WWLabRat

But with our current understandings in math and physics, it does trace everything back to a single point. Until our scientific understanding and knowledge increases this is the current model that we observe the universe under.

The only reason that "many people" may not think of a such a dense universe as being a physical reality is that it's hard for people to imagine what it would look/be like.

But wasn't the Big Bang believed to have originated with matter condensed to a single point that was infinitely small and infinitely dense?

There is nothing in principle that prevents one from building - or more likely growing - a neural network capable of supporting the same patterns of patterns of activity that the human brain does. Then all it would need would be a long period of environmental stimulus and so forth.

 

But we are so far away from that, technologically, that the question of whether it is even possible still has a place. A more interesting question, since we are still in the speculation stage, is whether boredom and error and sleep are essential properties of such a network. Also, does some part of the sensory or operating stuff need to be analog, in practice? Of course any such patterns could be emulated on a Turing machine - but not in this universe: we only have so many billions of years left.

 

Computers right now think so much differently from humans that emulating human mental patterns in a computer is very inefficient, slow, bugridden policy

I'm going to have to completely disagree with this statement. Thinking or computing, be it in a human brain or a computer, still boils down to responses and actions based on routines and subroutines that have been programmed into the entity. The only difference between the two is how that programming is created. When it comes to computers, it is typically put in through a Human Interface Device (i.e. mouse & keyboard) whereas with humans it is done through speech and tactile learning. No human baby comes out of the womb being able to walk and talk. Similarly, programmers when first creating a program don't typically get everything right on the first go. There are typically bugs in the system, some of which cause it to crash. After a few versions in alpha phase, A working Beta is created that can be released to the public. However sometimes even the Beta is faulty in some systems and the program is no longer able to "walk". This could be equated to someone who had a leg or back injury and has to go through physical therapy.

Even your choices, and what you think aren't entirely different from computers. All your thoughts, feelings, and actions are based on what has been taught to you over your lifetime. The subroutines adapt to any paradigm shifts that may occur during adolescence, times of stress, and other events throughout adulthood. Even the most basic choices that you make come down to simple binary processes that have been fine tuned throughout your life. Take the act of making a sandwich. The first routine in the program you would come across is whether or not your body requires energy. If yes, proceed to the next step in making a sandwich, if not, go about your business. Then you need to decide how you're going to make a sandwich. You see an assortment of objects lying in front of you. Would two saucers make a suitable top and bottom of the sandwich? No. So you move to the next item which happens to be a loaf of bread. Years of eating white bread has taught you that it settles in your stomach better than wheat or rye, so you use that. Well, what kind of meat do you want? etc...

The reason you don't notice this is because you have been doing it for so long that your brain has essentially "bookmarked" the processes for quicker and easier retrieval. It's for this same reason that after severe head trauma, many patients forget how to do daily tasks such as tying their shoes, or unable to recall certain words that they may have used profusely prior to the trauma.

As far as the human soul and consciousness goes, there's a thought experiment called Solipsism (wiki article here) that basically says that the only mind that you can be sure to know exists is your own mind. Anything outside of your mind may not be real. So it's possible, under this epistemology, that I am the only one to exist and you are a figment of my imagination created by my brain to fill in gaps. So regardless of subjectivity or objectivity there's *currently* no truly definable way to determine if someone else, be it man or machine, is conscious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

 

Time is merely a measurement of some sort of difference between two happenings so you may consider time as forth dimension.but as stated above time cannot exist until some thing happens , we are not very sure if there was some thing before bigbang or not. Einstein some where tried to prove that energy is subjective to time and matter is subjective to energy so time would have been the first thing to come in existence.But both are contradictory !!iam not sure of any dimension called hypertime but i feel there can be many more but hyper time will be a extraordinary measure of time only.

