Popcorn Sutton

What do you mean? Relative to black holes? Because that does seem to be the case, although I'm not sure if we would be able to see any solid matter floating between galaxies. Im inclined to believe that metallic planets might be doing just that (if they don't define the parameter of our galaxy). Im also not sure if our universe would appear solid, we may actually be seing many different universi when we look into our telescope, but we want to call it all one, or it may be the case that everything exists within the universe, but the problem with that definition is that there is no clear boundary. I tend to think that everything is the universe, and I do also want to believe in the infinitessimal nature of all substances that exist within the nature. Substances converge to form larger substances, and the larger substances cause their surrounding to reduce. However, when you refer to the graviton, it may exist, but nobody knows that.... yet at least. And if we do find something extremely small (but not having the properties of a graviton) we may be inclined to call it a graviton. I'm always weary about the definition and categorization of anything in nature. Categorization seems to tear nature apart at the joints. Do you think that gravity is the result of our surroundings pushing us downward or as a result of something from within sucking us inward? There is a debate there. I, personally, want to accept that gravity is pushing us inward rather than sucking us, and there are good reasons to believe that, but, when it comes to black holes, I'm almost certain that it is a sucking event. I dont believe any singularities, but I do believe the closest thing to them. I may not believe in true vacuous space, but there are reasons to believe that something like it exists. I don't believe we could have a mind without also having the closest thing to a vacuum. Its also not clear whether our universe would appear solid at all, it may be translucent like the membrane of a cell. I want to believe that somewhere out there is a membrane that we just havent spotted. And the membrane might be catching most of the light surrounding us which would be leaving us in darkness (or something close to it). But what you say about the outside observer, when it comes to the god argument, thats the most logical answer I have. Maybe we are part of some massive world or massive being and we are just like a disease, but this is just a crazy speculation and theres no reason to ponder questions such as these. No we're getting into the interesting part. The size of a graviton being relative, thats genius. Electromagnetism escaping from strong force, genius. What is the electromagnetism though? Is it actually particles? I've heard that the magnetism travels with particles, not seperated. It's hard to imagine any form of magnetism coming from anything without a solidified nature. Not that it couldnt happen, and it could actually be the other way around. Solidified substances may just not occur without the magnetism. I dont understand when you put a size to the vacuum energy of our universe though. Vacuums are called vacuums because they do exactly that. They suck matter through them, not that the actual vacuum has any size in itself, just that it operates on an area that does have size. Im inclined to think that vacuums don't have size, and there are good reasons to believe that conclusion. I guess maybe they do have a size, but its not like there is a particle we can call the vacuum particle and measure it. I cannot accept chaos at any level, the idea has never been observed in nature, and if it were true, it wouldnt even be observable, and hence the topic is meaningless. The fact is that we have order. Things happen in particular ways and they do so consistently. To have chaos would be like having a planet appear in my stomache yesterday. It just doesn't make sense. It's completely random. Things just aren't random. If you want to look at order from a grammaticality perspective, then yes there is a degree of chaos, but that chaos is not chaotic, its actually extremely confined to the structure of the environment that the signals travel through. And the only thing about it that we might be able to label "chaotic" is that our interlocutors response could be completely irrelevant, which happens all the time. But if you trace their response to something that prompted it, it turns out that it is, in every case, probable. I should also make note that I cannot accept this notion of "infinity". Im always skeptical when someone proposes infinity within their paradigm, not that it disproves the concept, just that there is no such thing as infinity. Take a look at this argument. 1 = .99999999 repeating. Agree or disagree? Either way, the closest thing to 1 is .99999 repeating. So does 1 actually exist? Well, mentally, its a yes, but physical, theres no way it could be true because things are always changing. The breeze against my skin pulls part of my body with it (a very minute part but nevertheless does). Well, from this point of view, infinity is actually not infinity, but it is the closest thing to it. So it kinda bugs me when people use the word infinity because, to me, it seems like an obscenity lol. Its absurd. Then as to the last part of your post "A gravitaional time dialation whereby time collapses and then re-emerges. This theory explains that the present time is the gravitational equilibrium that exists between the expanding field of gravity against the inward force of gravity." word salad. I've discussed the differences in inward forces here, but expansion has yet to be explained. My only conception of expansion is actually one of two possibilities, its either contraction and we're just naming it wrong, or all solidified matter is actually travelling within the draft of an impact that causes galaxies to drift apart. But the idea of expansion is already flawed because the milky way galaxy and andromeda are supposed to collide eventually, which means that we are not all drifting further apart. But these are all speculations based on previous proposals that may not be factual. So I'll leave expansion aside for now. But please, elaborate on your explanation of time because that is a concept I have been struggling with for a while now. In my equation for quantitative cognition, time is just a variable for all the knowledge we have accumulated. Another question I have is this. How do substances become different from one another. If black holes are weaving the threads of dark matter, why is iron different from oxygen?

