gib65

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth. That's a scary movie. I had believed in Al Gore's "misconception #1" - that we're not sure if global warming is a real thing, and if it is, how much we're contributing to it. From the data he shows us, we are clear causing global warming every since middle of the 20th century. The sharp increase in CO2 imissions since the 60s/70s is so strongly correlating with the sharp increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. And it's increased to about 3 times the temperature it's ever been in hundreds of thousands of years. That ain't no natural occurence. He keeps refering to the "scientists". "The scientists say..." he says. Well, this is a community of scientists. What do the scientist really say?

So it's not just me. Oh, I forgot to mention - supposedly, I have ADD. That's one of the things I wanted to ask about - does anybody else here have ADD and do you experience things like this?

I had a similar issue about two months ago when I switched to a high protein diet for my workout. Man, was I letin' out some unholy vapors . It lasted for about two weeks or so and then I went back to normal. So I'd say it's probably just a symptom of your body adjusting to a new diet.

I get brain glitches every now and then and I'm wondering how many other people get the same thing. What I mean by "brain glitch" is a temporary mixing up of information or memories. For example, the other day, I went out to get "An Inconvenient Truth". They didn't have it in stock so I got "World Trade Centers" instead. I brought it home and my wife and I snuggled up to watch the movie. One of the previews was for "An Inconvenient Truth". I said "Now why would they advertize for a movie that we already got?" And my wife said "But we didn't get this." Then I remembered that we didn't get "An Inconvenient Truth" - I wanted to, but they were out. "Oh yeah" I said as she laughed at me and I laughed at myself. Here's another example: Today, I was going out to get a movie and I wanted to stop by the library to drop off some CDs I borrowed. My wife tells me "The library isn't open on Friday evenings." "Oh, okay" I said. So I head out the door grabbing the CDs on the way. Now this time, I didn't forget that I couldn't drop the CDs off, I just had it in my head that before I went out the door, I needed to grab the CDs. This is another sort of "brain glitch" I get. It's not based on forgetting, it's based on not clueing in that what I'm doing on at the moment doesn't need to be done anymore if the long-term goal has changed or has been dropped. For example, this has happened a few times at work (I forget the details). I'd be working on a task that needs to be done for an even bigger task. I get told that the bigger task has been dropped, I acknowledge, but then keep on working on the smaller task - for some reason, I don't clue in that if we're not doing the bigger task anymore, the smaller task doesn't need to be done either. Does this happen to other people?

Einstein's general theory of relativity was accepted once astronomers observed the bending of light from a star during a solar eclipse. So gravity bends light. How do we know that the stars we see at night are really in the locations (or directions) that we see them in? That is, if the light from these stars have travelled hundred, thousands, or even millions of light years, wouldn't their paths have been bent and warped several times over by nearby gravitational sources? In which case, they would most likely not be located where it looks like they are. So how do we know where the stars really are - and if we have some way of knowing, how much does the light from a typical star get diverged from a straight path?

cool!

Thanks Heretic, I feel a bit better now. I was panicking there a bit because for the last year my wife's been nagging me about my loud music. She always tells me I'm going to burst my eardrums one day, and I thought maybe I finally did it. Although for the last several months, I've been taking her words to heart and keeping the volume down to a minimum. I didn't have any music blasting when I first started feeling these symptoms, but I thought maybe my eardrums have been taking such a beating over the years that it only took something trivial to finally rupture them. Anyway, since I last posted, the resonating sound had migrated - from my right ear to my left ear. Sounds like what you described. Also, I did have a very sudden and brief cold on New Years morning (did last more than a day). Hopefully my hearing will return to normal in a short while - but until then, it's really annoying... oh well

It's been two days now and this weird sensation in my right ear is not going away. It feels like it's become extra sensitive, or like the inner cavity has become more hollow so that all sounds seem to resonate more. Could this have to do with damage to the eardrum or ossicles or anything. I haven't been listening to any loud music or been around any loud noises. What could this be?