 

How could time be nonexistent? Something may not be happening on the perceivable scale, but even something solid is going to be moving. The molecules that constitute a table are going to be constantly bumping into each other despite the appearance that the table is solid. The movement of atoms is dependent on what we know as time. Without time to separate each individual moment, they would all happen and appear at once. Say, for example, we were to trap a single Hydrogen atom in a container and within this container time didn't exist, we would see that the single Hydrogen atom fills the entirety of it because it is occupying all possible points within the box at all possible times.

Obviously we don't have the technology to be able to remove time, but my assumption is that we would see something similar to what I stated above.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your own attitude towards your female counterparts that invites a stubbornly contrary position from them? Maybe they feel embattled when engaging with you. I don't think contrariness is gender-specific.

 

Impossible since I don't go out of my way to prove them wrong.

 

So I should be a pushover and let them belittle me when they engage the conversation further after I've told them that they have been misinformed?

No one said you should be a pushover, but the attitude towards females that I've seen thus far in this thread would indicate that you have, at the least, a severe distaste for women in science. And everyone is going to have times that they will fight tooth and nail for their stance even if they are wrong. I'm sure you have done this too at some point in your life as well. StringJunky's got a point. It may not necessarily be what you're saying to them, but rather the attitude that you exude while around them that prevents them from wanting to admit fault.

I think in this context the colloquial phrase is what was meant.

I don't know how it is with other original posters, but when I'm making my original post, I try to answer all common questions about my theory in that past so that it doesn't waste the time of others. Also having that more detailed post helps others to see where you are coming from and more of what your thought process is.

Interesting. In high school I've often thought there's a kind of critical mass thing at play. Once a subject becomes too gender dominated the other gender 'sees' subject X as a boys/girls subject or just doesn't want to be the odd one out in class.

I think some members hide their gender is the same reason why some members, myself included, hide their age. People, in general, have a habit of making assumptions based on very limited data collected on a person. Hiding you gender or age helps to keep people from making assumptions based on either criteria.

Ewmon-

 

I do believe we are searching the same things on Google! I do remember coming across that website, which brings us to our mutual problem of trying to have hunters describe our point.

 

The diagram you provided above would work perfectly if the bullet's Center of Gravity (CG) was located where the flight path intersects the bullet. The bullets CG is extremely aft, and that is why the Magnus effect is needed to give it stability.

 

Once the bullet begins to become unaligned with the flight path, the pitch of the bullet begins to change or the spin is effected in anyway, the bullet will tumble. It will not hold that pitch attitude long enough to get lift. The tumbling bullet's flight path is changed, and thus the timing of it hitting the ground will change. (btw- many Vietnam Veterans seriously dislike the M-16 because it was too easy to get the light round would begin tumbling in flight. This would severely impact the penetration ability of the bullet.) In this case, the bullet fired and bullet dropped may not hit the ground simultaneously.

 

This type of bullet leaves a 'keyhole' entry point.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/g/definition-of-keyhole-bullet-keyholing.htm

 

Compare to the flight path of a bullet vs. the flight path of a golf ball. The golf ball has lift due to Magnus effect, whereas the bullet uses Magnus effect for stability. The golf ball's flight path is not parabolic, it does have a small portion of flight. Here is a web site that has done a side-by-side comparison of a golf ball with and with out 'dimples'. The dimple-less golf ball does not get as much lift as a dimple golf ball.

http://thesandtrap.com/b/balls/caesar_featherie_dimpleless_golf_ball_review

 

I am waiting for a gunsmith to make a ball ammunition, with dimples, to be fired with a rifling effect which will produce a backspin on the ball. Hmmm... now that bullet would fly!

Side note: This was the M16A1. Later this issue was fixed in the M16A2 as well as adding the ability to switch between full auto and 3 round burst

For some reason it wasn't showing on my other computer... Odd. My apologies.

Avicii - Levels

I wholly agree that the government being shut down is outside the democratic process and is extortion. It is a desperate attempt by people who have lost the democratic battle. It is not violent, but such deep feelings and hard positions sometimes lead to violence. I hope and believe it will not go that far.

