Baby Astronaut

1. A new hypothetical experiment uses two pairs of double-slits. Electrons go through one pair of slits (red), and further down also go through a second pair. > ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °l ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ) ) >° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ) ) A wave doesn't form at the red pair. Only because: you're observing, which collapses the particle's wave --- but as it travels further to the second pair, does it become a wave again? 2. Another hypothetical experiment begins in more familiar territory, where if the electron is shot one at a time, it would enter both slits and interfere with itself. However, you run a divider in between the slits all the way to the back wall. So if a particle wave goes through both slits, it'd now be unable to interfere with itself, as that divider in the center block the waves from meeting. Does it still go through both slits? 3. The next hypothetical experiment is the regular double-slit, but you've elevated one slit a few inches higher than the other. Does the wave's height allow it to reach both slits? And if so, might anything interesting occur? Note: the hypothetical experiments I've listed are based on conclusions drawn from the following YouTube vid. I'm not sure if they got it right, but in case they didn't, I'm just basing my questions off that. And I'd still have a muddy view of the double-slit experiment (if they're wrong). DfPeprQ7oGc

Simply the fruits of a con's labors.

And how would the following "buzzphrases" achieve legitimacy? As for instantaneous anything on entanglement, the best I've happened upon on the subject that's easy to grasp (by a layman) is how doing something to one particle immediately affects its other entangled particle, regardless the distance between them. I was only going by things learned on video about science, not trying to be legitimate otherwise I'd have posted elsewhere than in Speculations. Maybe you can point me in a better direction? (Forget the Wikipedia, I didn't grasp much of what the page had to say). That could be more helpful.

How's it done? I uploaded one but in the preview/edit it shows up as a link rather that the image. I've seen it where others have the image embedded into the post as well, and you click for a larger version. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNevermind, found out by experimenting (not w drugs ) For those wishing to know... Upload the image. Close the pop-up window for it. Then click on Manage Attachments (the pull-down menu next to the Attachments icon). On that little pull-down menu you'll see the image name. Click on it and you're done. The attachment should be four digits (i.e. 1234, and nothing else) in between the "Attach" tags.

Ok, the positive charged part of the water's attracted to the comb and moves toward it. Yet if the water's (negatively charged) electrons repel away from the comb, why doesn't the right side of the water bend away from the comb? Instead, the right side of the water also bends towards the comb following along with its left side. But I'd have assumed the water to bend in opposing directions, as shown below. (note: image originally by mooypoo; it's been altered by me only for illustrative purposes here)

What about blueberry Pi? No actually () I'm referring to non-concepts. Maybe someone is able to help me phrase the question better, then I can post it as a new thread. I asked the question in that manner only because the results of an earlier attempt suggested it's better phrased this way.

...as in when making an extraordinary claim. Are there historical scientific examples?

Do the bosons have energy? What about gravity?

I was just supplying a possible mechanism for your wondering, using telepathy as it's the subject we're focused on. Now imagine if wayward thoughts on a new idea/discovery entered the mind of another person who's had the necessary set of prerequisite insights beforehand.

I'm in love. Oh(!) the vid yes. (focus) Another great explanation, nice visuals. For instance how moving the duckies actually create shorter waves so visibly in front of it. Really cool being able to see the effects in action that simply. A couple of your vids do perhaps make it difficult to concentrate on the subject, but as a good quality....where I'm now unlikely to forget anything learned

Wow, it'd be awesome if turns out to be a new form of life. Plus not based on carbon. Specifically, Louis has isolated strange, thick-walled, red-tinted cell-like structures about 10 microns in size. Stranger still, dozens of his experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit . (The known upper limit for life in water is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit .)

What's the highest limit in numbers that we're able to count? Or the lowest (negatives?). Exactly. Infinities are supposed to reveal a problem with a theory. But infinities do exist. In counting of numbers, in light wavelengths, and in the measure of gravity strength. (...to name a few?) Does anyone know the problem with infinities, how that got started, and who decided it's a problem?

i.e. what doesn't have energy?

Not after padren's exposing link

Ok then, let's give it a shot... Controlled quantum entanglement. It might be that everyone born from another person shares a consciousness entanglement that's activated if you know how to, although some people will just have a knack for activating it. Therefore as everyone shares a common ancestry, humans everywhere have the inherent ability to communicate with each other using telepathy. And if Panspermia is real, then humans can do the same with alien beings from other galaxies. A successfully entangled message involves the relaying of thoughts, in the form of decipherable information. Because of its entanglement at the quantum level, the communication's instantaneous and can't be detected -- except by checking for its appearance in the recipient's mind; nor can the transmission be intercepted or blocked. However, anyone can "listen in" by just adjusting their entangled consciousness in relation to the transmitter...or even to the receiver. And let's say that occasionally vague bits do slip through from one mind to another without conscious effort or realization. That might help explain why similar ideas originate in people who are separated by distant continents, and who never met or communicated by traditional means. So if all people have a consciousness entanglement to all other people, we might simply just need figuring out how to activate it for "instant messaging" in relation to another (specific) person.