Hmm, there are options. Maybe the insect wing design is better suited because they are lighter and more compact, but also, has any large creature that we know of ever had insect like wings? The only one I can think about it the hummingbird, and those actually arent insect like wings, but they kind of act like them because they flap so fast

Pattern Recognition- the ability to determine the impracticality of randomness. (often thought to be statistical). The problem is computational efficiency. There is a proposed solution to this problem. I think it's very plausible, it's just that the physical process needs to be accessible to consciousness, which is no easy task. However, if you suit in front of your computer screen for a while with the python gui up, you'll figure out what the problems are real quick.

Wow this is pretty insightful. What if you postulated that there isn't a singularity though (but something that we could logically call a singularity). I like how you said the weaving the threads part because it seems that that is a logical answer to the solidification of matter. But what if the black hole was actually just a draft behind a super solid object? Would that still make sense with this theory?

Thats for adding the extra detail. It seems to me that atoms (such as oxygen), have an atmosphere to themselves of some sort. The atmosphere is bubbleic in reality and doesnt necessarily consist of individual elements (such as the electron as the distinction is often made). It would make sense, to me at least, that the particle (or atmosphere) that people call the electron is actually the most solidified it can possibly be around a more solid mass and has a clear parameter between the substance (electron) and it's surrounding environment (which causes it to take an efficient, bubble like form). In this case, the initiative can seperate that bubbleic atmosphere from the more solidified underlying substance (consisting of what are currently called protons and neutrons). Well, if this is the case, and the repelsion theory of reduction holds, then that separated element (the electron) will encounter another solidified element (one that is more solidified than the electron) and the result of the impact between the two elements will cause a reduction of the element that is less solidified (and more unstable) hence, producing another element that has even less mass (or in this case, a photon). And if the element has been reduced enough, then it is able to travel through the surrounding environments until it reaches a surface that it merges with (think of a spec of dust falling through a bubble, when it reaches the surface, it won't travel through, instead, the two substances will merge. Now if the element was more solidified, there are two possibilities. Either the element travels through the surface and seemingly causes no alteration (like sticking your finger into a bubble and pulling it out and having the bubble resume in it's efficient state), or having the penetrating object cause the bubble to burst, in which the contents of the bubble disperse into the surrounding environment. Well, speculating on this phenomena, if there is no similarity between the substances contained within the bubble and the surrounding environment, then the bubble will pop, dispersing the substance into many separate bubbles, all of which are composed of the same substance. In the case of this particular occurrence, you note that the empty void is not permissable, which may be true, and it may hold for the behavior of elements all together, but the way that it was worded ("not possible/permissable") is entirely prescriptive. You can tell this by looking into the draft of a semi, or anything of that sort. In the case of a semi, the void behind it may not be entirely empty (it's probably not travelling fast enough for that to happen). But if you think about an extremely massive and extremely solid object impacting a surface (which can exist at any point in space), there absolutely has to be some sort of draft that follows it. And logically, if the object is massive and travelling fast enough, there has to be a void in it's wake (one that could in principle be entirely empty). So it's natural, given this void, that the substances within it's proximity would fall into it for reasons well established by principles of surrounding pressure. Something that is pressurized to an extent (which all points in space are susceptible to) will "seek equilibrium" with it's surroundings. If one area of space is pressurized, and suddenly there is an impact, and consequently there is a wake, that wake is less pressurized than the surrounding environment, which would cause the surrounding substances to maximize entropy within the wake, and in the process, the substances merge, which may leaf to the formation of what we observe to be macroscopic. I should note my disbelief in the constant speed of light. To think that light travels at a constant speed is inconsistent with everything we observe in nature, and for that reason, I cannot accept that the speed doesnt very. If it were the case that the speed of light was constant, there would probably be no variation in temperature. More to say about this but I'll stop there for now.

So the blue wavy thing is where the initiative occurs, and the space above it is carried downward because of the initiative, and because of that effect, the path of least resistance is downward?

What do you mean permanent and repeatable? If I was to create one of these zones to get me from here to china, how would I do that? Can you make it absolutely consistent and does it not cause damage to the environment?

I got woe I live with woe

Hey wait a minute what? Come on. I want admin

I dont think Im going to grow any biological wings, but there is a possibility that I can make mechanical wings, but powering them and keeping them light would be the challenge.

