Fred56

I see someone's found another simple fact. Is there also a simple explanation for it, perchance? So do a lot of other people...

There is believed to be a "cloud" of dark matter around galaxies that "relaxes" and allows matter to clump together. There is certainly a distortion to spacetime (it gets bent by the mass -gravity). We can see a lot of the matter in galaxies because it interacts with light. Dark matter doesn't. They're looking for gravity waves and if this can be done we might be able to "see" dark matter this way.

Your definition of heat is a definition of enthalpy, no? Sorry about your head, but Boltzmann's law (of entropy) tells us that ordered states (tend to) degenerate into disordered ones (in a closed system). Unavailable energy? Mate, sounds like you do need some more sleep... Here's mine: Heat energy is the result of, or is caused by, "kinetic" -(translational, rotational, vibrational) motion, and the emission and absorption of infrared radiation. Heat disperses, or diffuses, in a kinetic way (but the “transfer” is not governed solely by motion or vibration, as EMR is involved). What emerges from heat is motion (of molecules). This motion is coupled to all other bodies (molecules) so that it eventually diffuses throughout the “space” the gas (system) occupies: a thermodynamic process. This diffusion is otherwise called entropy. Edit: I revise my opinion of your definition of heat: energy transfer due to temperature gradient actually does describe it too (thermodynamically).

Hi, I'm the kiwi bloke with the stupid name -which is completely intentional btw. I'm pretty interested in science, and into a lot of different stuff (chemistry, physics, electronics, condensed-matter, quantum theories, informatics, even biology and yawning)... I have a (first) degree (Comp. Sci.) but have studied all the other stuff, so am "capable", I feel with this science thing. I'm into any good discussion that looks at some of the basics, or the more exotic stuff, maybe. I don't really have any advanced math, this is ok because I understand what math is (projection, mapping, modeling, etc). I guess I'm a bit of a polymath. I play piano, mostly classical stuff (because much of the modern stuff is way too easy). I also speak a bit of Latin, and my motto is: "ut sapiens sibi fortunam habet, ergo iucundum sapere debet" (since knowledge is its own reward, learning should be fun)... See ya

You're a cattle whisperer?

LOL, or they us. I guess there must have been some kind of gradual "togetherness" happening, in terms of resources and needs, or something. Probably would have been a lot easier to domesticate young ones, which I guess we cottoned on to.

With no observer, how can there be a "red ball" or a "blue ball"? Maybe you should have a go at this. I'll post one if you do. A duck is a duck is a duck. Ducks don't walk around in single file... Yes, surely a reference frame isn't a necessary condition for conservation of mass?

What does "meaningless" mean? Who or what is "motion" meaningless to (without a reference)? A couple of guys called Boyle and Shannon. Also just about any textbook about entropy -and I don't say they are "same" things. Correct, energy isn't the same as mass. But it is the equivalent (there's a symmetry). This would depend on the frame of reference. A kilogram is only "meaningful" in a gravitational field. But mass/energy is (fundamentally) conserved, isn't it?

A reference frame, however, is something that is projected from a human mind. Is there a point somewhere (in the universe) that is at rest? This can only be relative (to the observer, the one projecting a "static" frame of reference). Anyone want to (try to) shoot the following down?: Heat/disorder is equivalent (there is a symmetry) to information/uncertainty. This is apparent in Boyles's and Shannon's equations. There is debate over this apparent symmetry, but information clearly does have energy/uncertainty, and our model of the quantum world also tell us this. Therefore information also has (an equivalent) mass, and presumably also has gravity (rather than gravitas). There is a vast (spatial and conceptual) gap between the classical (Boyle/Shannon), and the quantum (Einstein/Heisenberg). But “obviously” there is a connection...

What do you think the story was with dogs (wolves or whatever) joining the ranks? Do you suppose (the walrus said) that they were the first we "domesticated"? Probably they hung around looking for food at first, but what happened next? When did we start using them for things like hunting, and herding other animals ?

Glider: How are such efferent (is that the correct term?) neurons connected at the "dorsal horn"? There must be a path all the way to the brain, but does it consist of several axons, or what (or don't we know enough yet)?