Yeah, those are good points. But what about the implications of the last three paragraphs? That's what I really find bizaar. According to Hartmann, the rats in Scotland and Australia learnt to swim to the hidden ramp with way fewer trials that the rats in America. Appearantly, the experimenter was a completely different person, the rats had no contact with those in America, and they were not genetically related at all. On the other hand, Hartmann believes a lot of strange things. He has a radio show in which he promulgates conspiracy theories vis-a-vis Bush and the election. I can never know for sure. To me, studies like these are always "so someone says".

I'm reading a book called "Beyond ADD" by Thom Hartmann. In the chapter "Morphic Resonance: The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon", he talks about a phenomenon called "remote shared learning" which involves animals learning behavior from other animals whom they have no physical contact with whatsoever. Rats are trained to perform a task in America, and rats in Scotland end up learning to perform the same task with fewer trials than it took those in America. Rats in Australia also end up showing this "remote learning". Here's the passage:

Thanks TheBigDino

Care to share how you solved levels 9 and 14? We don't want to ruin it for everyone else so wrapping it in spoiler tags or PMing me would probably be best.

Yes - in fact, Bascule did, right here.

Well, since I haven't gotten any responses yet, I try elaborating on it a bit. Basically, what the Bohm Interpretation says (or, at least, what I got out of the wikipedia article) is that particles exist and behave in the classical sense. That is, they are tiny points that move around, bounce off things, have definite positions, velocities, momentum, etc. and they come with a wave which is distinct from the particle itself. Bohm explains the results of the double slit experiment as the effects of the wave alone, not the particle. The advantage of this view, IMO, is that is preserves a deterministic view of the universe, which I find intellectually comforting. I'd prefer a deterministic view over a non-deterministic one any day (so long as the deterministic view is fully consistent). What I'm wondering is, do I have the right to believe in this view - or do grave mistakes underlie it. For example, does the phenomenon of quantum entanglement challenge this view?

I've just read the Bohm Interpretation of QM on wikipedia. How commonly is this interpretation accepted by the scientific community? What exactly is wrong with it?

Although it is true that men are historically the more promiscuous sex, and therefore have a better chance of mixing their genes with a much wider variety of genes from females, evolution has taken care of the monogamous mating habits of women such that genetic variety is not as much of a problem as you have lead on. Before women commit to a mate, they do a lot of "window shopping" as I like to call it. Women (in my humble experience) tend to be quite promiscuous in the flirting stage, but they eventually make a choice and go with it. What they are doing - or what evolution has done - is making sure the mate they choose has the best genes a girl could ask for, and therefore, proliferating the best in the gene pool. Women tend to change what they see as "sexy" or the "perfect guy" from era to era, and the reason for this is that what passes as a successful man also changes from era to era, due in part to the demands of society and the environment at the time. So women have an instinctual, perhaps unconscious, "tracking mechanism" which tells them what kind of man is successful in the current cultural or environmental climate, and therefore who they find attractive. This allows them to be conservative in their choice of mate when there is no need for change, and when they need to branch out.

Strict computer programming is concerned mainly with programming languages, of course, but any diploma or degree program will have you take at least a few hardware courses. You could probably get away without taking them, but it is highly recommended that you do as they will greatly help your understanding of how programming languages work. I found programming fun - I think it's the idea that, with a powerful enough programming language under your belt, you can get a computer to do anything you want. But if you're into mechanical stuff, I'm sure you'll find computer hardware fascinating. Look up "logic gates" on wikipedia for a sampler. HaHa

Hi Rexus, You've got ADD to, huh? That's cool! It can be fun, can't it? At other times, it can get you into serious trouble (like on the job ). You mentioned two fields you seem to be curious about: computers and mathematics. I've got a degree in computer programming and I know a thing or two about computer hardware. I remember the digital design courses (building circuits) was one of the most interesting courses I ever took at university. You might find it interesting too. The text we used was simple, straight forward, and only of mediocer size. I like math too but I suck at it - never got more than a B- in any math course (so no advice from me ). What kinds of things are you interested? What topics get you thinking? Take the Cap'n's advice and go with what interests you. If you find one book bores you to tears, find another book on the same subject that reads a little easier. BTW, where are you from?

