lemur

To people who say that organic-farming is less productive and more damaging to soil resources, my question is what to do about all the people globally whose diets and economic situations would improve if they had direct access to farming their own food? When agriculture is dependent on inputs that require in-sourcing, that in-sourcing also requires money. To get money, people have to sell something to someone with money. That basically means that everyone must be dependent on global capitalism to eat. If that wasn't a problem, there would be no global hunger, would there? So what option do you have for helping poor people except to refine organic farming techniques and spread knowledge about how to more effectively harness resources that are immediately on hand without depending on some form of financing or commerce?

First of all, are there astronomers/astrophysicists who study the asteroid belt and specifically the gravitational effects among asteroids? Second, if gravity meters were placed on one or more asteroids, what would they reveal? Would they primarily reflect complex tidal effects caused by gravitational interactions, the gravity of the specific asteroid on which they were placed, or a combination? Would there be some stabilizing "net gravity" of the belt as a whole that would influence all gravitational interactions between the individual asteroids?

I cannot legitimately give medical advice but if it were me I would fast as much as possible between meals and not smoke anything or do anything else to damage the tissue. I would also do a lot of gargling with water, salt water, and possibly disinfectant mouthwash to minimize any kind of growth on the surfaces of the tissues. Of course, it sounds like you're a ways beyond anything I've dealt with like this and I rarely come down with this sort of thing anyway (knock on wood) so my experience is more with small colds/flus and other light sicknesses. Good luck with your hospital visit and when you are health again please get lots of exercise and maintain a nutritious diet. Get adequate sleep and avoid abusing drugs. Try using exercise and relaxation techniques to deal with regular stress. I think this trains the body to balance itself instead of reacting in ways that impel external interventions (this is totally subjective based on my own personal experiences though, of course).

It would be helpful to know what he was arguing against, I think. What was being claimed as "passing beyond body to a further kind?" What was the "further kind" that was postulated?

So then what happens when multiple atoms combine to form a molecule and electrons are shared? Don't the electrons get subject to more positive charge from the nuclei and have a farther distance to travel around the whole constellation of nuclei? Ok, so back to your original example; if two opposite charges at a distance are sufficiently equal in strength, they neutralize each other and can no longer have any charge effect on anything else in any direction? How, then, do electrons continue to repel each other while their charge is balanced against that of their nuclei?

While a theist might think this, or rather interpret this as being part of the will of God, I don't think they would elevate it to a "supreme value" because that implies ideological authority beyond that of a supreme authority that could overturn it. In other words, theists are never going to submit to some ideological fixture as having "supreme authority" because that would imply that humans can control God. They are always going to remain open to divine revelation where values, morality, etc. are concerned - they may claim to be theists and deny the possibility of God overturning some belief or value, but I don't see how that's possible if you really believe in God as a supreme authority over everything. While there may be theists who see theology as a "metaphysical superstructure" as an externality that "guarantees ultimate validity of human intuitions," I don't see this as a necessary belief. In fact, I see the very notion of faith-based belief as meaning that moral and other metaphysical intuition comes from within, which is what the concept of "Holy Spirit" means in my opinion. I.e. that divine revelation occurs through interpretive revelation. The difference with atheism is that it resists applying the power of God-attribution to such revelations. First, I told you that God can be viewed as metaphorical and still given full status as an existing thing. What you are saying is predicated on the assumption that in order for something to exist, it has to be more than subjective. "Spiritual" means that subjectivity is given existential primacy. What ensures the rewards and punishments of (im)moral actions is the subjectively revealed mechanics of actions and consequences through holy interpretation of scripture and direct revelation. The metaphors become real because of faith-based belief. The difference between atheism and theism is that theism believes in the metaphor of God. According to your logic, something that is a metaphor is automatically "sub-real" because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective. I would say that spiritual subjectivity necessarily operates at the level of metaphor because if it went beyond metaphor, it would become materialism.

But don't these equations only describe net-charge summation for a line between the interacting points? Don't both the particles also radiate charge in 359 other degrees around them whose vectors would interact with the same neutralizing logic but with varying intensity? This is why I avoid the equations, because I find it much easier to visualize the fields and their potential interactions visually. I didn't say they didn't. I said that if they were all insulated from each other, they wouldn't interact. Is that wrong?

