Fred56

This guy obviously can´t say ¨photons are massless particles with a mass equivalent" six times fast.

What about all the photons (of energy) that got together at some point to ´make´ the iron atoms (in the cannonball)? Comment: my interchanging ´mass´ and ´mass equivalent´ (saying information isn´t massless -in the OP) is perhaps questionable (in a thermodynamical sense)' date=' but surely not interchanging ´energy and mass´, since they are (meant to be) equivalent? This appears to be the ´rub´, if you will. Really the only conclusion from [math'] E=mc^2 [/math] is that mass and energy appear as two different aspects of the same thing. Maybe it should be given a different name -manergy, or enesseance, or whatever. But the two are definitely the ´same´ thing, in two roles, as it were. There are two actors out on loan. They can switch roles if they ´wish´ to, before our very eyes, at least, this is very much what the ´trick´ looks like. I am only trying to point this out. I also don´t think we are going to get around any anthropomorphic viewpoints, or that it might be especially important to do so...

Just sitting around a campfire and meditating with others out in the open is pretty centering (especially if you can get well away from any civilisation -but I guess wild animals are a problem for some, then there are fire regulations -like its an offence to light a fire on a beach). There´s the sweat-lodge approach -the Indians had a lot of initiation ceremonies, but many involved peyote or mushrooms and stuff.

The only difference between two minds is what a group can decide they both know about something. Each individual brain is in that sense a tool, which different individuals use differently, but we all expend energy doing it. In that sense, the information in a mind (a brain) is the result of all that that mind has seen, touched, tasted, or heard in a lifetime. A subset of this experience (knowledge) becomes a useful external abstract only when other observers (a group) decides that it is rational, and forms a logical adjunct, and can become part of the group knowledge. Individual knowledge is unstable, in that sense, and group knowledge is the stable form, symbolic (external) or otherwise. This is why equating information with a message is an incomplete description of it. A message only becomes information when we have expended further energy (on it). Equating it with its representation is incorrect.

So how come they have energy (momentum), if it isn´t a MASS equivalent? Aren´t they equivalent after all, you mean Albert got it all wrong? Can you show me where he did this in his working? Maybe just leave the m word out of the discussion altogether, like the c word (cosmology) guys do? Photons are energy, and as a quantised packet of energy, they carry or transfer (our observation), energy as momentum (things recoil from photons), saying they have zero mass is as meaningful as saying they have zero change in amplitude (which is also true in the sense it is constant -in 2 DF). Saying they travel at the speed of light because ´thats what zero mass particles do´ perpetuates the sense of something existing that doesn´t. Energy travels at the speed of light. And it doesn´t change amplitude when it does. P.S. I appear to have been accused of doing something that I am actually doing the opposite of here, I do hope you notice. Their having a zero rest mass, or being without mass, is moot (actually, completely meaningless).

I think you´re trying to say that life is an inevitable consequence, maybe? Not sure if that can be said with any real certainty...

The domain of a function can be open or closed, so therefore it depends on how x or any variable is defined. According to some notes I still have: the domain is every point at which (the definition of) f makes sense. I guess it´s discontinuous otherwise, or maybe assumed to be continuous over some interval (unless otherwise stated). In input-output terms, if the input is discontinuous, the output may be as well (or if it is, do something about it).

My understanding is there are an infinite set, which is bounded, and excludes (is closed to), any value equal or less than 1, and equal or more than, 2 (these are the bounds). Being unbounded in cardinality, it is indenumerable, or uncountable. But there is no member of the natural numbers in it. Its cardinality is infinite (2nd aleph, or something). This is an example of a set of discrete elements (they are all different), which is a known -there´s no need to count them.

To me, Time is something that we perceive as ¨emerging¨ from change in distance. You can measure a journey in distance, or in time, and in both, but they are always proportional to each other. Distance is a real feature, and so therefore is time (to us), but what does the universe ´measure´?

And what do the kids seem to be doing, or should we tell them to stay away from the scary guy with the funny mask on (..hey, maybe we could tell them to stay away from each other too...)?

There are lots of things that can be found in or around the average household that will be able to occupy an inquisitive young mind: inner tube rubber makes good strips of elastic stuff (with a good spring constant) for those home-made catapults (just don't use the tires off your parent's car, and watch when launching anything for windows and stuff). You can make pretty good darts out of bamboo and bits of cardboard. Then there's the garage: (power tools) the kitchen: (microwave, blender), the possibilities are seemingly all around. Just don't set the house on fire or bust too much stuff, or make a big mess (my dad always got pretty mad about the mess)...

The whole concept of 'rest mass' started when deBroglie (yes, him again), discovered he could calculate the electrons' mass at rest (to a lab. frame of reference). But the fact that no-one has actually seen one at rest, means it's what you call a projection (like most things we do). But it's like absolute zero, type of thing, it's a concept (a useful one, but).

By "segmented", you are presumably referring to a function which has discontinuities, or steps, or "missing bits", i.e. a discontinuous function? But you understand how a function has an input and an output, a bit like an algorithm. These, you may also know, are the range and domain (of a function). One's the input (the set of allowed values for x, say) the other's the output (the y values, or eigenvalues -real values). And you should know which is which (don't assume I have told you the "order"). Anyhoo, you need to understand things like Euclidian 2-space, and a zero-dimensional ball (the next down from a circle) and a series that converges (on a limit), and stuff like absolute value, and sets (inclusion and exclusion -open and closed), and commut(ative), and transit(ive). Then it's all pretty plain sailing.