How cautious is extremely cautious? You mean we should wait for Greenland's ice sheet to start falling apart? Or until global temp. goes up by 4-5 C?

Ah, the unpredictability of human response... "This one is tough for most people, like accepting that time doesn't exist." Well, this seems (to me) to be the crux of it (the current objections). Sequence of “reasoning” goes something like: Classical information is believed to be something we can gather, or extract, for free. Information is weightless (like thoughts are). QM illustrates that this is completely wrong -photons have energy/mass, therefore information must also. The EPR paradox illustrates a problem with the QM model, this is yet to be resolved. But we know that (quantum) information is certainly not weightless, or costless. Sorry if this is obvious to anyone, or they think I am just rehashing. What I would like is some “deeper” questions, but of course everyone is busy, and distracted with their own ideas and plans.

This is a little tale that I guess at which many of you will scoff: A couple of years back, one night during a rare visit to the local casino, I walked over to a roullette table as I had spotted a friend. I noticed they had, as usual placed a bet on 0. I told them that they shouldn't do this yet, because it was going to be 19, then 34 then 0. Of course, no-one paid the least attention, as I was being flippant (I thought I was pulling my friend's chain). Then, bugger me, in rolls 19. Huh? Then 34 -holy shit! By then I figured it might be worth a punt on 0. It came in -and I walked away with $175 (from a $5 bet, wasn't I daring?)- but it could have been a lot more -if only I'd had more faith in my psychic power!? Note: any time I have "tried" to "use" this I have experienced total failure, so I don't see it (if it's real) as any advantage -I probably just got lucky.

No, it isn't my conclusion. This observation (the model is incomplete) was made back in the '30s by Einstein, Podolsky, Bohr, Rosen, et al. And maybe since then, the response (to their observation), might be seen (by some, maybe yourself) as pretty much 'well yeah, and....?' Me, I think we might be a lot closer to resolving this than some. Opinatus sum, of course. And why is there a need for some conclusion? What conclusion, or kind of conclusion, do you feel is needed here?

Comment: I've seen apostrophes being used all over the place, in newspapers, in web posts, in letters. So I thought I'd give everyone in this for'm th' "101" on 'em: Apostrophes are a part of a linguistic feature (of English) called contraction. Contraction is what happens when two words are joined together (generally this happened first in spoken, then in written English). Examples are words like can and not, which become cannot, then can't, or we and are, (which might have been we-are) becomes we're. An apostrophe is always used (as in both examples) to signify the elision of one or more characters from such a compounded, or contracted word. This contraction-elision procedure is also used in the possessive case of nouns. In other words, the possessive case (my, his, hers, theirs), is formed by first adding the possessive pronoun: “Fred, his ideas”, (became) “Fred-his ideas” then “Fred's ideas”, the first letters of any possessive pronoun are dropped, or elided, (the apostrophe takes their place) and the “s” only is used. If the word is a plural, the apostrophe goes after the s (e.g. “the Smiths' place”). If the word otherwise ends in an “s”, the same can be done (after the “s”), but some add an “s” (“Tess's place”), and this is accepted use as well. What isn't usual is to write things like: “the cat with it's tail in the air”. This actually says “the cat with it is tail in the air”. Or use it with plurals like: “the street number's are on each letterbox”. This says: “the street number is are on each letterbox”. geddit?

