SamBridge

If that's the argument then it has been one big straw-man because I never said that you had unlimited control, in fact I specifically provided evidence that you don't have unlimited control by stating my findings that I could not lower the rate past my resting heart rate.

Weren't magnetic monopoles proven to not be able to exist or something like that?

Except I did carry out an experiment, Holding my breath for walking produces the same exact effects that slowing the heart rate down very fast after jogging to umping jacks did, so I can logically conclude there is a moderate likelihood they have a similar root cause or are involved in a similar process. Do you deny this? iNow himself said there is limited capacity to control auto-somatic functions, for instance you normally automatically breath, but you can hold your breath at will, some people have done it to the point where they passed out, but they continue breathing after that of course because they no longer have conscious control of their breathing after they pass out. I not only measured my heart rate in my wrist but my heart was beating so hard I could clearly feel it in my chest alone and immediately noticed the slow down upon willful concentration both in my wrist and in my test, even though there was a slight delay from the heart-beat I felt in my chest than in my wrist. Although formal testing should be done like next time I get a physical if it's not too complicated, I think there is evidence and it's really not that strange or far-out there, so I do not see a particular reason to deny it. I know for a fact that what I measured was my heart rate slowing down when I wanted it to, I don't have an issue with that, the only thing I have an issue with is explaining it to people who find it skeptical because with no logical reason they automatically associate with voodo of phychic-ness or something like that when really it seems to be a completely normal phenomena that follows limitations. I don't know the limit of the ability to control it which is what I suspect iNow and Ringer should have or were trying to inquire about, but I lack knowledge and concise evidence on that, however I still know that to some extent I did control the heart rate. The limitation of this ability is unknown, I was not able to slow it down past the resting heart rate but who knows maybe someone else can do it, I don't know. It's not much more strange than the ability to hold your breath and control the rate at which you take in air with its limitations of course.

I can quote you saying there's limited ability to control things like your heart rate, you should have no problem with what I am saying because I stated that the measured limit of how much I can lower it appears to be my resting heart rate which fits under "limited ability". It's really not complicated, if you run out of oxygen you will notice, did you even try either of the experiments yourself like I had asked?

Yeah so? It was already known that you can measure uncertainty on a macroscopic level.

Yeah I put two fingers and squeezed on my wrist and counted, it's pretty easy to notice O2 levels decrease when your muscles become fatigued all of a sudden, it's the same exact side effects of not actually getting enough oxygen, which is what happens when your heart is pumping fast and needs to get a lot of oxygen to your muscles and then suddenly can't because it slowed down too much. Just hold your breath and walk for 20-30 seconds you will see what I mean.

I'm not saying it would mathematically make sense, it obviously wouldn't unless you used an infinity, but just as a concept. Aren't particle's themselves suppose to the "point-lie objects" when measured? I haven't seen anything that says otherwise, you can "measure" particle to the extent as the Heisenberg principal states that you know more or less about the position and momentum, but I don't know where the term "point-like" came from then.

There is no "edge" to space time, not that astronomers have found.

So then if I have a purely known position, such as when I measure a particle as a point, don't I have an infinite undetirmined momentum? Wouldn't I have absolutely no clue what the momentum could possibly be if all I know about the particle is a single point?

So I know the normal derivative and anti-derivative relationships, velocity, position, acceleration, but what do you get when you take the anti-derivative of a position tie graph? What does that represent? normally it goes m/s^2 -> m/2 -> m -> ? What does the "un-slope-ing" of a position time graph do?

It makes sense to me at first, but then again time symmetry, I suppose the correlation of the field exists everywhere, but your saying that an oscillation of light doesn't "propagate" to that location? But wait, isn't there a different between "light" and an individual photon? Perhaps an individual photon could, but you would maybe measure a general burst of light as not doing that for some reason. It makes sense in a way, but I could use some more detail on why exactly its impossible, because perhaps this could account for the error at CERN. If propagation has a finite speed like that, it doesn't completely make sense why we don't see matter falling apart as it approaches the speed of light, which I know is incorrect, but bosons "propagate" a c between particles, but somehow always or already existed after propagation in an interaction to sustain an atom, an actual oscillation of a particle can't take time to travel in the same sense can it? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Neither product can "be" 0, but they can infinitely approach 0...what exactly is the difference, because there's all sorts of things in mathematics where you "approach" 0 but in the end you just end up treating it as 0, like instantaneous velocity using derivatives, h "approaches" 0, but the actual equation for the instantaneous velocity actually is when h is actually 0 after simplifying. I mean, why exactly couldn't you have a particle that as a infinitely uncertain momentum or position? Is it because you'd have to divide by 0? But then you can just take the limit of approaching 0 and get an answer anyway, so why bother saying it's impossible? I mean when we measure a particle, let's only look at that one instant where we measure the particle. We know of a position, and nothing more, from that one measurement of a single point in space, we have 0 idea of what the momentum is, so couldn't I use 0 that way?

So higg's bosons on their own have mass and distort space, so isn't gravity still distortion because the greater coupling with higg's bosons causes an object to distort space more?

