questionposter

So one scientist happens to describe a particle as something that kind of supports your argument. Big deal. Also, your link doesn't really work for me either.

Nah

Dude, what you are doing in this forum? You obviously don't care about science. Besides, newt would have gotten the Republican party more humiliated just as Joe Biden does for Obama, and Capitalism needs socialism to keep it on a leash. Personally I don't logically see how Obama's policies are particularly communist, they are more progressive, and he even signed off on granting more gun rights.

There's isolated tribes in the amazon, all they really have is a moral code.

Astrology can be explained scientifically anyway. Certain people relatively specific personalities attract each other. And, different personality pairs will want to have children at different but relatively specific times, and because those people have specific personalities, their children will also have relatively specific personalities. Not only that, but it's also just a matter of who discovers it. I could say "If your name is Bryan, your IQ is higher then 160", and for some people named "Bryan" it would be true, and those people who it's true for would then advocate that it works. Although if they have an IQ of 160 or higher they can probably see right through this astrology thing.

It isn't a sign of brokenness, but it isn't a sign of perfection. There are ways to get energy other than killing something, but it will take more effort so it is not as efficient, which is why nature hasn't evolved around it, since nature naturally does the most efficient thing.

Why don't we just go ahead and assume there's invisible unicorns always watching us.

There was one was about the video, which wasn't very specific, and then there's a link where someone didn't correctly interpret data. There's numerous experiments that verify that measuring devices if completely measuring an electron will make the interference pattern impossible. Instead what is more likely is that the semi-conductors were able to pick up some information but not collapse the electron's wave function completely which is why there would still be an interference pattern. It depends on the method of semi-conductors, and the pdf didn't seem to state what information the person actually obtained by using the semi-conductors. Info on spin state? more precise momentum? Exact position? What? As picky as it seems, those details are very important. Also, he's substitution an electron for an electro-magnetic wave in his/her calculations, otherwise known as a photon, which is in many respects in dfferent than an electron, which may also account for large variations, because electrons are not described the same way as photons even within the same mechanics.

But so what if your "survival instinct" "picks" humans? And why does malaria deserve to be killed off?

Couldn't you just shoot the guy in the leg or call the police and merely threaten him?

Then you shouldn't expect a measured electron to either, because a measured electron collapses down to a finite point. It is possible to use semi-conductors, but if they don't directly measure the electron, they merely alter it's probability, which would explain why you could get "some" information about the electron but still have it be somewhat delocalized and form a different interference pattern.

Those semi-conductors don't measure the particle, they merely alter the trajectory in a way that you can predict a possible outcome, and particles certainly aren't deterministic because you can't predict where they will actually be measured. That video/pictures is actually millions of separate measurements. I'm a little worried about your semi-conductors, because there's the uncertainty principal which as not shown to be wrong which makes your statement wrong. It states the position and momentum cannot be known simultaneously. They may appear to bounce depending in their momentum. If your shooting an electron with a very high momentum, it will appear to be localized to a much much smaller area that seems like a solid particle than if you shot it at a low momentum that would make it more delocalized. And this is also why particles at CERN and in other particle colliders are generally more like precise spheres. They still can follow wave mechanics, but those wave mechanics jsut don't encompass a large area because of the uncertainty principal. Your ricochet explanation doesn't make sense because scientists have already tried shooting small solid spheres through a double slit and they do not make that pattern. And then again, the uncertainty principal, which isn't wave mechanics, Heisenberg developed it separately from Schrodinger. You can observe which slit an electron goes through, but if you constantly measure all the electrons in the experiment, you will NOT see the double slit pattern. This is scientifically proven.

They can make however much money they want, they just have to donate a certain percentage of it to the government. In a "purely" capitalistic economy, no, people absolutely do not have control, only a few people though. Luckily though, the US is part socialist. Like being born in the ghetto, having no where to turn for work except some corporation, who pays them less than minimum wage if they can get away with it (which they can). Then there's the prostitution problem where there's people who rape women in places like Colombia, who are prostitutes for a living and can only make whatever money their agency allows, and then have to support a kid who will be born into the same circumstances. Because theoretically with your logic they "can" ignore the bomb shells and bullets and tanks around them and a greedy dictator and become rich if they just try hard enough. Can't someone with a monopoly decide how things work? Capitalism itself is not the ability to succeed based on your hard work, it is the ability to succeed based on how "better" you are than other people. If your smarter, your chances are higher. If your stronger, your changes are higher. There is practically no difference between this and just plain brute wilderness, but last time I checked human beings wanted to be better than that. Lazy people become rich all the time. They can easily be born rich, or elected to be the CEO because they have some friends, or just happen to invest in in a very profitable company. Granted, there are many people that do work hard to become rich, but again, capitalism is not about working hard. And what does it really matter anyway? So someone doesn't like doing traditional work, why do they deserve to have a horrible life?

Normal is ------>

It is probably bigger than 4 feet, and I know they have very fast reaction time, that's why I don't ever go near them. With the food thing though, it isn't very logical. Why would it try to kill me first if I supply it with food? The automatic association wouldn't seem to make sense. There's also many cases such as at tourist locations of where large alligators seem to be fine around people and even let random people touch them. There's this too http://www.google.co...29,r:0,s:0,i:67 It seems this alligator follows the same logic. Instead of trying to push the boat over and/or eat the passengers or that guy's arm, which it probably could, it merely waits for the tour guides to feed it. After thinking about it, it seems even in the reptile world that there is the type of diversity where some alligators are not as aggressive or are more cautions or more relaxed, etc, or I guess a better word would be "personality" which many animals have anyway. There might be cases of what your saying, but because that isn't every case, I can only assume there's diversity.

This whole thread is the assumption that we could get away with it, there should be no debate here on if we could, there's another thread in the biology section for that. What if we make it a rogue alien species? Let's say they've been attacking Earth and they are all in this sort of nomadic fleet, and we can wipe it all out with one button. No negative ecological consequences.

You don't "have" to if you don't want to, and who's to say there isn't another way anyway? How come god only chooses what a certain people must do? Why wouldn't he try to s Both broken and perfect are pretty relative terms when talking about living organisms. I could argue most plants are perfect because they don't have this mess.

So your saying "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong"? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I don't see the connection between the two clauses.

So in other words, the energy it starts out with would be the same from all frames of reference if it could be measured while doing that, but only the actual measurement is different to different frames of reference?

Having high energy does make them more localized, but it doesn't destroy their properties in the process. The problem with your arguments is that saying something is a "particle" doesn't mean it can't have wave-like properties. Furthermore, do you think it's particle-like for an electron to occupy multiple positions simultaneously? Because it's not only quantum wave mechancis that predicts that, and you certainty couldn't intuitively infer that from the word "particle".

Why would aliens be interested in this little rock when there's an entire universe?

Ok, but how do you logically come to the conclusion it is ethically wrong?

Again, I don't understand how people don't get this, but this thread isn't about how likely it is, it's about the ethical course of action.

How does it change without anyone measuring it? What determined the probable wavelength? Or is the energy emitted from a source sort of universal?

Well a dictionary this to say about what a particle is, which is true in multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics.