omnimutant

Unfortunately, it's most peoples replies in threads like these that keep me from enjoying these forums as much as I'd like too. So many people are so quick to just assume that there is no provable evidence for such a phenomenon. Not because they have actively searched every possible potential piece of evidence about the topic. Most likely because, in their extremely limited scope of Knowledge and inner circles, these kinds of things are an easy target, and will usually get enough support from others if they lash out trying to disprove a concept they might other wise be completely unfamiliar with. Yes like most of you I too am merely speculating on your intentions. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't make it non existent. Just because someone spent 5 minutes in a control environment trying to set up a provable test and failed does not mean it doesn't exist(sarcasm). It has been mentioned that this phenomenon has been studied for hundreds of years. Chances are, we all know our histories pretty well, that any evidence of such a thing would be treated as heresy against one religion or another and easily dismissed by the state, church, and yes scientific communities, at least up until as recently as the last say 75 years or so(and even still today it's widely considered "taboo"). So it completely boggles my mind that so many people with so much passion for trying to understand how stuff works, and theorizing on so many amazing things in life, who share the same history of discoveries being lost forever because of time, religion and governments, would turn such a blind eye so fast on such a topic. I think much of the problem lies in the readers inability or even desire to understand what it is thats actually being discussed. In half of this topic people cannot even agree on what it is the other half is trying to "disprove". I think in the future on such topics the Creator should better define exactly what it is they are proposing. Saying Telepathy means about a million things to a million different people. You can't argue on a generalization and yet thats all this entire topic has been. I am greatly disappointed in how many people dismiss what they consider to be "unprovable" in general. Nothing is truly provable. Proof is simply enough people being convinced over time, experimentation and social teachings that something makes sense. It's all based on perception and how many people can be convinced of that perception which make an idea generally accepted as proof. That is until someone comes along and alters perceptions the other way, proving old theories wrong because of a new condition or exception that was discovered over a long enough time frame. So my point is, that it seems rather pointless to sit here and argue about how something can't exist instead of maybe trying to find out if it could or does. I'm posting in this topic to convey that this sort of thing does exist in some form. Not necessarily how some movie or fortune teller has changed your perception of it. But I have often had instances of "esp" for lack of a better word and "telepathy" not so much in the "classically" stated way, but none the less it has happened. I don't know exactly why or how, but I know I have many times in my life. I've had images of future events play out exactly as foreseen and in many cases with conditions I never experienced until the incident. Places I've never been to until the innocent are exactly as I had visioned, things people have said are exactly what they said during the same set of visual experiences witnessed in the mini "visions" if you will. I have felt someones presence and communicated with very select people whom I was close to emotionally without the usual suspects of every day communication. Is it repeatable? Not very often. But it has been done. Actually thats not entirely true. I have repeated immediate future visions many times in succession before. It happens at random but when it does occur I become aware of it happening and can repeat it at that time many times in a row. Some call it lucky guesses. I play dice games a lot and can often predict my opponents throw of the dice for the next 10 sometimes more throws in succession when "it" kicks in. Call it precognition or whatever you want i get that far more often then telepathy. What I believe is that it's not some supernatural "power" or "gift" from the heavens or whatever. I believe it has more to do with the way we perceive this existence that we call reality and pretty much tramples on the concept of linear time. I will be glad and look forward to having future discussion about that perception very soon so long as some of you haters can just listen and try to understand before ripping every single sentence into some out of context gibberish for your own personal amusement. I'm not some mind reader who's going to solve some crime at will or read your fortune. Most of this stuff comes to me and others who really do experience it randomly, though when it does happen we can tell and are able to capitalize on it by staying in the same frame of mind for a significant duration with enough focus. I think this subject is simply beyond our current understanding as human beings to really hone in on and explore scientifically to the point of some kind of accurate extremely repeatable prediction model. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe we simply are not able to grasp the concepts needed to explore this properly with our very limited understanding of how things work. We can only understand what were willing to accept(even if we at first don't understand it) and if you dismiss things you do not understand as not logical or possible your really limiting yourself to whats already been discovered. At that point You might as well quit while your ahead. Science is about discovery and trying understand what we don't already know. If you only stick to what you know your only exploring history. Anyway sorry for my 1/2 rant 1/2 somewhat whatever the hell it was. I do love these forums but every time I visit them I'm only on for about a week before I get tired of listening to all the usually unfounded negativity.

