Tres Juicy

"Copper isn't magnetic" A little off topic... but copper does have some interesting interactions with magnets try dropping a strong magnet through a copper tube, its very cool

"I don't think I need to elaborate, no." It is simple courtesy to give your reasoning in a discussion such as this, correct me if I'm wrong but wading in with "No, that's silly" is not only rude but also not conducive to a good debate. "You expressed an opinion which I found silly." Really? I am given to understand that there are no silly questions, only silly answers... Also, it's not really an opinion, I quite clearly phrased it as a question. What is silly about questioning things? Isn't that what drives progress and understanding? "Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology..." Well, excuse me for not being a neuroscientist... My Question suggests the possibilty that we have a limited capacity for understanding and that the brain, particularly things like consiousness and the formation of thoughts, may be beyond this capability. Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it? "...and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand." I find this a little patronising and expected better responses, particularly from experienced members. Nevermind, you seem to have misconstrued my question. I am not saying its impossible, only that there may be a limit to what we can do with the tools available (our brains), and was interested in getting the opinions of the other members. "For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains." This is stating the obvious I feel. The key word you've used here is "help". Again, my question is not so simple as you have made it out to be and I feel that your argument is based on "reductio ad absurdum" to some extent and certainly not a fair reflection of the validity of the original post in which I mention that it may not be articulated in the best way and credit readers with the intelligence to discern my meaning, a stategy which until now has worked well on this forum due to the quality of its members.

I think what he means is that it is impossible for the observer to notice any difference in time within his local frame

Would you care to elaborate? I'm a little in the dark as to your reasoning...

"It's not understanding, it's transcending the old beliefs" I have to disagree with this, science doesn't run on "old beliefs", it runs on observable evidence "The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO." Again I'd have to disagree, I think it's a perfectly valid question considering the tool of our understanding is what we're examining. In a different context, asking myself if my tools were appropriate for the job at hand is not only reasonable but necassary

"Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum" No, that would be the speculations sub forum... You can bash the standard model all you like, but it works quite well. I would suggest if you have a better model up your sleeve, book yourself a ticket to Stockholm or, post it in the appropriate speculations sub forum and see how it holds up to scrutiny.

No, it should end (ta/da!) Then it works on loads of levels...

"13 Billion years is a long blip." 13 billion years seems a long time to us, but thats relative to your local frame 2 days is a very long time to a may fly... Depends how you look at it

"there's none so blind as them that won't listen"

"the biggest barrier to understand it is our logical mind." This is sort of what I mean, how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?

"It's the collective power of all brains combined, itself supplemented with amazing technology, reference information, and past understandings" All of which are products of the brain - My question is complex and difficult for me to articulate nicely... A quick rephrase: Since all technology and thought is a product of the brain, can this product accurately describe the thing that created it? The brain is more complex than the thoughts it produces and since thoughts are our tools for examining the brain, will they always fall short? What does an egg know of chickens??

I am also interested to see what the criteria is...

Hi all, I haven't managed lucid dreams since I was a kid (when they just seemed to happen naturally) and I've just read this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228442.400-hijack-your-own-dreams-to-improve-your-skills.html So I wondered if you guys have managed it and if you had any tips? Also, hypothetically, what benefits do think you could reap from this ability? What skills would you practice?

The web counter on your site says it all.... "While I do believe the theory does support time travel" It doesn't really support time travel, it just doesn't rule it out. There's a big difference Science hasn't ruled out the possibilty of "the flying spaghetti monster" buts it's doubtful

Hi all, My question is this: Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself? Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously. Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself? I'm struggling to phrase this correctly... but you guys are intelligent enough to get my gist.

"perpetual motion we did that one 3 years ago ha ha ha you have a good day" If you think you're clever, try clearing my overdraft... Seriously though, you've made some pretty far fetched claims in this thread TT. I hope you eventually back them up

"I was just trying to prove that time come into existence just by the mere thought by mankind. and that before he consciously had the idea of time. that time didn't exist in that way" Time is time mate, we have no effect on it. In the grand scheme of things we've only been around for the blink of an eye. Klaynos is right, the universe doesn't care about us, why would something as fundamental as time itself bend to human thought? Humans have shaped it as a concept, labelled it and tried to describe it, that's what we do as a species. But we certainly did not bring it into existence, how could we? Time is a very difficult subject/concept to think about, it defies even description and absolutely fascinates me, but the idea that it is a function of thought is arrogant in the extreme (not saying that you're arrogant TT). I agree that maths must evolve and improve as a language/tool if we are to better understand the universe but I dont think that maths is limited by our concept or understanding of time (or lack thereof). Maths is the best tool we have for creating predictive models and describing the universe. As for this "I don’t think it will be one of us old boys who master this problem" Speak for yourself dude, I'll get right on after I crack perpetual motion and clear my overdraft!!

I think he's trying to demonstrate that the brain can have an external effect maybe...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusty_plasma

a quick search has turned this up http://mashable.com/...m-mind-reading/ but what I wanted was an answer to my question about the brain affecting the state of electrons over distance, as stated here: "just like the experiment with Electrons fired at a 2 slits form a orderly spectrum but the minuet you physically view this happening they scatter. The reason this happens is the brain creates a electromagnetic pulse when a thought is manifested it is the interaction of this energy field that the brain creates that interacts with the electrons behaviour thus causing them to scatter."

"all I can say is it is science fact where I work ." "Not being able to tell you exactly what we do here." This is very convenient... we are not asking for government secrets - just adherence to rule #1 Back up your claims TT

From reading the article, the only reference to electrical pulses refer to an external source and using them to treat or test the brain "There are available commercial devices [7] that can deliver an electrical pulse at scheduled time intervals." (from the wiki) Nothing about the brain creating them or their supposed effect on electrons

If human thought affected electrons (outside the brain) it would have been noted and well documented by now, scientists are always playing with electrons - They love 'em. Linking to a pseudoscientific site about meditation and brainwaves is not the kind of example I was after, you'll have to do better than that my chronologically challenged friend...