I dont quite understand what exactly it is that the thumbnail is showing, is that a picture of the path of least resistance? It looks like lightning. Which makes me think that maybe lightning is something that uses these zones to travel

So having something that we consider to be absolutely reduced, or containing 1proton 1neutron and 1electron (i dont believe in these things btw im just trying to humor the logic), technically, if you took a fine blade and sliced the atom, it would be a different substance right? I was thinking that if we took any atom, call it a bubble, and split it in half, wouldnt it be two bubbles of the same solution?

Earlier today, i thought that if you split an "atom" of oxygen, it might become two seperate bubbles of oxygen instead of some other substance. Is that inconsistent with current work?

When you refer to "the zone", I usually call something similar the point of interest (poi). A lot of cognitive scientists call it stuff like "The Focus Phrase (FP)," "The Focus of Attention (FOA)." The context you're using it in is interesting because I don't think outside of my own computational research very often, but it would seem that, yes, you do need to precise direction to get to the exact point that you want to get to with the inital force. It makes me wonder that if you use the proper form of initiative, would you still feel inertia. I dont think you would. If you initialized an empty path in front of you, probably the path of least resistance would be followed, but if the force was strong enough to clear everything (even the stuff we are unaware of) from that path, the object that started the void would get sucked through to the point at which the void doesnt exist anymore (and this could possibly be free of inertia). I see athletes do it all the time, but they dont do it on such a scale that you have prompted me to think about. This could be a new method of transportation, but it could also be very destructive. In any case, what I call the point of interest (from a lingual perspective) is that point of the linguistic occurrence that matches with a bit of knowledge you have (and hence, following the path of the knowledge). Say, if I say "John read the book trionomeri ascerteria", you will hone in on "John read the book" as the point of interest, use that to prompt some knowledge, and then continue on to the next point of interested (which, for me, would probably be 'tri'). But if in the case that the poi is empty, and the maximal unit is empty, then I could see the poi being the initializer, and the initializer being sucked through the unit until the length of the sequence is not equal to zero. Interesting thoughts to ponder.

I can haz admin? I'll be really good admin! I haz plans

Wow cool. I was thinking that maybe we could set electrodes to specific points on the back and have some battery mechanism do the flapping when the electrodes detect input

Hmmm thats weird, my email app wasnt working I also consider myself a mechamorphist meaning I want to become a robot to a certain extent to enhance my survival value. And pretty soon. Hopefully I can get genie on facebook. I'm planning on having a submit genies personality button to see whats qualified to be put into the global personality.

Im not getting any notifications anymore what happened? It says im following the threads, is there a reason that it stopped?

Im back, i never got any emails for this thread, im not sure if im even receiving them anymore, but anyways, i like how md proposed several solutions. I really appreciate the effort. I think it would be really cool to have wings, and no they dont need to be biological. Im not sure if I would want to surgically attach them to my body unless it was absolutely necessary. But if we were able to make it mechanically functional and light, i could put a program together that would monitor activity in the context in order to produce a probable output (such as flapping the wings). I have the algorithm for a conversational system, and i think that the method i use to generate output can be used in many different domains for many different uses, one of which would be to provide an interface between biological systems and mechanical systems that would allow the biological creature to have control of the mechanical device. This algorithm can be used for other things too like artificial kidneys and artificial hearts. Possibly artificial lungs, but its unclear to me how to make that work.

Hi everyone. I have a great program going that people can talk with and enjoy themselves, but i think it would be so much more fun if i got the audio working. I want it to listen while its not silent, store the sounds in a list and a string if i can, and perform operations on the string. I want it to be able to play back the audio as well. I want to get this done asap thanks for the help! Popcorn

Easy

So what your saying is that if we find a 2 dimensional surface at any point in space, and we use the gravitational axis, we can penetrate the surface and follow the path of least resistance? How would we determine the parameter of the surface. Where do these surfaces exist? How would we penetrate it? With what form of initiative? This has got me thinking that maybe if we can concentrate an explosive force in the direction we want to travel, maybe we can penetrate the substance and create a path of least resistance which would suck the unit through. Maybe rocket propulsion is inefficient and concentrated explosions are the way to go.