Atheist, this is our doing, not "nature's". This is our "mapping" of what "nature has to offer", no? The idea of standing “outside” some observer-defined “system” (a measurable space) and observing it without perturbation; without cost to the observer, the system or the measurement itself, is overdue for a “perception funeral service". But It probably won't get a send-off for a while yet: we seem to still be very much in need of our classical contact-lenses. Here's a sample of current thinking: “ 1. ...information is a state of energy ...in an isolated frame. Information is essential a state of unbalance. 2. Isolation is key. Without isolation no unbalance. One would become zero again without isolation. Isolation means a boundary. Where does the boundary comes from? 3. Next question: Information about what ... coming from where? Clearly from event(s) that what was/were 'before'. So the cause or causing factors. Previous parameters which were excited and caused the unbalanced state of energy. 4. Previous? So there must be history. but: History that STILL HOLDS to fund the present! [cfr. how the historical combinations of atoms (Past) make a specific neurotransmitters-molecule (Now)]. Thus previous information still 'in-corporated' inside the Now-event. 5. Now the prime key however is what is energy? Here we see the heuristic paradox. Correct interpretation of Einstein leads us to conclude that Energy is a specific expression of space-time. So 'sub-energy hold in an isolated frame' means: spacetime incorporated in spacetime. So information is a sub-set of spacetime in relation to a specific level of in another way (hierarchic) expressed spacetime. “ -pelastration (posted in physicsforums) He's trying, but the problem with his approach is that he is still seeing a classical world. In Chaos & Cyberculture, Leary says (according to Arno Ruthofer): Werner Heisenberg's principle states that there is a limit to objective determinacy. If everyone has a singular viewpoint, constantly changing, then everyone creates his or her own version of reality. This gives the responsibility for reality construction not to a bad-natured biblical God or to an impersonal, mechanical process of entropic devolution, or to an omniscient Marxist state, but to individual brains. ...Furthermore, Leary explains that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "suggests that our observations fabricate the subject matter, i.e. realities. We can only know what our sense-organs, our measuring instruments and our paradigms or maps describe". According to Leary, the "Quantum universe" that Heisenberg and the other quantum physicists define is an observer-created universe. It is a universe that changes when the viewpoint of the observer changes. What's wrong with our model? Either we aren't seeing reality “as it is”, or we need a more “complete” theory. The conservation of quantised properties of mass (spin, charge, superposition) doesn't map to a classical kind of model at all. Our quantum spectacles are either a work in progress, or in need of a good “quantum wipe”. We still wear our classical/analog specs all the time, so it's hard to think about the world of quantised/digitised mass and energy.

Apart from the scientific certainty or otherwise, it isn't like we're trying to find out why quantum entanglement works. This research has "wider implications", you might say.

Some dinosaurs were pretty big. What about the mosasaur or the spinosaur. Didn't a really big fossil get discovered recently? I wonder how many know about these long spindly things that go all the way to, er, the extremities?

Down here in Kiwiland, we're getting the tail end of an "extended" winter. This morning was about 3-4 C, and it's the middle of spring. We haven't had weather this cold for quite a few (maybe more than 20) years, and we had hailstorms last week. I don't think you will find many NZ'ers who are saying this means global warming is a load of cobblers, mate.

It's a big one: Infinite cardinality is the concept of a number greater than (outside of) some (largest) element of a set, which therefore also has infinite cardinality (and belongs to the set). This is logically inconsistent. There is no cardinality which falls outside any set of infinite cardinality. Zero (nothing) can belong to such a set, but zero is definitely not infinite, and nor are any of the set's members (except for the “infinite” one -the “biggest”+m). In other words infinity is like a guest who checks in to a hotel to find he is already there, there are already an infinite number of him in fact, and they all have no idea who they are.

P.S. If anyone is still looking for anything at the end of a comma, all I can say is you might need to look up the definition of “metaphor” (and I wish you luck). P.P.S. in case anyone is wondering what my brain-burp was about, here's the little sucker for your perusal and elucidation: Energy and mass are "real" things, but time (the "flow" of energy), and distance (mass separation -two electrons can have a space between them), are maybe some kind of artefact of how we “perceive” them. Time has no existence, no external reality (other than in our model), like mass/energy does (except distance, or separation is “real” to us). Time, as an imagined metric, seems to fill a “natural” role in our (virtual) model, but distance is “real” (things are separated by “real” distance), except for quantum superposition. Superposition conserves quantum properties and distance/separation is imaginary (from its “point of view”). It sure is a strange universe.

Well, they are pretty intertwined. We treat nuclear power in a classical way, because QM only comes into the picture at much smaller scales. Can you be any more specific about what you're asking...?

brain-burp n. 1. Idea or inspiration which appears promising but which, despite initial enthusiasm, turns out to be incorrect. 2. Belief that powers of insight can debunk Newton or Einstein.

Why does he think Africans are "less smart"? Does he look into Africa's history at all? I mean, centuries of enforced displacement (slavery), economic mismanagement, and generally Western Empire-building indifference couldn't have anything to do with it, right?