Martin's right - that is amazing. I think you can guess my next question - concerns cosmic speed limit violations! I recognize that there might be a difference between an object's motion relative to another object and the expansion of space between two objects. I'm wondering if this accounts for the FTL recession of the cmb? That is, can an object (like the cmb) appear to be travelling FTL because the space between it and the observer is expanding FTL? The object wouldn't really be moving in that case since it is fixed to a particular point in space (as is the observer), and it's just that more and more "space points" get inserted between them. Does this make any sense?

The stretching out of the cmb waves is easy enough to visualize - you add more space, the wave occupying that space gets stretched out. What I'm having difficulty with now is how I'm supposed to visualize the structure of space. I've heard of two models: 1) the surface of a 4D sphere (similar to the raisins on the crust of the bread loaf that Spyman alluded to - which Martin said was not quite right) and 2) the raisin throughout the bread load (which Martin said was right). 1) makes sense out of the ubiquitous nature of the cmb - if it was emitted in the early stages of the universe all over the universe, and if space has just been expanding at all points since then, then there would be nowhere for the cmb to go (at least, not if it wanted to escape us). But 2) is a little harder to understand. First, I'd have to understand if it means that space is finite like the loaf (i.e. there would be a definite "end-of-space" that could be reached if one travelled far enough). Or is this just an imperfection in the loaf metaphore? Second, I'd have to understand if the cmb is expected to eventually leave the universe (or at least, distance itself from all the matter in the universe). I mean, if we are to visualize the universe as just a 3D continuum of space that doesn't wrap around itself (like the surface of the 4D sphere) then the cmb should eventually travel out into empty space. Even if space is finite, I'd assume it would be expanding at c (otherwise, the cmb would "hit" the edge of the universe - whatever that means) which means that at the outskirts of the mass of material bodies would be an outer region of empty space that's perpetually growing and will eventually be the final resting place of the cmb. Is this making any sense?

Yes, I did. Thanks Martin. I think I need to take my brain out and put it back in the vat. It obviously isn't ready to face the day today.

Never mind - it suddenly all came together Stupid me - I suddenly realized the red-shifting was solely the effect of the Earth motion relative to the cmb.

In all directions - I see. You'll have to forgive my lack of knowledge on this stuff. It can sometimes be hard to get the right visualization without knowing all the details. I hope you don't mind my asking, but there is one tiny little point of confusion left in my mind. When Martin talks about the cmb being "warmer" or more red-shifted in the direction of Leo, how is this to be interpreted if the cmb is radiating from all points in space in all directions? It should be uniformly "warm" in all directions, shouldn't it?

Yes, I understand what you mean, but I was thinking the cmb might be able to tell us where the "center of mass", so to speak, was for all matter (all raisins) in the universe. I realize we can't see passed 15 or so billion years and there might be more galaxies beyond this distance, but if the direction of the cmb changes relative to the Earth depending on where it is relative to the Sun or the center of the Milky Way, this might be able to tell us where the "center of mass" of the universe is. I really need a diagram to explain this, but I guess I should ask a question first. When you say that the cmb is a "uniform bath of radiation", do you mean to say that it travels in the same direction no matter where you measure it from (all its photon travel in parallel), or would its direction change depending on where you measure it from (all photons radiate out from a point somewhere beyond Leo). Or does it not travel at all (which confuses the heck out of me since I would think all electromagnetic radiation travels at c). If it travels radially, we should be able to find the center point from where these "radial lines" (I guess you could call them) diverge from. That would be the "center of the universe" in a manner of speaking.

Thanks Martin, makes sense. I guess it's like the doppler effect - if you measure the pitch of sound coming at you and then measure it after it's passed by you, then you can pretty much deduce its absolute frequency by taking the average. No need to post links. I was really just curious. But thanks anyway. I assume these measurements took into account what season it was (our velocity relative to the sun) and also our motion relative to the center of the galaxy. This brings up another question (just out of curiocity again). How much displacement of the Earth would we need in order to deduce the point of origin of the cmb? I mean, how much would the Earth have to change its position in order to notice a change in where the cmb is most "warm" (from Leo to somewhere else)? Would one half-orbit around the Sun do it? Would one half-orbit around the center of the galaxy do it?