Could a Black Hole theoretically eat itself? Say if it were possible that there was a Black Hole in a contained environment, for the sake of discussion, once it pulled in everything it possibly could from the space it was in, what would happen to it? If yes, then could it be Possible, that in a previous Universe, after it's maximum expansion, it could have broken down to the point that a dominant Black Hole consumed everything and then itself? The singularity that was left over could have created our universe and it could just be a big never ending cycle. If energy cannot be destroyed, only transfered then it has to go somewhere. If a Black hole is made up of the condensed energy from everything it's "consumed" then it this seems Plausible to me, that once everything Has been consumed whats left is one super dense singularity of energy that could spark the "Big Bang" expansion. Once everything has compressed far enough down it has to go somewhere right? Why not re-expansion? If No to the Main question, then what would Happen in the contained environment? Keep in mind that I have no formal Astronomical or Science education at all, so I have to use assumptions from information I have collected through the years, which very well could be completely wrong.

6 had me stuck for a long time, but I managed it. 7 still has me stuck to the point that I quit for a while, bookmarked it and will come back at a later time. The real crappy part is that I know the answer, just can't figure out how to use it!

See thats the difference IMO. For the average Point and clicker, one OS is probably just as good as the other. For Guys like me, it's a huge learning curve, and I often get annoyed and go back to XP or whatever. See I want to want to use Linux. But right now I really have no need to use Linux, and that in itself creates a hurtle when I do try and use it. I've got what I need in XP. Another bigger issue for me too is that I'm a Graphic Designer, and GIMP while fun and a great graphics tool for Linux, is NO substitute for Photo Shop(no mater how many non designers seem to think so, and tell me often). Another issue is compatibility in programs like Open office. It works great for creating Office Docs that can be read by Microsoft Office. Unfortunately because of Marco issues and a few other missing pieces, it does not work as well the other way around. There are many Clone type programs that have the same issues. The work pretty good for being free, or cheap knockoffs, but not quite as well as they should for any serious business to take place on a larger scale. The Linux community would be well served to create some complete original programs that are not clones of windows programs, that won't run natively on windows machines that Blow people away to the point, that it creates more of a need/desire for Linux rather then it just being "The Other White meat". As long as it continues to emulate Windows, and be the Anti Windows it's never going to catch as much Air as if it had it's own set of Wings.

It keeps us busy

The problem with designer babies is that it's possible that at some point we all end up with the same DNA. Now thats not necessarily a bad thing, except that by doing so we might be excluding(breeding out) future dormant mutation potential that might lead to some better mutations down the road. Basically, Designer babies would be too limiting. Also I think it would make the world a pretty boring place if everyone looked the same. Just because we can do something does not mean we should.

Hint (as specified on the pron), Google is your friend. Many hints are purposely seeded in the Source HTML code and sometimes the Picture itself. Some Google searching is also required and allowed using the -notpron extention.

I was going to say, when the first 1 = one apple and the other 1 = one orange then you have 1+1 = Fruit Salad!

It evolved! (from our need to be controlled and feel significant in this lonely world) Actually Intelligent Design (As Named) stems from a scam propagated by some Religious Zealots working with a publisher to try and sneak Christianity into Public Schools, under the guise of a new Scientific Theory. There is a Great episode of the PBS show Front Line that goes into extreme detail with Lots of hard evidence proving the above fact. It even mentions how in the first printing they messed up and missed editing out some key references to God by name and other such mistakes. The second printing quickly fixed these errors but still managed to leave in other blatant Theological references. "Intelligent Design" in any other form then the one mentioned above is just creationism with a fancy name.

You know whats funny about that. I Know a lot of people who smoke Pot. Those who were not Fat before they started many years ago, have never tended to gain anymore weight. I however stopped smoking pot about 10 years ago, and just about the same time Started to gain a lot of weight. (still fat actually) Obviously there is not science in my assertion but I've witnessed and contemplated the possibility that Pot might have something in it that help sustains weight. One of my friend who does smoke pot, and has for at least 15 years, is rather small and pretty skinny. He's has always tried every thing he could to Gain weight, and he can't seem to get fat. (he really wants too for some reason). He uses some of those weight lifter powders(and does not work out), eats fast food on a daily basis, east tons of candy soda and Junk food, and yet can't gain any weight. I told him to stop smoking pot, and try that, unfortunately thats not an option for him. So while I don't think it reduces weight I do think it can sustain current weight some how. (I do not however think we all need to start getting high cause were fat)

