ydoaPs

Perhaps the universe is deterministic. But does that mean we have no Free Will? Yes and No. Yes, if you cling to the vague romanticized version of Free Will which basically amounts to one being able to choose any possible choice. No, if we modify our concept of Free Will to be more realistic. Free Will isn't at odds with determinism. In fact, Free Will depends on at least some level of determinism. Think for a moment about what "you" are. What is consciousness? Who am I? For now, science hasn't come very close to giving us conclusive answers. Yet, perhaps the black box method can help us philosophically. Now, consciousness is like an impenetrable black box; we're not sure how it works, but we know it does. We can't open it to see how it works, but we can do other things to catch a glimpse of the nature of this thing we call consciousness. If we place an input(a choice), we get an output(the action/option chosen). Now under these exact situations, the same input would produce the same output, otherwise there would need to be some randomness. If randomness were introduced, then how is one to distinguish "you" choosing from "her" choosing or "him" choosing? How would you describe it as a choice at all? An input with a random output doesn't sound much like a choice to me; it sounds more like a random number generator. If this consciousness were instead some sort of complex algorithm, then, it would make the decision based on various components of said algorithm (the person's past experiences, thoughts, beliefs, values, etc). This would be more like our idea of Free Will and is much more meaningful than a random number generator. So what if the result of the choice is known before the choice was made? Does that make it any different? I say, no, determinism is not against Free Will, but Free Will depends on determinism.

Not the biggest. You can buy 2" NIB spheres at unitednuclear(Supermagnet #200).

That is one of several examples. Clearly, one cannot honestly say religion had NOTHING to do with the War. Religion obviously had a profound impact on Hitler's motives and the motives of others who were persuaded by him. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the War was completely about religion, or even mostly about it. I'm just saying the impact of religion here is being underplayed.

Spam spam spam, err, chicken.

Ever read Mein Kampf or Hitler's speeches?

Isn't gravity just a theory though?

Beautiful

The video showed him analyze the cube for a few seconds before he started.

I thought it had something to do with the shortening of telomeres as cells divide.

I've seen someone do it in 20sec.

I think he's trying to say there's a difference between what is coded and the code itself, but I could be wrong.

Nope. That's temperature.

Perhaps you should elaborate as to the what exactly my "problem with heat/entropy" is.

What about the people who insist that "irregardless" means the same as "regardless"?

Yes, I need the "sorting out." You say that as though I'm not a nuclear mechanic. Nuclear mechanics work on heat engines. We know all about heat, entropy, enthalpy, etc. Swansont taught physics at the school I attended(well, he taught when it was located in Orlando). So, if I have any misunderstanding, it is his fault! I was under the impression that [math]\nabla\cdot{B}=0[/math] meant there are no magnetic monopoles.

I'm not sure which "appalling things" you're speaking of, but it definitely is NOT unheard of. There are the inquisitions, the crusades, Jihads, abortion clinic bombings, teaching creationism in public schools, etc. It really depends on how you define "appalling things." Religious motivation, however, is factually a motivation for a fair number of things many would consider appalling.

You'll need to make use of the difference of perfect squares in the numerator. Although, you do have a sign error. Btw, show your work. [hide]I got x=y-3t[/hide]

I think he did say why it didn't apply. The emphasis is obviously mine. I had explained further. What I'm assuming Martin did was quote E=mc2 because it is the popularized version and because it seems that this is the equation that would imply that photons had mass. Let's use the full equation, plug in the the momentum value, and not assume m=0. [math]\rho=\frac{h}{\lambda}[/math] [math]E=h\nu[/math] [math]c={\nu}{\lambda}[/math] [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+({\rho}c)^2[/math] [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+({\frac{h}{\lambda}}c)^2[/math] [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+({\frac{h}{\lambda}}\nu\lambda)^2[/math] [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+(h\nu)^2[/math] [math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+E^2[/math] [math](mc^2)^2=0[/math] m=0 Since photons always travel at c, m will always be zero. This means E=mc2=0 which isn't true, as we've seen above the energy of a photon is given by [math]E=h\nu[/math]. Thus, E=mc2 clearly does, in fact, NOT apply to photons.

What about "affect" vs "effect"? Or "lay vs "lie"?

It's not working.

No Yes, entropy TENDS to increase. "Tends" is a big word here. Energy that's not available for work. Like waste heat from friction in a bearing. Do you know what the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance is? I'll give you a hint. It starts with a "T" and ends with "emperature" What do you think causes the IR radiation? edit: This post wasn't visible when I made this post. Will do.

Yep, you just urinate all of the unused water soluble vitamins.

A lot of the really good energy drinks are loaded with B vitamins instead of caffiene.

You're right. With no observer, the balls cease to exist. I labeled them with colours simply as a way to distinguish them in the example. Explain the difference in energy without reference frames. Heat: Energy in transit from one system to another due solely to a temperature difference. Entropy:A property of a system describing amount of energy unavailable to do work(meh, not a very good definition, but it's the best I can do off the top of my head at this time of night after working all day) On a completely unrelated and irrelevant note, your posting style reminds me of revprez

An observer is not necessary. There is a red ball and a blue ball. They pass each other. Which one was moving? How do you know? The universe consists of a green ball. Is it moving? How do you know? This guy Ken told me that the Universe was made roughly 6000 years ago. Define the terms "heat" and "disorder". Heat and entropy are related, but not the same. The way you worded the post implied that they are the same. A kilogram is a kilogram is a kilogram. Mass is independent of a gravitational field, weight is not. Mass/energy is conserved IN A REFERENCE FRAME. Let's expand my previous example. There are three balls(one red, one blue, and one yellow). The red and blue balls are at rest with respect to each other, but moving with respect to the yellow ball. From a reference frame in which the yellow ball is at rest, the red ball has the energy from mass, but since the red ball is moving, it also has kinetic energy. Now, let's move our reference frame to one in which the blue ball is at rest. The red ball still has the same energy due to mass, but, since it is at rest relative to the blue ball, has no kinetic energy. The red ball has more energy in the reference frame of the yellow ball than it does in the reference frame of the blue ball. Thus energy is dependent on the reference frame and is not conserved from frame to frame. Mass, however is the same in every frame of reference.