CPL.Luke

I don't know I had never seen it written out before I just assumed it was softmore

my personal belief is that being an empath is a natural thing, common to all humans. (this is not a spiritual or magic explanation for it) its called facial expressions. http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/andy.calder/perception.shtml I also saw a discovery channel program on the topic the fact is that everyone demonstrates their emotional state through their face/eyes/posture/etc. as for why some people seem to be more sensitive to emotions, is that some people through out the events in their lives have learned to read the subtleties of emotional expression better than others precognition is literarily impossible, but is more of a byproduct of people ignoring the misses and accepting the hits. have you ever recorded your hits and misses? here is a really good test. go find a ti-83+ (if you have one) or google a random number generator. set it to chose any number at random from 0-9 (or whatever you would like) guess what number it will chose tell it to start then see what your hit percentage is while technically a 10% margin is what you should have. Imho anything below 33% over a short duration (10-20 trials) can be counted as statistical error, over a long duration (over a hundred trials) the result should be closer to 10% but not exact you could have slightly more (any staticians out there) most phsycics and supposed pre-cogs I don't believe because, I know of a coin trick I came up with myself a few years ago. if you spin or flip a coin I can get near 100% accuracy. this is not from any phsycic power. if the coin is spin around you can see the side thats going to be on top as the coin slows down. with a flip assuming its not flipped to fast you can see the side thats going to land just before it actually lands. as for the rest of the thread, while the evolution towards phsychic abilities could work in my oppinion except for two things 1) whats the mechanism for which thought could be transmitted (some animals use different colors of light emitted from mixing chemicals together to communitcate, this could happen for humans but would take genetic manipulation and both parties would need the gene added in order to communicate telepathically) 2) evolution is a series of random mutations. evolutionary changes occur without ryme or reason. however the reason why evolution seems to result in advantageous mutations is because if it is non-advantageous the resulting creature will most likely not breed because of an early death, or sterility etc. if you find a mechanism through which phsycic abilities can work, you need to find a scenario where the early transitory forms can continue to breed and spread the genes that would be responsible for the phsycic abilities. not to mention the fact that you would have to wait for the random chance of mutations to catch up with the probabilities involved.

it looks as if the conductive surface below it causes the two objects to repel each other. I couldn't find details about the circuit or how the device supposedly worked. could you post anouther link with that information please

one problem is you could never measure a supersized string it being a one dimensional object and all. plus what would space be like in the center of one wouldn't it technically just collapse down into a planck length as thats what a string is supposed to be sized at? or would a photon just pass through it. also ounce you start invoking the ideas of quantum mechanics, such as if you can't measure it, it can't exist. well then you can't measure any more then 4 dimensions therefore only four dimensions exist. I personnally am always a skeptic when it comes to string theory however

I have no idea what you are trying to say, especially the second part that I quoted. what I was trying to say is that the equation is flawed because an object moving away from the big bang would have its rest mass change over time as it moves along. the only way to make your equation work in my oppinion would be to find that light was some how derived from the size of the universe. in which case it would be some form of a vsl theory (does the current vsl theory already work this way?). but you would then have an equation like E=m(insert the way of finding the speed of light here)^2 this would work with the universe imho because if you have some sort of constant force pushing the universe outward (cosmological constant) and the amount of mass its pushing shrinks wouldn't it then accelerate? which would match current observations of the universes expansion correct?

well could that mean that in our current universe You were one "unit" away from the big bang, mass would be much higher? I will repeat my point you can't say E=md for the whole universe without having implications for smaller areas of the universe. so for the earth you would plug in E(of earth)=m(assume a value) which means that if you launched a space probe in a direction away from the point of the big bang at a very high velocity. its mass would continue to dwindle. so for a rest mass you would continue to get a smaller and smaller value. (this does not sit right with me) thus the area at the center of the universe should hold a very strong gravitational pull. (universe would collapse) plus how would you handle the rest of relativity. would you say that, E^2=(md)^2+(pd)^2 ?

can sleep deprivation be cummulative? for instance if you get less than 5 hours a night for several weeks

actually wouldn't it be exactly = if you had of a pure sample of Be9 then you would get a mix of be9 and C13 at least according to the masses of the samples the mass of Be-9 + an alpha = to the mass of C13 because you are adding exactly two neutrons and two protons. the mass discrepency that you seem to speak of is because of the average atomic weight that is listed in the periodic table 4 protons, 5 neutrons +2 protons, 2 neutrons = 6 protons, 7 neutrons sorry for the repitition just its late and I wasn't sure that I was getting my point across

