gib65

No, there was. They used to believe that you could divide matter up into infinitely small pieces without limits, until Democritus came along with his theory of atoms. I'm just try to figure out if there's a name for this theory.

In ancient Greece, what was the alternative theory to atomism - that is, the theory that all matter was infinitely divisible?

What kind of particles are streaming through our atmosphere creating the Aurora Borealis? I'm thinking protons - is this right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton At the end of the third paragraph in the above link, it says that Newton voiced a theory on the origin of the stars. Does anyone know what his theory was? I just want to know out of curiosity.

Who was the first one to propose that time was a fourth dimension that complimented the three dimensions of space, thereby establishing the concept of spacetime. The name "Lorenz" comes to mind. Is this right?

When was the last major ice age? I read that ice ages come in cycles and we're due for another one in about another couple thousand years. If these cycles take around 20,000 years to complete, that would make the last one about 18,000 years ago. Is this accurate?

I'd really like to see a forum for the history of the universe - from the Big Bang to the formation of the Earth to the first appearance of life through the cambrian explosion and the dinosaurs and finally to humans and our evolution. I'd post plenty of questions in that forum.

Oh. How does moving in the same direction bring about magnetism? What does a "net field" mean? Is that like saying the net amount of charge has to be negative? Is this what makes electricity magnetic - it constitutes a higher density of electrons?

From what I understand, electric currents create magnetism because electricity is a current of electrons and electrons are negatively charged causing magnetism. But then why wouldn't an object be magnetic at all times, even when there was no electric current flowing through it, since all objects have electrons (nevermind ionization)? What is it about electrons moving (giving rise to an electric current) that makes the object more magnetic?

Yes, I remember this post. I'll have to reread it.

Suppose the universe was a trillion light years across, and suppose the only things in the universe were a proton and an electron. If the electron was at one end of the universe and the proton at the other (i.e. they were 1 trillion light years apart), and given enough time for photons to travel, would they still 'feel' each other's electromagnetic attraction? If they did, the force would have to be incredibly weak at that distance, but would it still happen? In other words, what I'm asking is, is there a critical distance such that any two particles that are separated by distance greater than this, the influence one can have on the other in virtue of their forces (whatever that force may be) actually reaches zero - as opposed to perpetually approaching zero but never reaching it?

According to one popular theory, strings are supposed to be the most fundamental thing in the universe. But in thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that strings, if they vibrate, must have components. If they vibrate as waves, they must have peaks and troughs. If they don't, well, they still must have parts - tops and bottoms, left ends and right ends, or whathaveyou. Even if these parts can't be physically separated from the whole, they are still there (such that you must say of one part that it is not any of the other parts). Does this make sense, or do the string theorists have a way around this?

Is the scientific community in agreement about space and time being created with the Big Bang, or is this just one possible scenario that is still being debated? I mean, I read about the evidence for the Big Bang - namely, the observation that the universe is expanding and echoes from the Big Bang (background radiation) - but these only support the theory that there was an enormous exposion 15 billion years ago (give or take a few billion years). Could there have been space and time before this event? If not, what is the irrifutable evidence that space and time were created with the Big Bang?

In terms of the reference frame used in geometrical modeling, is there a difference between "Euclidian Geometry" and "Cartesean Coordinate Systems"? One thing I'm wondering is, how is Euclidian Geometry possible without a Cartesean Coordinate System? Yet, Descartes is credited with inventing the Cartesean system 2 millenium after Euclid invented his geometrical system. The Cartesean system cannot have been new in the 17th century - maybe given a new name, but not new.

When one's foot or hand falls asleep, one usually experiences what is commonly called "pins and needles". Does this sensation come directly from the epidermis, or does it originate in the brain. If I didn't know that the "falling asleep" of the hand or foot consisted of the local nerves becoming non-responsive, I'd assume it originated from the epidermis of the hand or foot. However, if all sensation from the hand or foot is cut off due to the non-responsiveness of the nerves, then how could these pins and needles come from the hand or foot. I've heard of phantom limb phenomena, where an amputated limb is still felt because the brain centers for tactile sensation of that limb become active. Is it a similar phenomenon for "pins and needles"?

