Mastermold

Honestly... funniest frickin thing I have ever seen!!! lol hahahaha :haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha::haha: :haha:

Yeah but without computers he couldn't transform unless he was thrown over a bar.. or thrown into a dumpster. lol The nerdy guy had to disappear so that Lou could bust through the wall.

It's true that it would make straighforward quadratics easy... but if you remember the "Determinant", which is b^2 plus 4*a*c... where a,b,c are all three numbers of the quadratic. The determinant shows how many roots of the quadratic exist, and if you get a negative number, you know there are two imaginary root and none others... so that makes your job a lot easier because you can't solve the equation. If it weren't for imaginary numbers, you would not be able to determine this and would instead work tirelessly on the solution. OR when you used the Quadratic "formula" (the whole b squared plus or minus the square root of....) you will see the solutions.. and sometimes you get imaginary answers.

Aw come on.. don't trash the Hulk until you see it. I thought Spider-man was going to be junk, but I was pleasantly surprised. I really liked the movie and I think Sam Raimi had a lot to do with it. I hope the director of Hulk is also good.. but I don't even know who it is. Anyone got answers to that? and maybe a filmography of the guy? But seriously.. I would rather have a pixelated Hulk computed on an Atari 400 than Lou Ferigno painted Green.

It was actually pretty fun to take that test. Finished the last ten "stroop" in 12 seconds! yeah! Although it did require a great deal of thinking to get me to click the color of the word and not the meaning of the word.

Hahaha I agreed!!!! And if it hadn't been for the shot of snatch at the VERY end.. I would've walked out of that movie angry.

Nowadays, it's becoming a very reliable way to depict characters that would be impossible to show otherwise. How could they have made the war scene from "Lord of the Rings: Two towers" if they didn't use animation? They would have to coordinate tens of thousands of people. Same situation as in The Clone Wars (Star Wars). The war scene would be almost impossible because those machines just aren't REAL... they could not drive them or show them realistically. The cheasy 70's and 80's FX are over.. not computers make movies amazing. After all, I'm looking forward to "The Incredible Hulk" but not if the Hulk form was just a body builder with green paint. What.. Lou Ferigno's agent is calling? Then I wouldn't go see the movie.

lol lol I wouldn't mind a nice BJ, but DEFINATELY not from a guy. :stupid:

Ok but when I attempted to describe your consciousness, I say 'the feeling' only because we are describing our own consciousness from 'within' the system. Not that it is a feeling actually... but I think I described what you are trying to describe. It is the overall awareness we experience.. our ability to receive sensory stimulus and interpret this. We are not 'conscious' when we are dreaming... we cannot receive outside information and do not interpret this information. Now... of course to some degree we are receiving this information because noise will wake us, but it is definately a depressed form of consciousness. So if we can agree that this is the consciousness... then you must ask yourself.. can you absolutely prove that we are all experiencing a consciousness? If you can... then again, you must be able to answer the questions of "Where did it come from?" and "Why is it selective?" The obvious answer to all of this... is of course the most believable that consciousness is a collection of our cognitive abilities that evolved gradually, and all scientific data reinforces this idea. First, higher animals (more evolved) have a more intricate consciousness. Second, the size and complexity of the brain directly correlates with the intricacy of consciousness. Third, severe damage to the brain will permanently destroy the consciousness. Conclusion: The consciousness is in the brain and is the culmination of evolving cognitive abilities.

Behold... the power of CHEESE!!!!! And yes... our Philosophy class had a lot of fun arguing this same point. Is it really that BAD if everyone lives 'fake' lives in the Matrix. And I concluded 'no'... only as long as the feelings are true stimulus.. and NOT a dream-like state.

But if the consciousness is just being aware... then how can you prove anyone else experiences the same feeling? I mean, I usually am amazed by the individuality I possess... "why am I not that guy? Why am I me?" If you mean this awareness, then it is more a mater of Philosophy because you cannot prove with certainty that any other person experiences this consciousness. And if you just mean the general 'awakeness' of our living days... then I will again argue... some animals experience this too, and some do not. So when did it appear and why did it choose certain animals? You cannot escape the fact that consciousness is not unique to human beings. It had to have evolved gradually, as a combination of traits that eventually defined our ability to experience and interpret our surroundings. Even snails react to the environment, so they too must possess the general consciousness... if that's what you mean. But what about plants then? Too many problems....

Imaginary numbers are important for all reasons mentioned.. AND to better understand the theory of mathematics. Believe it or not... there is a REAL problem when we cannot resolve a number because of the paradox it posses. My favorite (and most famous) imaginary number is the square root of -1, which is represented by a lower case i. what's interesting is that i can be manipulated mathmatically and make real numbers, but i is imaginary. And you find multiples of i to be non-real roots of many quadratic equations. So solving these requires knowledge of imaginary numbers.. and that means they are essential to elements of Calculus (applied to curves with imaginary solutions) and Algebra (the whole quadratic thing). Imaginary numbers will not help you in most professions, but then again.. there are a LOT of impractical things you are forced to learn.