It's also it's biggest downfall at the same time IMO. I think Linux suffers from too much freedom. There are so many packages so many base OS systems so many features, it's hard to know whats going to work for you. If your a hard core tech head then Linux might be your cup of tea(not for me though). I think it's too much choice for the average user though. One of the down sides to open source is security. It's also one of the things that people use to promote its value ironically. Problem is, if everyone knows everything about it, they probably all know how to get in too. I do like the concept of linux, but unfortunately newer builds seem to be getting real bloated. Don't get me wrong I think Vista has it's own set of serious problems (like bloated features as well), but this topic is not about the pains of vista. The one real problem I have with Linux is that many of the more popular applications are not original ideas, but rather stolen designs of current Retail software packages. I know that Many Huge software companies (especially Microsoft) has stolen tons of code/programs/apps and called them there own. But it still does not make it right. It's the fact that it's a constant work in progress created by thousands of people submitting ideas, that it will never become a gold standard. Because of inconsistencies, and updates, it simply changes too fast for everyone to be "on the same page" in the business world. (Yes windows systems are falling into this trap too). It's because there is not ultimate control over the Linux world that I think it will never be able to properly organize in such a way to be a Huge success and over throw the Current Windows World. There is also a learning curve which ironically becomes larger the more comfortable you are with a different OS. One of the reasons I have a hard time with Linux is because I've know the Windows/Dos Enviornment for 15+ years. If anyone is looking for a recommended OS I'd suggest find a copy of XP and stick with that for the next couple of years while Vista gets the Kinks worked out.

This would be a cool way to stick it to your ISP to show them proof that their service might need serious improvement. If it was standardized it might even force better service for the whole ISP industry.

This is already being discussed here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33545 I do generally accept what your saying however I like to take it a bit further. Where medicine cures the problems to an extent, it is not perfect. That alone is enough not to worry about a long term weakening on the human race. I do believe that technology has basically got to the point that mutation in humans almost does not mater anymore, but evolution still happens. Lets say that using your example, the "bad" mutation becomes the norm because of technology. Well in that case we still have technology so there is nothing to worry about. But in an extinction situation, where say all our technological advances and the knowledge of such mysteriously vanishes. We still will evolve to fit our enviornment. The "bad" mutations will eventually breed out as new mutations occur that are better suited to handle our new enviornment. Lets not forget that we have already evolved(?) the ability to create technology, and that will aid in the prolonging of an immediate wipe out of our species, while any new evolutionary changes take place. The cool thing about our ability to create technology is that we seem to be even better at it in dire situations.

I would not call it a force. NS is just a misleading name we put on a cycle of random mutations. It's not that some force picks which mutations we need or anything. Random mutations always happen, and because of the conditions in the environment, those mutations in a species either live or die. If they live and propagate, over time, they might grow to dominate the species(the mutation happened to work out better for survival then the previous "norm" of the species). That mutation then becomes the norm until another mutation dominates. This is why there is so much variations in certain species of animals all over the world. When it's said that they "adapt" for survival, one should really say, they were randomly better at survival in their current environment. Of course, Creationists might have a differing view on this since it kind of kills the God concept in a way.

(Sorry to Necro Post but this is important to me) I think it has more to do with caring then actually trying to insult and preach, but I've been on Both sides of this issue in general. I do smoke and I am bombarded every day with stuff I've heard for years. I know it can kill me, and cause cancer, and all the hazards and nastiness associated with it. I know I'm addicted to nicotine and it's something that I need to deal with. So I know how much it sucks when someone preaches to you constantly to stop. For me it's the final step in some serious life changing thats happened to me over the last 10 or so years. That said, things I have given up, like Drinking and Drugs, I do tend to be preachy to those I care for who still continue these activities. It's a bit hypocritical of me to preach to someone using drugs when I smoke but thats how I roll sometimes. That said, even though I KNOW that the only person that will get people to quit there own habits is themselves, I still feel it necessary to push them in the right direction. It is because I care for those people. I don't go up to strangers and preach to them so maybe I'm being greedy about the whole thing, but I do believe that it's because of the caring that the preaching is so rampant. Of course when were talking about Drug and Alcohol abuse many times you have to deal with the denial factor. Most smokers I know, know that they are addicted and accept that they are harming themselves. Like myself, they want to quit, but it hasn't happened yet. On the Other hand many drug users I have known have a real hard time accepting the Harm they are causing themselves and others. And an even harder time accepting the addiction when applicable. Alcohol is much the same in that regard. I think it has to do with the social acceptance of alcohol and "social drugs" that makes people less aware of their own addictions in that regard. In fact, judging by my own personal views on society and life experiences, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of people who do habitually drink, are not even aware that they are Alcoholics. Anyway, it's probably not right for me to push my own "moral" judgment on those people I preach too, but sometimes it feels like it needs to be done.

