gib65

Okay, So how do we figure out the red shift? Doesn't this require assuming that we know the speed of its source? Is this just the origin of the BB? Do we deduce this point by observing the direction that all galaxies are receding?

I've been told by someone on another forum that scientists measure the speed on the Earth by comparison to the background microwave radiation. I asked how one finds a "fixed point" in the BMR and the reply was that we measure its red shift. How credible is my source? Does this make sense?

I got every one except 9 and 14. If anyone gets these, let me know.

This is just my personal opinion, but I think some people should just grow a backbone. If you get insulted by someone else on this or any forum, suck it up! You can either a) ignore it or b) reply with an equally witty comeback or just say flat out that you've been insulted and don't think comments like that are necessary. And then... just keep posting about the topic at hand! Of course people shouldn't be nasty on forums, and I'd hope that no mods or admins are responsible for this, so if you really feel that someone is overstepping their bounds with demeaning comments, tell a mod! Do what you have to do and then move on with life! PS - Sorry for the rant.

Bee, I think what you say is very true, every word. My only criticism is that you're telling someone else to fight your battles for you. The divide between religion and science is a big one, and a serious one, maybe even a dangerous one, but the fact of the matter is Blike already made his purposes very clear. He intends for this to be a science forum and not a religion vs. science debate forum. You can say whatever you want about Blike's ignorance of the "bigger problem", but I leave that for you to say - it won't be me. Now I'm going to have to watch that to see what you mean

3 + 4 - 1 = ? How's that?

Wow... I was just kidding, but this could actually have some serious experimental potential... interesting * strokes non-existent beard *

I don't know how responsible a god I'd make. What if one of my planets starts breeding life? Could happen - little microbes living in the water bubbles. Would I be responsible for preventing war and famine and suffering?

Maybe SFN can be extended to include other topics or genres that might bring in other interest groups. I´m not saying bring back the theology forum, but maybe bring in something compatible with science. Can´t think of anything right now, but I´ll give my 2 cents if I do. In any case, I´ll always post here whenever I have a science question or see a thread that interests me. BTW, Blike, how low is the post count. Is it too low?

Can we say "hijacked thread"?

I understand what you mean. I must be misunderstanding the relationship between gravitons and GR. I always thought that gravitons were a substitute theory for GR, but the way you two put it, it sounds like gravitons are something more fundamental than GR, something that would explain why spacetime curves in the vicinity of matter. Is this true? If this is true, then I can't imagine gravitons work on physical bodies. They would have to work on warping the space between them, and then the space works on bring them closer together. Is this correct?

If GR already accounts for gravity, why do we need a theory of gravitons?

I would never subject myself to that (the implant, not your survey ). If I had a chip in my brain, or even anywhere under my skin, I'd eventually get paranoid that someone's using it to controlling me. I'd be pulling my hair out trying to prove my delusions wrong.

It also depends on whether or not spacetime was created with the BB. I get the impression that most scientist believe this to be the case, but I've heard other theories that say otherwise. For example, there is the theory that our universe is actually a 3D "brane" that exists parallel to another 3D "brane" (a parallel universe). These branes can be imagined as 2D planes for the sake of any thought experiments you might want to conduct. The theory says that these branes ripple and flap like waves on the ocean, and once and a while, you get a wave peek in one brane colliding with a wave trough in a parallel brane, and BANG!!! I know this kind of talk - with words like "branes", "parallel universes", "waves and ripples in the space fabric" - is shunned upon by a lot of respectable scientists - but I'm not advocating this view. But I do think that those who do advocate it are well educated, highly intelligent people, and if spacetime absolutely had to be created with BB, they probably would have taken this into account. Since they seem to think this isn't necessarily the case, I'm going to assume there could have been a spacetime continuum before BB.

It does?

You're right! I goofed up in my diagram. I should have connected neuron A to the head of neuron E, or its dendrites as you said. In any case, yes, the main idea of what I'm asking is similar to Donald Hebb's theory of cell assemblies.

That's exactly the kind of phenomena that prompted me to ask this question. Thanks, PO, for the links. I'll have to watch them later when I have the time, but I surely will.

Come back after the acid's worn off

oh.

I want to know if I understand enough about how neural circuits form to make a certain claim. First, take a look at this diagram: We have neuron A connected to neuron B connected to neuron C... D... E. When neuron A fires, it stimulates neuron B which in turn stimulates neuron C... D... and E. Also, there is a weak connection between neuron A and neuron E, but this connection is too weak for the firing of neuron A to stimulate neuron E. Finally, assume that when neuron A fires, neuron E eventually gets stimulated and at this time neuron A has not yet died down. So here's my question: if neuron A is still firing at the time that neuron E fires, is this a sufficient condition for the connection between neuron A and neuron E to grow stronger? In other words, after so many trials of neuron A stimulating neuron B... C... D... E, will neuron A eventually be able to stimulate neuron E directly? I guess I'm asking how do neural connection get fortified, and the claim I want to make is that the above scenario is how it happens. Can I do this?

That was a great video. I never knew cells were so busy on the inside. It's like a little factory in there - really! - those molecular structures really look intelligent.

I wouldn't say you weren't thinking. I think the way you described it is the way it actually works. My questions were quite honest - I really wanted to know (and ParanoiA kindly answered).

How do we go about measuring its velocity? Wouldn't we have to get its position at two points in time? Wouldn't the first measure of position effect its velocity? Anyway, about the Big Bang - it's my understanding that time and space were created with BB (or at least, that's one hypothesis). If this is true, there was no time before BB and so there could be no causal process that brought it about. This is really hard to swallow which is one of the reasons I tend to believe in a non-spatial/non-temporal existence before BB (of course it wouldn't be "before" BB - maybe omnipresent? ).

Yeah, that might help. Let me know if you (or anyone) get a chance to tackle level 9 - I can't figure it out.

Never mind - I just solved it!