Continuity and limits are probably the first (and toughest) newbie steps into calc, that many make, and it isn't taught that well (as a rule)...

Right, dreams can sometimes be extremely lucid, even vision-like; and you don't need to take anything for this experience (except a nap). And a tale of caution about experimentation, expecially with stuff you don't know what it does, like. I heard a story from a guy who, like only bs's a 'little' bit, who told me about a bunch of dudes who got "lost" in the bush, after cooking up, and drinking, an entire Datura plant. Apparently one of them spent several days in a tree, the others were picking up hot coals and staring at them, you know, the usual stuff. This from someone who was with them and tried to stop them all wandering off, but had to give up. They all survived though, but then they were miles from anyone else... Oh yeah, and I've never personally met many LSD users (of the regular kind), who have "survived well", and who don't regret doing it. It's a ticket, but going on the ride too many times really can be bad for your future...

However, this is only 'true' when they stop moving. Since they never do this, their rest mass is only an extrapolation, in that sense. Since they are a quantum wave, they have energy, and this gives them momentum. Their having a zero rest mass is moot because they 'transfer' energy. This is how you are reading this at the moment (assuming you aren't obliged to listen instead, or whatever).

I wonder if anyone will notice the mistake in the expansion above for the substitution? OK, no takers, I made a boo-boo with the log series (every odd term is 'supposed' to be negative, right?). expanding, [math] \ ln \hat\rho = 0 + (\hat\rho -1)- \frac {(\hat\rho -1)^2} {2!} + ...[/math] ...which isn't what I did first time through, doh! What I mean is it is negative, in which case it certainly should be as well (I hate it when they do that)...

I bet the day it gets "discovered" what the (next) connection (we find) is, it will probably be some grad. who says to his prof. "But hang on, when I do this...?!". But maybe it will be at some collider or gravitational wave observatory, or whatever (I bet that's what all the teams there are hoping, anyway).

Here's a bit of, information, about the way we got to where we are with current (i.e. "modern") thinking: --Aram Kotzinian Dec 2003,Torino

Actually I would like to look at what's being designed (or maybe having a go at this myself). Is the CAML scene fairly hot on complexity theory? Where do you think languages like CAML will go, or if there are any solid-looking approaches to parallel languages, e.g.?

The thing about inducing an experience that (believe me), will show you a world some of you may not be comfortable (for reasons that will become quickly apparent) in, is that you should at least not try it without a little preparation, at least of the mental kind. The "thing" about wanting to find something (out about yourself), that's a different kind of story, it does (I believe), depend greatly on the reason for doing something like that. My experience has been, if you "try it", then you also have to "buy" whatever or wherever the ticket ride takes you. Read Gibran, Leary (maybe, he's pretty OTT), even Castaneda (if you look at it objectively), and the ol' favourite: Huxley's "The Doors of Perception". Don't do something like take 100ug of LSD, or say, chew up some shrooms or peyote buttons without checking out a map (where someone has gone already) first. And remember, it's not (meant to be) a "one way" ticket. Otherwise, happy hunting...

Not sure what sort of intro to give this one: -physicsworld.com

Time and distance are two "different" properties that we observe. Both exist because of the nature of energy to disperse, and then condense (into atoms, then into stars, and so on). Its otherwise called change. We "observe" and measure this change. It seems that distance is changing, and we assign something called time to this "change in distance", and map this to the "fixed surface" of a rotating body (as we move around it). But both are aspects of change, a fundamental thing about the world. We have to change too (or we stop living), and this is therefore how we "communicate" with and "measure" the world around us. But it doesn't "happen" for free, there is a cost (to the universe and to us lifeforms), This cost is both the required change (expenditure of energy) we need to make (to measure the world and remain alive), and that the world (the universe) also must necessarily make. This is the dispersal (something otherwise known as entropy, the "measurement" of energy change over "time"). Entropy explains lots of stuff. Here's what we're up to with exploring the "distance-free" aspects of matter and light: --physicsworld.com

Right. There are certain assumptions that have to be made to make the above 'work' as a definition (mathematical formula). Perhaps "others" would like to discuss what problems this poses...? Here they are: just say that there is a phase space which doesn't commute with the normal Hamiltonian: Anyways, getting back to the observer/observed and mass/energy connection (but entropy is pretty well understood as a connection itself, from 'us' anyway). We could model observers as something like a group of individual compartments, partitions, say, of reference, each with a store of learning. And the group manages to communicate and abstract this collection of individual stores into an external, a stable form, vs the relatively unstable and changing form within each member of the group. And this abstracted form grows and becomes more stable, and is the basis, the accumulation, and a partition itself, a collection of many individual and group efforts. The internal mind of H. sapiens externalises, and creates a more stable form of itself, but it is completely meaningless to any other group of observers, who require their own (species-specific) store. -books.nap.edu

Maybe its meant to be a sign, like one tube goes in the other goes out, type a thing.