Ture, but the consciousness can be found if we define it. If we say it is the reasoning ability we possess... then many animals have consciousness and some may not. (cells, plants, etc...) So when did the consciousness just "appear" and why did it choose some animals and not others? Or could it be that it is defined by our emotions... same argument can be applied about the consciousness's appearance. But we do see a correlation between size and complexity of the brain, with increasing breadth and complexity of consciousness. So the conclusion must be that the brain holds the consciousness or (what I once argued in Philosohy class) that the brain is responsible for interacting with the 'other side'. But there is no reason to believe this alternate idea.... I just argued it as an extreme. If it were this simple then why have a brain at all? I mean the 'other side' could communicate with our bodies with a lot less complexity with the infinite of knowledge it would possess. So realistcally, you should not consider obscure possiblities if the current belief fits the data.

You mean over the span of a large amount of time? It sounds possible... because the speed of light is only a threshold, light has been slowed down experiementally, but it cannot be accelerated.. only retarded. lol I know that word is always funny in any serious context.. but seriously, I didn't want to say decellerated because it's not a mechanical issue.

Isn't it funny how he mentioned the irrelevant line about "can be demolished" just to introduce questions like... "what if the line was severed??? Shudder.." Well I'll tell you what... if there is a spiritual body that can separate from the physical body.. it would be useless because it would not retain your memories or experience. If a person suffers brain damage they can lose these things... if the spiritul body held these memories or experiences.. then damaging the brain would not harm them. A simple proof that even if you COULD.. it would be a mindless, newborn baby of a spirit.

I definately have to read that paper. It sounds very interesting because it could really make way for some interesting devices. Do you know if the paper is published online? Or will I have to do some actually leg work (not the library!! ::shudder: hahaha. Also, energy is created easily.. the reverse is what is very difficult. Matter can be converted into energy, but the question remains... how can energy be converted into matter? Nuclear fission results in loss of mass and that mass is converted to energy via Einstein's famous E=mC^2. If anyone has any articles about attempts t convert energy into matter... please post them. It would be very interesting.

You are wrong that you cannot prove that this is the real world. Read my proof again carefully and you will see that the real world is a definition. It is defined as the state of our existence, and we must rely on our definitions because they are all that exist in our intellect. I could sit here and say, "Oh the sound you hear is not really sound... it is being transferred to your mind by a secret elf hiding in the bushes. But he disappears if you look for him." That would be just as pointless as arguing about us being real or not. We have decided that the real world is our state of existence, and if any of us escape the Matrix (hahaha) then we can redefine our lives, but until then... this IS the real world, by our own definition.

Well defining real may simply be a matter of symantics and is irrelevant when considering what philosophers consider 'real'. Most popular ones agreed that the 'real' world only exists according to what our sensory data tells us. If I see a green tree, it may not exist, but I see it nonetheless. My idea is that there is a real world because things actually DO happen when no one is around to see/hear/touch/taste/smell it. So this world exists independent of our minds and experiences. The world continues to experience time even when we are not witnessing it.. the popular 'tree falling in the forest' question is easily answered. Of course it makes a sound. I can prove the real world exists, and we can experience it... so we must therefore exist in this real world because others are a part of MY real world, and I must assume that every individual feels the individuality that I feel. So I hope that I am too part of THEIR world... and that means that we are all 'real' because we have decided that we are real. And we could argue about the definition of 'real', but it is only a word and so it is defined relative to our experiences. And our experience tells us that real is the definition of what we know to exist and be experienced. Conclusion: We are real because we have all agreed that real is what we experience, and any other experience is foreign, so only exists in the mind and is therefore an unreal experience.

I would like to see any information you have about this Fafalone, because my Physics book that was just revised in 2002 states without hesitation that, "It is impossible for any process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body." Entropy (2nd law) will always increase because if a process was found that contradicted this law, then perpetual motion machines would be possible, or a machine could run itself on its own energy indefinately. Also, when I applied the 1st law (energy conservation) to the Universe. I am assuming it is a closed system, and so must retain all internal energy regardless of interactions. Otherwise, energy/matter could be lost, but then you would simply consider the closed system to be the universe plus this 'other' place that it escaped into.

There are also questionable paradoxes about travelling into the future. There was this funny Calvin and Hobbes comic that featured Calvin inventing an imaginary time machine. He didn't want to do a paper, so he went into the future to get the paper to bring into the past. See the problem yet? When he arrived, the paper was still not done because the future Calvin remembers going into the future to get it... and it was not there because his memory of the future Calvin had not done it because... and so on and so on. It creates an infinity loop that begs the question, if Calvin writes the paper at any point... can he ever give it to a past time? If he does, then the past Calvin will never do the paper, and so the future Calvin never had it to give in the first place. A paradox that doesn't involve killing people, but is exactly the same. It involves the question of how something can cheat its own destiny of creation. So as Pogo has suggested, it is possible that there are many dimentions to consider. So now consider, Calvin goes into the future and asks for the paper. But which future will he end up in? He could end up in infinite dimentions and many of them will not have a finished paper.... or better yet! What would happen if he DID get a finished paper... which dimention created it and are all the Calvins the same? If so... why did some write the paper and some NOT write the paper. What makes them all different if time travel has not affected their lives yet?

Well I read the article again, and it definately says that Gravity was considered and disproven. So then there remains a lot to be answered about this mystery effect.

Piccolo.. that's pretty funny! lol

I suggest reading the past thread I posted on Time Travel...Time Travel Lots of good ideas in there on the subject of travel into the past and I'm gonna stick by Stephan Hawking's conclusion.

hahaha good point Fafalone!

Pogo, I followed your link but I can't find any information on this "radiation belt" that would prevent an astronaut from leaving Earth.