How can it just "sit nearby" without something to anchor it at that distance? Also, how could a stationary electron on one side of a proton neutralize the charge on the side of the proton opposite the electron? Does the positive charge extend out in all directions from the protons, just as it does for the electrons? If the electrostatic charge would be neutralized between the protons and the electrons, how would the electrons repel each other in interactions? So the first two charges are isolated within an insulator and so is the 100r charged particle? Well, then none of them would interact due to charge-insulation, right? My point with the electrons is that they insulate the positive charge from the nucleus by forming a barrier against the electrons of other atoms/molecules. However, I am speculating that this electron barrier is moving around the nucleus (in a wave, right?) and so there must be some area (trough) where the wave's negative charge doesn't insulate the positive charge of the nucleus (as much). This is what I was referring to as an "electron hole" since it would be a potential point of entry for available electrons. My point with the speed of the charge was that the electrons would "smear out" more when they were traveling a further distance or at a faster speed due to stronger attractive force. This, in effect, would allow the positive charge to exert a slight surplus of charge attraction that would actually alternate with the cycling negative charge of the electrons. Anyway, I was trying to get the motion of the electron-flow to account for a net positive charge surplus that would cause gravitational attraction among molecules, but I suppose that would also have an effect on ionization, etc. At least this is making me aware of what happens to crazy people that maddens them. You come up with an idea that seems somewhat clear and then start dealing with critique, which causes your mind to multiply its thoughts in various directions. I guess I need to step back and rethink this whole issue instead of grasping like a fool for straws in all directions. Thanks for the input.

How so? The electrons can't be everywhere in the positive electrostatic field at once, can they? I can't follow your example because I don't know what sort of empirical situation (i.e. what kind of charges) you're referring to. I see what you mean that the attractive force diminished with distance, but my point is that the positive charge-fields are persistent and this causes the electron to continuously accelerate in toward it instead of launching away in a tangent line. The speed of the charge would depend on the strength of the attraction and distance of the electron's trajectory, no? This is why I'm saying the motion of the electrons forms part of the neutralizing effect of the positive nuclear charge (dynamic neutralization). Then, I don't see why this animating-effect of the charge couldn't be extended to molecules being attracted toward each other and causing each other to tend to circle each other, almost as if their electrons are getting dragged in the direction of the moving wave of charge. In this sense, all molecules would tend to attract each other and impel each other toward angular momentum in the same way the electrons circulate around the nuclei.

This can be done with an afterlife concept or, my preference, eternal-life through reincarnation with karmic reverberations. This basically means that exploitative actions you send out eventually work their way back to you at some later moment. If you can't stomach re-incarnation, then consider it in terms of "heirs." I.e. either your children, grandchildren, etc. or if you don't personally procreate, others who follow you will experience the consequences of living in a world reproduced and reconstructed (at least partially) by your actions. Obviously Kant's observation of sinners wanting to eliminate the idea of afterlife indicates a will-to-termination that allows people to get away with things by assuring that they can transcend the limits of the consequences (statute of limitations). If people can identify with some eventual recipient of the consequences of their actions, limitation is transcended and they are faced with the prospect of recognizing the consequences of their actions for others (assuming they don't obfuscate the very actions and consequences that they are engaged in creating). Who says that good and evil can rigorously be distinguished? This is another reason I like the idea of karma. If you ever have trouble deciding whether a certain action is good or evil, all you have to do is trace out the consequences of that action and imagine yourself at the receiving end. Then you can ask whether you yourself would want to be on the receiving end of your actions and why, and decide on that basis whether to choose to pursue them or not.

Interesting perspective, but I think you're ignoring the fact that the conscious mind has the ability to recognize itself as a potentially destructive hyper-controlling agent. Of course it resists this "self-consciousness" because it wants to avoid and reason to limit its power, but once it learns that by relaxing its will-to-control, it can actually be more constructive than when it tries to suffocate all life with absolute control, it can be a very effective tool. The key, imo, is to recognize that the conscious mind is nothing more than yet another interactant in any system it is involved in. As such, it can exercise influence but it can never strive for absolute control over the configuration it becomes part of by becoming conscious of. The trick is how to balance the will-to-influence with the acceptance that total control isn't possible. The first reaction is for it to think it must limit itself with absolute boundaries, but that just displaces the will to absolute control, imo. So, it has to learn to regard its sphere of influence tentatively, allowing itself to interject itself at will, while at the same time being aware that it is not capable of ultimate dominance. It will always remain in dialogue with other agents/factors.

