a pattern that your active consciousness misses, would feel like intuition, and sometimes precognition. It is commonly held that our brains let go the information that is not needed to survive regularly, but we leave it in our long-term memory for automatic retrival by our sense of pattern recognition.

When researchers were using LSD to induce altered states they traveled to the far east and consulted with monks from many orders. The ones who took the LSD reported effects ranging between heavy euphoria to nothing at all. Most described the experience as similar to intense sessions of meditation. Other than the sweat-box method, and fasting, there are no easy ways of self-induced hallucinations. After years of forming strong pattern recognition with the reality you experience most often, that of waking life, they become more difficult to break, this is why we tend to grow out of things like Santa and monsters. Altering the sense of pattern recognition to see and hear things that are normally below your consciousness (there are no experiences that are not viewed through the filter of your previous life experiences) is an arduous task for any individual. An option that isn't really open to you is intense psychotherapy with the end goal being an temporary change in your perceived reality.

The reason I suggested black scientists is the fact that there are advancments coming from South Africa but the gap between the rich and the poor is too great for the poor to feel much inspiration from the rich. Even when a poor person bridges that gap the gap is still there. When I said that they needed to live in Africa I don't mean the way Goodall lived in Africa, but actually take the title expat and become a citizen of a country in Africa that is in the earliest stages of development. I know that this is not a valid source of information. This is not the basis for my argument (I say this for fear of hair splitting) I just believe it accurately illustrates my view. In the movie Mosquito Coast a scientist buys a city on an island in the midle of nowhere and he gives them some techno miracles like ice. I say that accurately depicts most peoples desire to use tools to make their lives easier. The tendency for humans to take the path of least resistance seem obvious, therefore all a people need is inspiration and information, with those two the inquity gap would quickly begin to close.

If you review my post you'll see I didn't imply that there weren't great thinkers there. It is inherent to my opinion that there are, were, and always will be great African thinkers, what I proposed was that when the world powers of the time came in and took Africans they didn't discriminate in who they took. I'm saying they took a significant number of highly intelligent progressive thinkers. When this happened Africans compensated, and began working back to where they were, but no matter how you look at it, the growth of the African continent, intellectually, was stunted.I don't mean to suggest that Africans are not as intelligent, merely that in the course of their technological advancement they were inhibited, setting them back, while propelling us forward, creating the iniquity we see today. I propose that if we give back the intellect and take care of the serious over-population due to Britain introducing ignorant farming practices, without any education or information about birth control or modern sexual education, we will see that they quickly catch up in the realm of technological advancements originating from African nationales.

This is so dangerous to all science. Science is not a job. It isn't a 'way to earn a living'. There are jobs that require knowledge of science. Good scientists love science. They think about science. That's it. They are good at recognizing obscure patterns in natural systems and proving those patterns exist. None of that do I consider a job. If you are preforming dull projects in school then it is a failing in the teacher, go to them and let them know you are not getting as much from this assignment as you have from others in the past, and if it's not too much to ask could you complete an alternative project that demonstrates you have learned the information they are trying to teach you. I can't think of a reason a teacher wouldn't. If all scientists handled work this way the worst thing that would come of it is a large number of happy scientists working their hardest to complete meaningful work. There are programmers out there without jobs who would love nothing more than craft a program that will handle all your shitty statistics you wouldn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. Some people grow up, and some people just grow. You can use those around you, many will be grateful for the useful feeling you give them. Don't ever handle science as a job, please. But maybe that's just naivete.

Some people seem confused when you use it for also... Do you think interference patterns created by two very loud noises have a different effect than something that is as loud as both noises at once? Not better or worse, but different.

The lost energy is entropy. We also produce sound that isn't used for work, so any grunting or yelling would be a very slight waster of energy. Also if a ball is being thrown repeatedly you could consider some of the work the diaphragm does as entropy (not thermodynamic entropy, but still a loss in energy doing real work within the system of the body) seeing as the lungs lose much efficiency as you get 'out of breath'.

Do you just need to record the video data, or do you need actual film, and if so for what reason. If you don't you could use a digital recording device. That would hold at least one benefit over film (that I can see), it would be ready for interpretation by a computer.