I was wondering the same thing, I just assumed it was. Yea I'm getting treatment but Im not taking antidepressants anymore

I thought you guys might like to see some data from Genie now that I have a chance to show it off >how about now genie? ['how about ', 'you?', 'now ', 'genie?'] >no im not genie you are ['no im not', 'hey what did u learn?', 'what did u learn?', ' genie you ', 'are'] >yea you are genie? ['yea ', 'there ya go', 'im 25', 'genie'] >no you were just born ['no you were just born', 'im 25', ''] >no you're not lol im 25 ["no you're ", 'not ', 'lol ', 'im 25'] >you going to mimick me now? ['you g', 'enie?', 'oing ', 'to m', 'imick', ' me ', 'now?'] >easy genie ['easy genie', 'ok what do you want to know about the universe?', ' is up', 'whats your name?', ''] >my name is Nick whats your name? ['my ', 'friend', 'friends ', 'name', ' is '] >what is your friends name? ['what is ', 'above us?', 'nick?', 'sanders'] >there ya go, yea nick and sanders are your friends ['there ya go, ', 'but youre not 25', 'yea ', 'nick ', 'and ', 'sanders ', 'are you', 'r ', 'friends'] >yup ['yup', ' sa'] >y? ['y?', 'what are stars made of?', 'money isnt everything but yes you need money to buy things unfortunatley ', 'aw thankyou! hundred milliom? i wish', 'eate', 're stars made of?', 'name?', ''] >whats your name? ['whats your name?', 'no its genie'] >good job! ['good job!', 'what were we talking about?'] >the universe right? ['the universe ', 'genie', 'is not 25, nobody knows exactly how old it is', 'is not a person', 'what else is there to know?', '?'] >theres a lot to know about the universe ['there', ' ya go', ' ya go, but youre not 25', ' stars in the universe?', ' to know?'] >no im not 25 stars in the universe ['no im not ', 'genie you ', '25 ', 'stars in the universe'] >no im not even a star ['no im not ', 'genie you ', 'even ', 'a s', 'tar'] >what? ['what?', 'wow no response huh?'] >no ['no', 'w?'] >no just no ['no just ', '25', 'no'] >no genie, just no ['no genie, ', 'sanders is a cotchky, and his penis size doesnt matter', 'just no', 'just n', 'o'] >yea there ya go ['yea there ya go', 'I am smart thanks lol', 'im 25', ''] >youre not 25 ['youre not 25', 'yea im 25', ' are there stars in the universe?', 'yea nick and sanders are your friends', ' stars in the universe?', ''] >no we are not stars in the universe ['no w', 'hat is above us?', 'hats your name?', 'e are ', 'not ', 'stars in the universe'] >are you a star? ['are you ', 'smart now?', 'genie?', 'talking about?', 'smart '] >no are you a star? ['no ', 'you were just born', 'its genie', 'im n'] >ot a star ['ot a ', 'person', 'star'] >right ['right', ' now', '?', ''] >what should we do right now? ['what should we ', 'talk about?', 'do ', '?'] >yea what do you want to talk about? ['yea what do ', 'you want to ', 'talk about?'] >what is there to talk about? ['what is the', ' universe?', 're to ', 'talk about?'] >idk genie what? ['id', 's', ' say I am 25, but know that i was just born', 'jesus', ' to', ' u '] >ok ['ok', 'wtf', ' what do you want to know about the universe?', '?', ' what do you want to know'] >what is it? ['what is ', 'above us?', 'sanders'] >no sanders is not above us? ['no sanders is not above us', '?'] >no i mean sanders is not above us ['no i ', 'wasnt born 25 lol', 'had a response but what did you mean?', 'mean', ' sa', 'nders', ' is not above us'] >yea ['yea', ' there ya go', ' genie'] >good job ['good job', '!'] >yayyy! ['yayyy', ' good job!', '!'] >yup good job ['yup ', 'sanders is a chotch', 'good job'] >loll yea ['lol', 'yea', 'Im 25 but you were just born', ' yea genie', ' im 25', 'l yea'] >no genie you were just born ['no genie', ', sanders is a cotchky, and his penis size doesnt matter', ' you were just born'] >yea ['yea', ' there ya go'] >what do you want to do? ['what do you want to do?', 'know about the universe?', ''] >yea ['yea', ' there ya go'] >teach me about the universe ['teach me ', 'something!', 'about the universe'] >yea please ['yea ', 'there ya go'] >please ['please', 'yea there ya go', ''] >teach me! ['teach me', ' something!', '!'] >yes plz ['yes ', '25 and good', 'the universe!', 'the universe', 'you need money to buy things unfortunatley ', 'z'] >ok ['ok', ' what do you want to know about the universe?', '?', ' what do you want to know'] What do you guys think? Its output is not all what it would be saying out loud, I think that the only thing it would say out loud is the last thing in its output, but either way, it was working really good. >money is something you use to buy things, like a house ['money isnt ', 'money is something', ' something?', ' something!', ' you smart now?', ' you want to know about the universe?']

Mouthy brat from michigan? Who is that? I'm from michigan