What I mean is that the electrons neutralize the positive charge of the nuclei by moving in the direction of highest positive charge (electron hole?). When they jump to such a "hole," there is positive charge already setting the stage for the next jump. So the electron is constantly in motion trying to neutralize the positive charge. When atoms stabilize into molecules, there is something about the net charge (+ @= -) and configuration (full shell) that balances the two charges, but to do this, the electrons would have to keep up with the positive charge attraction. I guess another way to say this is that charge neutralization is a product of motion/speed/(tunneling rate?) as much as it is due to particle numbers. So, for example, when a hydrogen electron moves to a higher level, I would think it has to move faster to successfully neutralize the positive charge from the proton in all directions. This is also, I presume, why atoms whose electrons are at higher energy levels are more likely to combine into molecular configurations. But when atoms settle into such a molecular configuration, the electrons suddenly must flow a further distance to encircle the molecule. So they may be doing more neutralizing with less fundamental negative charge. So it would be like the nucleons and the electrons have a motion-differential and that differential could be responsible for mass/gravitation. This seems like it could be a logical relationship between energy and mass. Then, the fact that the "rest charge differential" between the protons and the electrons is actually higher than the "dynamic charge neutralization" would account for gravitation insofar as atoms/molecules would be attracted to each other by impelling each other into motion (the same way the nuclei impel the electrons to move around them).

And the focus of facebook is personal identity (and dare I say "ego"?). Whereas the focus of online discussion is the content of the discussion (ideally, anyway).

How do people get authority to host a facebook page for dead people? Can anyone set one up about anyone as long as no one else has done so yet?

Ignorance does indeed seem to be bliss in at least some cases. I have seen a puppy lick a can, cutting its tongue, and apparently not feel a thing while the blood streams from its mouth. Presumably, pain and pleasure can assist you in perceiving things and thus intervening or planning more effectively. Yet our sensitivities also make us more susceptible to manipulation and social control for the benefit of others against our own interest (i.e. exploitation). The biggest problem with the idea that ignorance is bliss, however imo, is that once people are conscious of it, they try to cultivate ignorance artificially by pretending to be less conscious than they are. This puts their consciousness in conflict with itself and results in a level of general deceitfulness in their everyday living that is not conducive to deep happiness, imo, however fruitful its effects may be in the most immediate contexts.

Idk, since length contracts due to motion, it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me that the gravity fields of orbiting bodies could be slightly extended in the direction perpendicular to the line of motion and that this could make each orbiting system a weak gravity-wave generator. I know this is radically speculative, so sorry; I'm just thinking with the OP. Probably some bodily injuries have been caused by experimenting with this analogy using actual bowling balls and trampolines as well.

I know, but I'm saying that the movement of the charge could speed up and slow down in the process of neutralizing. E.g. faster charge neutralization = greater gravity/mass. Not if the neutron is special case of proton-electron interaction. E.g. when you compare H2 with He, they have basically the same components, two protons and two electrons, in different configurations, right? Maybe the neutron is to H what He is to H2 (i.e. a denser configuration of a single proton and electron that relies on strong force instead of electrostatic. By the compactness of the particles allowing the force interactions to take place at shorter radii from the nuclei? How is electron mass measured? Yes, I think my conjecture implies that atoms/molecules whose electrons are not "stretched as thin" emit less gravitation. Idk, though, since I'm trying to figure out what that would imply about a heavy atom like gold, which has a lot of electrons but also a lot of protons and thus a lot of mass/density. I guess I just don't see why/how gravity would be completely unrelated to the other forces emitted by atoms, and why it really only seems to emerge as a lot of atoms lump together. Since atoms tend to combine and mix into the most electrostatically neutral configurations, it seemed logical that gravity could emerge as a by-product of progressive charge-neutralization. E.g. water surface tension seems to work like this, where water molecules are attracted to each other due to the hydrogen bonds - so I thought maybe gravity could work like surface tension except several degrees of neutralization further than water.

Because they're being shared? The level of charge attraction and repulsion changes with distance between the particles in question, doesn't it?