I haven't replied to this thread in a while, but I'm back at it because I just heard a certain translation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that clarifies what I don't understand about it - not that I now understand, but that I now understand what I don't understand (i.e. I now know more precisely what the question I should ask is). The translation goes "Godel proved that you could have a formal system that yeilds true statements that cannot be proven within the confines of that system." So then what I wonder is how could it not be provable by the system if it is yeilded by the system? I mean, doesn't the fact that it was yeilded by the system mean it was proven by the system? For example, if my system consisted of the two statements: If A then B. If B then C. then the statement "If A then C" would be yeilded by the system because it is proven by the system. There must be something wrong with my understanding.

This is from my own personal experience observing how women react to and listening to what they have to say about porn. It almost seems as though the social climat regarding porn is a huge deciding factor on whether or not they like it, not only in pressuring them to comfort to social acceptable standards but literally effecting how sensitive they are to arousal. This is not to say men are competely uneffected, but I'd predict there are a greater number of neural connections between the social/moral parts of of the female brain and the sexual arousal part than in the male brain. I don't know, I'm not female, so I ask the women: does this describe what it feels like to be a women?

Is it true that there's a theory of schizophrenia that says schizophrenia is caused by abnormal pheromones?

Ah, I see. Just for fun though, here's a trick question: Do gravitons exert gravity on each other?

I'm trying to think of an example of two fundamental particles that could coexist very close to each other and have no influence on each other. That is, out of the four forces, neither of the particles exerts any of the forces on the other (and visa-versa). For example, protons and electrons have mass and therefore exert gravitational force upon each other, and they also have charge so they exert an electromagnetic force upon each other. But are there any particles that exert no force on each other? I'm not asking if there are any particles that don't exert force period, just not on each other. For example, one particle may have mass but no charge, and another may have charge but not mass. So long as this exhausts all the forces they have values for, these particles would not influence each other. Are there such particles?

Well' date=' there's a simpleminded way of answering that and a complicated way. The simpleminded answer: qualia, subjective experience, the way things feel, etc. The complicated answer takes into consideration what you're saying right now about the simple answer - that of course qualia, subjective experience, and the way things feel are explainable in terms of neurons. It also takes care of your second question: You seem to think - and correct me if I'm wrong - that if two things are perfectly correlated, then they must be the same thing (so let's scrap one). Well, I actually agree with this, but I disagree with the direction materialists push the reduction. Now this is where I'm going to get burnt, so let me first say that I don't intend, at least not in this thread, to explain why I believe this, but I think the reduction can be made from neurons to mind. I know you and all the other materialists reading this are gasping at such a blasphemous statement, so I apologize if I don't back up this statement right here and now. But if you're wondering how a metaphysicist could possibly deny the materialist's position while still holding a firm grasp of it, there you go. I would like to say, however, that I am not a dualist, I don't subscribe to Cartesian splitting, and I certainly don't think free-will is something that allows the mind to deviate from the operations of the brain in such a way that your overall behavior has to decide who to obey: you're brain or your mind. I'm on board with all the determinists out there, and our friends working on the Cortical DB. I am developing a website about all my philosophies and beliefs on the subject matter. If you can wait a year or so, I'll remember to give you a link. If you want to discuss these beliefs in private, drop me a message (I love debating stuff like this).

I'm not sure what "boundary condition" means in this context, but I'm sure the argument for gravitons leaving the universe is from String Theory. The argument goes: Strings that make up the matter, energy, and messenger particles that stay in our universe are open ended. Their ends "stick" to the brane that makes up our 3D space continuum and therefore can move about this brane but cannot move off it. Gravitons, on the other hand, are closed strings and therefore they are free to fly off our brane and travel into higher dimensions. Sometimes, but very rarely, they travel along our brane but only because they so happen to be going in that direction already. The incredibly small number of these gravitons is what accounts for the incredibly weak force of gravity.