SamBridge

Well it's not like if you don't talk to someone for 24 hours you will forgot how to speak, but if something happens where you're stuck on an island for a a few months, you pretty much will forget some of the ways in which to communicate in a normal society, it would only be natural you'd adapt to a lack of society. So if your environment models being stranded on an island you should get out more, there's going to be different levels of deterioration of social skills depending on how often you actually use them, they are like muscles, you learn how to better interact with people the more you are with people, so if you don't interact with people that often you will not be as well versed in a social environment as someone else who is.

So...what did you want to discuss exactly? What are you inquiring about? This is new information? Scientists were not aware of these things before? Because I thought they were.

So I thought I had remembered that you are not suppose to be able to control certain things in your body at will, two of which were suppose to be hormones and your heart. I have repeatedly measured that I was able to at will feel the effects of adrenaline without being angered, which I assume is caused by the release of adrenaline in the blood stream. The second is that I was able to repeatedly and measurable slow my heart rate down at will from around 120 beats per minute to 70 bears per minute in less than 3 seconds when I at will concentrated on doing so which not only do I measure with recording the heart rate but also feeling the effects of oxygen depletion on my muscles. It seems as though there are many other people who I have encountered who can do various things like this, so I must have been misinformed about something. What am I missing? Because I was pretty sure you weren't suppose to be able to do stuff like that, until I actually tried it.

So what exactly is this "inverse" universe theory? I was particularly interested in it because I am doing research on inverse shapes in hyper-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, but I was disappointed when I found that it said something about the rotation of the universe, which there are several reasons for why that does not make any sense whatsoever. The first is that the universe does not have a definite shape or boundary, so there is no 3 dimensional manifold of which to observe the reference of a change in different locations according to a rotation transformation of the entire universe itself, and then inertia, there's trillions of interactions that would cancel out the rotational force at some point, and third, what is transmitting the force anyway? Even though there is a phenomena of space-time dragging, there would have to be something with a mass large enough to observably pull matter of the entire observable universe, but it is reasonable to think that a black hole of such size would devour half the observable universe anyway.

http://lakesideconnect.com/anger-and-violence/how-does-anger-happen-in-the-brain/ So after much much time I found the link above. So it seems to make sense in layman terms for the most part, but it seems to be missing a few details. It says an emotional "charge". The data is sent "limbic" system if its a powerful enough of a "charge". Does this refer to an electro-magnetic charge such as that it shifts the dynamic equilibrium of a reversible reaction involving different charged ions that are broken by water or that the data get's passed throuh the brain, the signal is sent to many neurons, or if "enough" of the chemical is released and builds up, it essentially opens/overrides the gateway to the limbic system? But by what mechanism does it recognize that there is "too much" of the build up? Then the other detail is that it says the hormones are "released", but where are they released, and upon their release, what sequence of events following leads to the perception of physical and emotional "alarm"?

Feynman? Schrodinger or Planck or Heisenberg aren't alive still are they? I would expect not, but I could have sworn that I saw a relatively recent full color high resolution video/interview with Feynman himself explaining something about electro-magnetism even though the wikipedia says 1988, like it said "Ferynman" as his title name just below him when he was talking, though the person himself never said his name. I suppose it could have been the title like maybe "Feynmann diagrams with eletro-magnetism" but it wasn't that long, I could have sworn it said "Richard Feynman", and he had grey hair and looked like this Except it was in color.

No I understand that space could move as it pleases just fine, what I don't see is why space moving allows matter (and not space) to all of a sudden move past light without breaking laws of relativity.

That was an assumption I made when first asking about it, I had remembered from studying somewhere that the chemical does get into the blood stream at some point and does interact with cells, however it is not clear how the actual feeling perceived is actually perceived after that specific chemical is released into whatever location. Perhaps the perception is carried by neurons but happens in a different part of the brain that only neurological signals cannot express the information to trigger, you'd need a chemical, so it travels through the blood to get to the part of the brain to trigger the impulse that is sent through connecting neurons.

Well that's one of the problems I had, why wouldn't emotions just be released throughout the brain via neurological signals and chemicals , why does it need to travel through the blood first? Your description couldn't even compare to even half of my half-attempt to explain "what does a particle do?" and I don't charge anything at all and neither does any other senior member on this site, so I would not be so quick to be full of myself, you are here by your own choice, if it is a burden to post then by all means focus on your life more and get it together, this site isn't worth a life, other people can take your place and post. On top of all of that I told you this isn't just for my answer but for anyone viewing this site who has that question because as multiple people have pointed out it appears to be complex in layman terms, and I'm sure it would be easier to have an answer to refer to rather than keep posting some long answer over and over. I did specify multiple times that I expected the hormone would interact with a nerve cell in such a manner that it would send a signal to the perceptive part of the brain which then signal pulses between connected neurons which are caused by the release of a chemical from the impulse reaching the brain initially. If it is impossible for a chemical in the blood to cause a signal to be sent to the brain that is perceived as a feeling then say so. This site is made to answer questions. If you can't answer the question, don't post a pseudo answer, simple as that. No one posts questions to get opinions on the nature of their questions, or at least most people don't, they post questions to see if they are correctly interpreting something and/or to get an answer.