Ok, I see how our viewpoints diverge now. I generally tend to look at divergent species as branches of the same tree, so to speak, or maybe variations of the same sort would be more accurate. I know that when you're deeply embedded in the institutions, they seem worlds apart. It's just that I take a very distanced view where I look at all theorists needing to connect with empirical data in some way or other and all empiricists needing some theoretical architecture for their work. In practice, I don't get or like string theory too much but I also probably wouldn't appreciate most of the technical details that are considered very meaningful by people working at CERN. Still, I'm sure both could produce research results that would stimulate my lay interest and they would both draw on familiar empirical realities and theoretical conceptualizations. Since I'm a generalist, though, I tend to see disciplinary line-drawing as professional social-structuring at best.

Ok, but that's why I'm saying the balance between the protons and the electrons requires more energy/motion from the electrons. So it's almost like the electrons have to be in more places at once to neutralize the positive charge. I'm almost tempted to call this "spacetime contraction" caused by the electrostatic imbalance. I feel like a mad scientist grasping for straws right now, so please tell me you can at least understand my reasoning on this.

That's it? No grounding/reasoning/evidence/examples?

Yes, I know that electrostatic attraction drops off at a greater rate with distance from the nucleus than gravity. However, I'm still wondering if residual electrostatic attraction could explain gravity. My speculative reasoning is this: as a body of matter grows, the number of protons in the body increases faster than the number of electrons. This is because molecular bonding causes many electrons to be shared. Thus, I think it could be said that any body of matter will have some surplus of proton charge relative to electron charge. Since the charges balance out via atomic and molecular configurations that neutralize relative ionization through bonding/motion, there even would seem to be a direct relationship between the compacting of protons in increasingly dense configurations and rendering of electron-surplusses that presumably dissipate away from the planet/star. Now, to be true to the call for rigor in the speculations section, I should formulate some deductive tests that could falsify this idea. The only thing I can think of would be to find some way to differentiate between various levels of proton-surplus in a planet or star and see if this would not correspond with mass. If it wouldn't, then gravitation would either conform to the mass of the body (measured how except by orbital behavior relative to other masses?) or it could deviate from the mass-predicted behavior and conform to the proton-imbalance. Of course, what if mass itself would be the result of proton-imbalance? I'm sorry if this sounds crazy. I'm not even sure how to formulate this in terms of concrete examples since my chemistry is so bad I can't even remember the name for bonds where atoms share electrons (covalent?).

How is it different for Hawking or Einstein to work with other people's data and observations or if they would do it themselves? If someone collecting and analyzing their own data would theorize like Hawking or Einstein, how would that be different? As you may read in my tone, the whole distinguishing between empirical research and theory seems moot to me since obviously neither is ultimately possible without doing the other in some way to some extent.

I think the whole notion of "worshipping God" is over-mystified. What if all it meant to "worship God" was to "do God's will" and all that meant was to actively pursue the best possible paths of thought and action for the good of yourself and others? In the same vein, what if "worshipping Frodo" just meant caring enough about the abuse of power (the rings) to want to return them to nature instead of allowing them to fall into the hands of evil? Not much less of a religious/moral message than anything in the bible when you think of it that way, is it?

God being allegorical doesn't make religion not real any more than the fact that characters in a story are fictional makes the moral of the story false. The trick is to critically discuss the moral/ideas being conveyed instead of trying to undermine the meaning based on gaps in the story. Listening to people criticize religion/mythology like that is like listening to someone criticize the meaning of the Lord of the Rings because Hobbits don't really exist. If I was studying the history of Jericho, I would definitely want to know whether it had walls or not. When I read the bible or other mythologies, what I mainly want to know is what the author (whoever it was) was trying to convey and what people have gotten from reading it for so many years that they have deemed it worth preserving. Once I understand those reasons for writing and reproducing, I can discuss the ideology clearly and whether it is problematic, how it compares with other ideologies, etc. Just imagine for a moment that there is absolutely no God and no afterlife. What then is the point of the bible or any other moral/ethical/spiritual/etc. text? The only thing anyone does with any text is read it, interpret it, and apply the interpretation in some way or other. The point of interpreting the bible, thus, like any other text is to do so in a way that is ethical and constructive, imo. If you feel the point is to interpret it and use it to manipulate and control people to oppress and destroy each other, that is what you will do. Interestingly, the text can be cited toward both purposes, I think.