I think we missed something important. The beginning of any revolution is need. That is the heart of the change, and that is important to remember. If you are talking about the innovations of the African people I think you have to realize about 300 years ago they were forced backward a few thousand years. When we started taking people out of Africa like any other natural resource we took some very important people. We took great thinkers, and brilliant scientists. We know that for some time it was a seat of knowledge. After the mass extraction of human intelligence many reverted to nomadic tribal life. To cause an industrial revolution in Africa we would have to give them back brilliance. We would have to take leading black scientists and make them live in Africa. I say black scientists because there would need to be some sense of recognition between the people of Africa and their intellectual leaders. The inserted genius would tackle simple problems with innovative intuitive strategies teaching the African people the art of invention. How would you do this politically and socially, I really don't know. If you could relate everyone to Africans and Africans to everyone you would need the genius injected into the country to be of any particular race... I'm sure you could find a few thousand very intelligent thinkers to go live in Africa all expenses paid to just go think about Africa. I think that this kind of brain power focused on solving as many simple problems faced by Africans would be enough to start some technological revolution.

I was wondering what you thought. If we look at anthropology and see that we are humans, and humans are defined two ways. We use tools to make tools. We also recognize complex patterns at an astonishing speed. The ability to recognize and navigate by these pattern is what enables emotion, self-expression, reading, writing, all science, the passing of knowledge through generations, it is by definition both common sense and intuition, it is comedy, it is in fact your sixth out of eight senses, the other two are kinesthesia <sp?> and balance. If you look at pre-historic man he found complex patterns in the night sky. His mind was working harder than any other animal's had. He found ways to pass that on to future generations, through great calenders like stone henge and the pyramids they passed this info down many generations. We use language to do it now in literature, and most of all in this day and age electronic media. I am a member of the school of Skeptikoi, saying this you should never have to tell me that I may be wrong, I know. If this is so it is not the end of my world. But please hear me out, philosophize with me. Opine. I really think I'm right, and I have thought about it a lot, if you would think about it with me I think you would agree, if not well, I understand that, but at least consider. As entropy increases inside a system it becomes more complex. As we have seen with all other aspects of reality there is a pattern. If entropy increases the complexity of a system, or increases with the complexity does not matter, it is one or the other, so let's focus on what's true if one of them is true. Entropy as defined thermodynamically is energy that is not used for work; i.e. heat that dissipates without performing 'work'. Entropy has been seen to apply to macro as well as the micro and quantum. What is commonly mis-inferred from this is the fact that entropy is useless energy. The entropy count rises in all closed systems. If we define entropy on the social level as diversity, which seems to be an acceptable synonym to disorder and more options, then we learn something important about social science. All tension, pain, discomfort, distracting happiness, and addiction lead to diversity. Or diversity causes tension, pain, discomfort, distracting happiness, and addiction, which become sacrifces that must be made in order to gain diversity and therefore stablity. If the law of entropy does not specify heat, though the implications are obvious, then it applies to social situations, interpersonal relationships, school systems, sciences, everything. I think this seems like such a huge gulp to swallow because we all recognize that this seems right, but at the same time you feel a need for some fact. My theory transends physics, and social science, and educational theory. When Brian Greene tried to create a TOE he failed when he set the scope of his theory. I state that the final goal of science to help man learn his place in the universe. We all know there is something more out here for man to grasp, and we try. I found it. Something in our DNA, in our genes, helped us recognize a pattern. It was from this that the first stone tools were made, we saw that when rocks broke they got sharp, thats a pattern. Anything experience that we precieve through any sense more than twice is a pattern. Most, like oranges smelling like oranges, repeat. Some are more complex, like speech, they repeat, but they are capable of being unique. And some are very subtle, like the projecting of the movements of celestial bodies. I purport that at the begining of time there was a major entropic event, a massive amount of energy was released that was entropy. This caused the complexity of the universe. From there it was a relatively less violent process. The entropy count began to slow and diversity slowed down. The more entropy in a system the more diversity. The more diversity the more stability. The more stability the less entropy grows. Finaly we will, as humans diversify so much that there is no entropy, just an infinatly complex system that works with no friction on any level, something like transcending to a body of energy, rather than a physical form, succeptible to the effects of friction. At the same time solving social iniquity. This is not the end of my statement, but I have to get to sleep, and I would rather hear what you have to say about this, now, than wait till I was complete.