This might be a Stupid Question. Would it not make sense that the highest possible score one could expect to achieve on an IQ test is limited by the IQ of the test creator? Furthermore Many of the IQ tests I've seen have been heavily Knowledge Based, which confuses me to some extent. I thought IQ and Knowledge were supposed to be two completely different things? Of course, sense it was mentioned that no one can seem to accurately determine a true definition of what IQ is, then what the heck are we testing anyway? To the OP's question, I'm of the Opinion that the average IQ of the Human Being has probably never changed since we became Modern Humans. Expanding on current technology does not really mean we are any "smarter" then before, it just means we have more stimuli to work with now.

I'm not sure the messurable amount of intelligence has anything to do with Evolution, as much as the right kind of brain functions to accomplish technology. Which we all have. Even beings born with the mutations that cause mental retardation are capable of technology, but thats not what were talking about here. I don't see how the mating of two people with lower intelligence "scores" cannot lead to a "smarter" offspring. Was Isac Newtons Father and Mother as intelligent as Newton? Probably not. I fail to see the relevance here. Also let me add that while technology does exist to make living conditions easier, it does not force us to be less intelligent to use them. In fact I'd say quite the opposite. I cite the "Blinking VCR" as a comical example. Technology, while making our lives easier might in fact require a higher intelligence to use properly. That throws the whole "use it or lose it" theory out the window as far as I can tell.

I like this topic. No, and here is why. I feel that we have replaced our Natural Evolution with technology to the point that regardless of what mutations have been spawned we seem to be pretty good a combating them with technology, medical or other wise. We are an extremely adaptive species regardless of environmental changes. I've read/heard though common sources (nothing to quote sorry), that we have not actually had a major evolutionary change in our species since we developed as modern Humans. Yet we still survive. Human beings have populated even the harshest terrains on the planet, including Ice ages, major heat waves, droughts, You name it. Through time, we've increasingly create technology to survive harsher and more rigorous environments, weather it be the deepest of Oceans to other Planets (well OK the moon, but Mars is on the Horizon!). Now one could make the case that without the Tools found in todays technology we could not survive in a Hunter/gather situation, in the unlikely event of some major catastrophy wiping out like 99% of the population. I again would disagree. It is our in our nature to create / adapt. The fact is that even in a world catastrophy there would always be enough trash/debris around that could it be modified, with enough tinkering, to serve as needed for basic survival. Again we would adapt, mate, and repopulate the earth. The Key to our survival is and always has been technological adaptations, especially in the worst of environments. Thats my take on it anyway.

I think I'm stuck on 6 don't want to spoil why but there appears to be something missing that should be there. Or maybe not? NVM I got it LOL thats funney!

Well that explains a lot then. Every time I think I got a grasp on Gravity and Space Time I end up more confused then when I started haha.(TV doesn't help much!) Thanks for the answers and links everyone. I'll look forward to whatever other details I can get. I'm learning slowly (the hard way) through asking questions and such like this.

OK lets give this a shot then. I'm probably still not hitting it but I'll try anyway. If The celestial body expands due to increased collection of mass. And space basically wraps or Curves around it. Then wouldn't space have to expand around the body to accommodate this?

I fear that I am not explaining what I'm getting at correctly. I have this problem from time to time. LOL. I'll think about this some more and come back and see if I can explain what I'm thinking a bit better. Thanks for your responses and the links too BTW.

Thanks Thats quite alright. I'm a mere average person when it comes to science in general. I have just picked up many bits of info along the way and I like to speculate about how things work that I don't quite understand. Maybe I should clarify this. I'm not adding matter to the universe in this. I'm saying that the collection of matter in one place creates a lump of mass big enough to create a significant gravitational well over time. While this would attract more stuff to it, I think thats insignificant to what I'm trying to put forth. What is significant is that a Star or Planet for example is a collection of Mater over time. It makes sense to me that this growth would cause a larger displacement in space time around itself. This displacement over Billions of Stars and Planets, I think would cause and expansion in the universe. Much Like the displacement of Water in a Bath tub. The Water rises when you get in it. Well as the mater of a large celestial body increases what happens to the space time around it?

Since this topic is somewhat covering the expansion of the Universe, I'd like to ask what anyone thinks of this possibility: Could it be possible, that the expansion of the universe, is due to the increase of mass of the objects in it? Since Stars and Planets are collections of matter over time, would not the Increase in mass displace the "Fabric" of Space Time? As something grows heavier the space has to go somewhere right? It makes sense to me that this is why for example distances between Space time are increasing. Space Time might simply be stretching do to increased Mass of all these collections of Matter. How does the Expansion of the Universe Prove the Big Bang? I ask this more out of curiosity then debate. I'm in no position to back any claim. I just like to "Philosophize" if you will, about the Universe with the little information I've gathered throughout the years.