The huge difference being: they already know from past experience what the chocolate tastes like. No one's ever going to have massive cravings for the stuff if they never experienced it. As for it being mere anticipation, I'm sure plenty of us as (male) kids occasionally (at very least) carried a textbook in front to hide a boner. Or got one simply by thinking of a curvaceous girl we'd be fond of. Or by glancing at a nudie mag. No one had to pressure us into that explicit feeling of arousal, you can be quite certain. Google "erotic" and note the page count. That many webpages dedicated to only a handful of people fantasizing sex? I'm not at all familiar with those studies. Got a link? But if true, I'd bet studies would also reveal an increase of family activities as well (non-sexual of course).

It's quite possible that some just don't feel the pleasure or thrills of sex. If so, I'm very interested to read studies on the mechanisms of why they don't. Could it have uses to know why? Right off the bat I could think of future extreme-dogmatic parents genetically altering their kids for a life of sexual disinterest. No *foul* thoughts to steer kids astray. But you seem to not be looking at the entire picture. If sex wasn't both a pleasure and a thrill, all sexual impulses would be driven by something other than a need for sexual release. That says it all. People don't spend all day and night fantasizing about cigarettes (some might). But a huge number do fantasize about sex, they rub one off in private all the time, and don't really broadcast the story afterwards. They hide porn and sneak nudie mags into the bathroom. You don't expect it's all a big, long (pun) rehearsal for pretending they do like sex when around friends, do you? A daily to yearly line-up of personal research for the sake of knowing how to describe certain particulars to others? (with detailed notes and highlights) Maybe we can look at it this way: a lot of us don't understand how anyone would find pleasure in the many techniques of self-inflicted pain, but I know of several people who rush to it for stress relief and enjoyment. Actually, no. Think of a person who's a slut or their computer's loaded with porn. They don't get many high fives and congrats I'm pretty sure.

Perhaps lab measurements of the Casimir Effect? In physics, the Casimir effect and the Casimir-Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. What's [math]r[/math] stand for, radius? Also, is there a site for what all the letters used in physics equations represent? (not sure how to ask Google that)

Isn't logic also a branch of deductive reasoning? --i.e. Sherlock Holmes, i.e. Elementary, my dear Watson? Yet I don't actually recall Sherlock being that dependent on equations and formulas to solve a mystery

Not even close, really. At least according to Wikipedia (how ironic* ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bible Emphasizing what the publishers see as the Bible’s message on the environment, all passages mentioning the environment are printed in green ink to draw the reader’s attention.[3] The Green Bible is meant to be a study bible, and features a “green trail study guide” of the Bible, directing readers to specific verses on the environment and stewardship[5] . As is evident, the Green Bible isn't translated whatsoever. It's simply just highlighted green in certain places, and offers explanations separately from the main text so readers can determine the original's intent for themselves. *Except that in Wikipedia, the sources are cited: KLTV, The New Yorker, and CNN for example.

To be mathematically accurate, when someone in the minuses gives neg rep, it should instead add positive rep (But no, since this can easily be loopholed to supply high amounts of positive rep)

Question, do members with high rep power give a correspondingly sized negative value? If so, it might be unfair to someone who's new as it's possible they'd be stuck under the red for a long time even if others gave positive rep afterward. I think people should be able to view who gave them negative points. It seems to come off as a stealthy low blow, creating a more negative atmosphere (pun ). For example, I was kind of ticked off just by knowing when someone did it to JillSwift. Chickenshit describes well the feeling a negatively repped member's likely to harbor towards no one in particular as they wonder futilely about the unidentifiable joe. Without a nametag accompanying it, the purpose of negative rep seems to be untargetable irritation felt by that member and resulting silent accusations. Yet perhaps a nametag would invite back-and-forth retribution and more hard feelings. Thus a good compromise might be to place negative reps in a waiting line or queue, to be previewed by mods so they make the determination of not being abusive. Surely not a lot of negative rep occurs so it shouldn't be a problem? Or maybe all negative rep could have an expiration date. Just my three cents

Necromancy can be good. () For example, this... So how much did SMF grow on you four years later?

I'll have to agree. But still, free will determinism is nothing more than speculation currently, and I feel it's being given preferential weight. True enough, I agree. Even so, have a looksy. Really? If science hasn't yet made those explanations, how can we so certain it's able to explain or discard the concept?

In a deterministic universe, seeing the future produces no reaction whatsoever. For example, a person sees themselves walking nonchalantly into the path of a speeding vehicle, but how could that be if the person knew it's going to happen? Perhaps. But would you agree it's still fate? The dictionary's entry on the word makes it a good fit. Well, before learning the Earth was younger than the universe, we didn't have a "before" the Earth. Still, people could imagine a before even if no science had pinpointed it. And they were correct. Ah, but the article does mention that something else. And focuses on it. The article claims scientists are examining the relation between free will and morality. Also claimed is that many scientists discount free will. Hardly anything conclusive.