Theoretically, if I had a photon, it's probability distribution exists pretty much indefinitely through space, so if I shot a beam of light in a vacuum and predicted exactly where it should end up in one second, 180,000 miles away, couldn't I possibly measure the photon being a position somewhat significantly ahead of that mark because the correlation of its probability density to space is not dependent on time or relativity, giving the illusion that it had traveled slightly more than the speed of light?

It's not so obvious though because there is a correltation of patterns within the universe, there are predictable results that follow definite patterns which can be modeled using math, so how real numbers are is not exactly determined.

I think on an individual basis if other animals actually could comprehend that action, then some actually would make the choice to not kill it, there's humans who want to save other species, but there's also humans that want to do things like kill off all animals that directly threaten humans as well, humans aren't particularly morally better than any other species in my opinion, but in general have a greater emotional and cognitive capacity than many which allows for a greater range of views and interpretations. I mean you can pretty much directly compare the different types of intelligence of some animals directly to ratios of human intelligence, usually it is to some lesser degree, but I think/know there are kids maybe even less than 8 who if presented with that choice would probably chose to save something rather than kill it off and making it extinct, so seeing as how even a kid could make that choice, I think if different animals could actually stop to think and comprehended the magnitude of killing something off and making it extinct some would make the choice not to. I'm not saying all of them would, I'm not saying all humans would either, of course there are as you know companies that don't particularly care about preserving the environment in delicate ecosystems such as rainforests. In general I also share that viewpoint that the human race isn't really disconnected from nature, as there are of course many irrational or emotionally based actions that humans may take. Anything any natural thing in the universe does is natural, but so what? What's the point? It's natural for babies to die, should we just go around killing babies? It's natural for meteors to hit planets, should we just let a giant meteor hit Earth without doing anything about it? The notion that we should or shouldn't do something be because it's "natural" doesn't mean anything and obviously with all of our technology that notion hasn't stopped us anyway. I'm not saying you directly said that, but just to get that out there. I would think though, that even if the human race went extinct that another species would just take it's place, and eventually make most if not all of the same mistakes. As you probably know, Earth won't survive forever, at least not on it's own, if the human race get's wiped out, even if there was a superior race, there may not be enough time left for it to develop to the point where it could save a planet and terraform others. In as little as 4 billion years we'll collide with the Andromeda galaxy, there's a 50% chance the planet will get destroyed as a result due to being flung into near the center of the galaxy into what will become a bath of gamma radiation, or outward may survive by getting flung outward into the depths of space, but even before surviving that 4 billion year mark Earth will most certainly get threatened by at least 1 devastating asteroid, if the human race get's wiped out by then, that's it, because Earth really can't afford to keep starting over again and again and again, there just isn't an infinite amount of time for a race intelligent enough to make a difference to develop. I suppose there's a chance there's life elsewhere in the universe, but we haven't found any, it's better to try and make the best of what we've got.

I think the term "just grow a pair" can no loner be used against these slugs.

What I was talking about more was topology. Like you can transform a mobius strip into a klein bottle, stuff like that.

But if instantaneously simultaneous doesn't mean the same from multiple frames of reference, what does it mean?

Why wouldn't it enter into an exited state at the first chance of the same energy potential? In a way the concept of string theory is right, all particles in a way can be thought of as oscillating fields, but there's no proof that shows they are all interchangeable with each other.

I suppose the scenario boils down to "can all frames of reference measure disentanglement happening at the time "time" because the correlation is true regardless of time?" I mean, it's an instantaneous process, and the disentanglement happens for both instantaneously simultaneously yet time is still relative, so far I have not seen any clear solutions, the issue mainly stems from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/thanks-mom/ All that effort and I still can't say what "mass" actually is, I thought higg's bosons were suppose to explain what mass was because their coupling caused it in other particles, they have imaginary mass on their own which can be shown in decay processes with W bosons, so I suppose some kind of complex conjugate interaction would sort of explain it, but not really. Not only that but it seems that because of the properties of higg's particles that they have limited range properties individual but form some kind of medium. What type of interaction allows them to be held together to create a single field? Besides all that though I'd say "cool, finally".

The problem is that you previously stated a gluon is a quark and this Feynman diagram does not accurately show that and there's little evidence for that anyway. Particles can be transformed, but usually only fermions can be converted to other fermions or leptons or photons. The energy that is contained in holding together nucleons is part of the energy left over from fusing protons and other nuclei, simply slamming them together doesn't create an atom, as particle colliders have shown. Not only that but Higg's particles are used in physics that both support super symmetry and don't support super symmetry, it's really a victory for super symmetry that they were discovered. In fact it's a setback because now they have to put all that work AGAIN into finding a corresponding fermion for a higg's boson that can directly prove the symmetry.

I have no idea why you would think that as it was not what I was saying, that was more of what other people were saying. But can both observers agree that they measure disentanglement at the same "time"? And if not, how does that translate to in layman terms? If I measure disentanglement "now", does that mean it happened now for another observer some amount of time in the past due to time dilation?

Why would you need length contraction if all you are trying to do is find the flow rate of time from gravitational time dilation in the first place?