ophiolite you beat me to my save changes button

then you might as well compare mice to humans or bats to humans, because they all exhibit some kind of inteligence, this has been demonstrated in mouse (mice) mazes, give the mouse two paths one, one where it gets zapped (by electricity), one where it does not the mouse will go down the path where it doesn't get shocked. wait though that requires a conclusion to be made (if I go down that path then I get shocked, better to go the other way). so that means that even a simple creature that doesn't ponder the universe is not valid for your idea. if a creature can't make conclusions it can't evaluate its surroundings, and thus it can't have a science. now, lets put objective reality to rest in this thread. "There is no observer. In such a situation is there an objective reality? Yes or No?"-ophiliolite (ps. luke is fine) "interact with reality"-nameta 9 you state interact with reality. thus there is an objective reality, (you can't interact with something that doesn't exist) (or in anouther way, the reality exists then you interact with it). otherwise you might as well say that your the only person in the universe and everyone else is a figment of your imagination. also, "They would use this mathematics without ever noticing it, hence they may not even know they had this ability" nameta9 Humans do this to, when you count you are adding two or more, things together. but then some mathmatician thousands of years ago, thought that it would be a good idea to quantify this with symbols and logic. so instead of counting we could do 1+1=2 then this allowed for much easier (sp) numbering of crops. instead of having to count every piece of fruit, I could just count off how many to put into one barrel, then have 10 people put that many pieces of fruit into 10 barrels then I can just add up all of the barrels that i have. wait, I can just say n pieces of fruit x 10 barrels =10n (multiplication, woot) so in other words any creature no matter how their wired (no matter, how many mathmatical functions they have programmed into their mind) will eventually just start writing or quantifying their knowledge, in some way. this is the reason why you show your work on math tests. the main problem with your argument is that you assume science is knowledge, when it is really about asking questions. This is why you spend the early part of your science education learning how to ask yourself that question (scientific method). It is the reason why mathmaticians show their work / why you do proofs of math concepts. It is why you could be a prodigy and learn all of human knowledge, and not become a great scientist. it took thousands of years for humans to realise this. it would be logical that eventually anouther creature would start asking questions about its knowledge (assuming its really intelligent and not just a mouse).

why not just ceate a fictional universe with a set amount of energy with a set expansion variable (cosmological constant) see if your universe would collapse in its early moments. then see if it would do the same with more or less energy, (or a stronger expansion) the biggest problem that I see with your equation however, is in calculating the energy of small objects, such as a rock or what have you, i couldn't see a particle on earth knowing how big the universe is.

my personnal oppinion is that its good to think about it even if your totally wrong, at least youll have ideas in your head for when you get out of school. however out of curiosity, in order for no light to escape a black hole (even if its path is perpendicular to the "singularity") wouldn't the space time curbature need to be infinite. well anyway, I'm off to read that paper now

can you give me one situation where 1+1 does not =2 even if these creatures saw in different spectrums of light or saw atoms and molecules. they would still find 1+1=2

well to my knowledge no one has claimed that black holes are not singularities, so if a true point particle existed then woudn't it also be considered a black hole?

one last question what is the weak forces role in the atom it sounds like it would be so completely counterballanced by the strong force that it shouldn't even be considered in atomic nuclei I know that this isn't the case as some work is spent on it so can anyone explain it a bit more

but still the question remains why do neutrons repel protons to a certain extent so that you are incapable of calling an atomic nucleus a ball of quarks is this the role of the weak force?

1 apple plus 1 apple always equals 2 apples that is the limit to differences you could possibly have unless you want to think of things in such an abstract manner as for instance the aliens in slaughter house V

the first one doesn't look photoshopped to me nor the second one I think its just some movie magic, have you ever seen movies where aliens appear in jars, in jurassic park 3 they had a number of baby raptors in jars just like the dragon the problem with the dragon site is the supposed editor trying to save an image of the dragon, this would seem to me like there is some sort of virus or something in it that he wants to spread (granted I know nothing about the workings of viruses) the alien looks more like a highschool level hoax, I know of kids at my school who could probably d something like that, it doesn't look that realistic to me looks to me like an alien head (probably purchased online or at a magic shop) on top of a styrofome-papermache body, in the case of styrofoam you would splash a mild acid on the foam to give it that look, then top it off with some fake blood, red and brown mixed paint

it is true that the cia is capable of monitering nearly all telecommunications simultaneously, but they use a giant computer to filter it for certain patterns ie. osama bin laden's voice print but that is public knowledge, I saw it on the history channel not long ago. however they are crack pots (the people in the quotes) transducer (dictionary.com) A substance or device, such as a piezoelectric crystal, microphone, or photoelectric cell, that converts input energy of one form into output energy of another. so what is a gravitational transducer?

if quarks attract because of the strong force and neutrons and protons attract because of the strong force, then can you call an atomic nuclei a big ball of quarks?

you know in sci am a while back there was an article the question was how come some people seem to know that their family member has died. the answer was that if each person thinks about their loved ones at least ten times a day. their are 6 billion people in the world, and then factor in the daily death rate of the entire world. you end up with a situation where it is likely for 12 people in the world have a death premonition per day. (this was from a mathmatician, if you would like I can find the issue). in the case of what you described. the light switches were down. I would assume that that meant they were on. (thats the way they are sometimes, did you try flipping the switch?). for the other situation, where you got very angry. if there are 6 billion people in the world, people get angry ounce a month, there are small local blackouts -(insert average here) you could find that a small number of people will experience what you described in a year.

I think also that nameta's idea is only valid for direct observation ie. the blind men however for indirect observation such as E=mc^2 that relationship will always be the same. with very small changes to the equation, for any units used

maybe someone could help me understand that article a bit more, when the particle collapses is it a point particle at that moment or, do I not understand this correctly

well all of the information to do a thought experiment using that model is already available. ie. universe is already some 13 billion light years across thats known. from that just create a thought experiment for a universe with a set amount of energy, you could look up the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. then figure out units for distance.

I think the biggest part of the project would be rocket design you would need to design a multistage booster, with a gyro callibrated so that the rocket would fly true. not to mention you would need to design it to fyly into space and come down again without either interfering with or colliding with any sattlites