If you backspace exactly to the beginning of the first sentence without overshooting you keep the box. Probably the quickest way I've found is put your cursor in front of the first sentence and press Enter so it pushes it down to the next line then highlight and delete the sentence as normal. Edit: Just noticed if you place the cursor after doing the above back in the top row and press Delete the box will disappear. It would seem the code for the box is embedded invisibly on that line. Nope I did it exactly from start to finish of the first sentance still no box.

http://community.invisionpower.com/resources/bugs.html/_/ip-board/delete-first-row-in-quote-r40935 I don't get exactly what he did to fix it (apparently), it looked like in both tries he did the same thing, he deleted the upper text, yet in the second try the box didn't disappear. I didn't drag the selection to past the first letter, yet it still disappeared.

Yeah I can still agree with some of your points, People created a society, then that society creates an environment that effects people who go on to modify a society thus creating a modified environment over time. Religion can be good, but can also be easily abused.

Well particles can rotate in a physical sense especially when you have things like isomers, but that is not what causes it to have the diffraction properties they have, those are caused by "spin" which as you stated is not physical.

Ok so there's energy everywhere, what form is it in exactly if not virtual particles or photons? Or is it all just extensions of the never-reaching-0 probability densities of atoms and photons? The photon oscillation modes are excluded, but why does that matter if there aren't hardly any photons? Isn't there a point of low energy when the casmir effect is negligible?

Whenever I try to quote posts, if I delete the first sentence it delete the quote box. Whats up with that?

That's not entirely true, humans have caused the extinction of quite a few species, probably more than it has saved. Good is a relative term, but I think what the context is if the world would ultimately flourish or diminish because of humans.

Virtually everything happens because of time, you could argue energy, but energy is related to time as well, mass times the speed of light. Time and distance are very real things even if intangible just as gravity is. if all the matter in the universe disappeared there would still remain a mysterious medium for the existence of time and distance between points.

Well spin isn't a physical rotation, it's something to do with conserved angular momentum stored within the oscillation pattern of a particle, there's a topic here that others and I asked many questions of http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52810-spin/

That's not really correct, there's way more than your environment that effects someone. That's actually a pretty formerly common but outdated way of thinking about it.

What exactly makes something a "super partner"? How do they know a given boson corresponds to a given fermion?

This "longevity of the universe cycle" is not something that exists in science, I don't know why you are basin any physics off of it and I don't see exactly how it pertains to an indefinitely growing Fibonacci sequence. If matter is being continuously created but the universe is not expanding in size, I've never really heard of that, no one's ever seen large amounts of matter being created. If in some way matter is being created as the universe expands, the gravity may or may not pull everything back together. No offense but what you're saying seems like word salad, protons can't have the same direct mass, but through the relative mass of energy they can, but there's no reason to think why that would cause annihilation unless you perhaps mean a positron created by applying energy with the relative mass of an electron to an atomic system but even then there's still some matter and energy left over.

Saying "I don't know" isn't an opinion which I agree with, but saying "it's bullocks", I don't even see that word too much anymore. But anyway, I don't think this topic is going to change things at any rate anyway.

But if the room was impervious to all light, would we not see the pressure? Sure modes don't exist, but if there's no photons, how can the properties of the modes be expressed by photons to cause the pressure difference?

I think that is less complex that what I described. I can understand a complex chain of events. If it's impossible to learn/teach basics, how did anyone else become a neurosurgeon? They were just born neurosurgeons? I'm pretty 100% sure there is a way to describe the process without having to take a semester if my assumption is correct that you did not spend an entire semester just on that one problem. If the way something in science happens is misunderstood why not correct it and solve the problem? A chemical get's released into the blood then reacts with a cell you did not specify in a manner you did not specify. I think there's more too it than that. I don't need to know the chemical formula of the specific proteins, someone can just say "a specific protein" ad "a different specific protein" or just use the names of the protein and perhaps if it's unnecessary it can be explained if a positive or negative charge around the molecule is important for the reaction. I really don't understand how this site is able to properly explain calculus and quantum physics and relativity but can't explain what seems to be a basic process in neuroscience.

So another possible explanation is that certain types of oscillation in light waves are excluded from existing those small places? And if so, what if the experiment was done in a room with no light in it? Let's say it was impervious to ALL light, unless I am misunderstanding you.