Although I hope it doesn't reach that point, I have debates about whether I need to dust off my bug out bag. The US population may have appeared to become mindless sheep following whatever the boob tube tells them to do, there will come a time when they wake up and realize that this nation has been hijacked by a government that is looking out for itself. This is the exact thing that our forefathers were trying to avoid when they signed that parchment so many years ago. I don't want this to become a thread hijack, (and don't let it become that) but it's times like this that military and former military, such as myself, has to decide exactly how we will define an enemy. We all took an oath to protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Is our true faith and allegiance to the nation or to the government?

This entire shutdown is ridiculous. The point of the Legislative branch is to pass the bills and budget the finances for the nation. Why haven't they done their jobs? I don't care where you work, if your boss comes in one day, say October 1 and you haven't done a job that you had the last year to complete and you blame it on a disagreement between yourself and a coworker, at least 1 person is going to be looking for a new job. On top of that, Congress continues to get paid for not doing their job. In instances why are we even paying them? They've already proven that they couldn't do their job over the last year and now their getting paid while still not getting the job done?! All the while they sit on their asses and other people that rely on governmental aid (I'm speaking of those with need, not those that work the system) are getting the shaft. It's more than just the WIC office or veterans visiting the WWII memorial. It's those that require chemotherapy, the government employees on the lower echelons who are struggling already to make ends meet while they were still getting their paychecks.

No matter what anyone says about it, there's no excuse for them not doing their jobs. There's not even any need for finger pointing to one party or the other. The repubs need to back down a bit so that we can get back to trying to make it through this recession and build America back up to the empire it once was before everything started going down the porcelain throne.

 

I think you are miss identifying the "deity" in your thesis.

 

 

 

Power is the deity that you are looking for in this. Money allows quick acquisition and disbursement of power. The amount I can pay for a lawyer is proportionate to the degree of success I will likely achieve in the legal issue I am engaged in. Money is simply the medium that power moves through most often, the most fluid form of power in the world, a form that in the past was easily transferred and now in this digital world is even more so. This power can be as brutal as a mob hit or as generous as a charitable gift that is often referred to as a way to "empower" the receiver.

 

Until the advent of a currency in the form of a universally coveted metal the transfer of power was limited to trading commodities in raw or finished form. These could be difficult to market in a small economic area and limited in its trading at great distances.

 

Money can be turned directly in to power and power directly into money. Money may be the root of all evil but power is the ground in which it suckles.

 

So back to my original post. Humans have always since their earliest beginnings associated safety and survival with power. So acquisition of power is at the core of what people desire. Power is what they covet, or what you would say worship.

 

They just simply throughout history have preferred to get it in cash.

I think I'm spot on by naming money as the unconventional deity as it pulls strings behind almost everything that happens in society today and at the same time, it's not something that people would normally attach such a word to. While I do agree that power plays a major role in this, I don't think it is the deity. Even current standing religious orders have their own levels and uses of power. Power is merely the tool by which they are able to influence politics, commerce, travel, and individual perceptions.

Funny you should mention a universal currency as the Christian belief is that a universal currency is a sign of the end times according to the Book of Revelations.

Okay, I'll accept parabolic.

 

So, why doesn't the bullet's spin stabilize the bullet? The angles are exaggerated in the diagram below, and it exists for bullets fired horizontal, although rather slightly. The gyroscopic effect diminishes the bullet's tractability by the air, and the bullet attitude will remain mostly horizontal, while (as you said) its trajectory angles downward, so the angle of attack is non-zero which produces lift, making it drop more slowly.

 

I compared it to a non-spinning bullet, which is more tractable, and will angle downward, typically presenting a smaller cross-sectional area, and thus less drag, and it will drop faster.

 

Can you include the diagram?

 

Before that can happen, we need a different voting system. Winner-take-all is a big reason why we have this current ~50/50 fiasco. It would be awesome to have an Eisenhower party, and I'd like to see some ideas from the practically non-existent left be represented as well (even some of those far-left Kucinich kind of ideas, like the public should keep owning our own utilities).

 

Since our current voting practices historically guarantee the emergence of just two major parties, I have to assume those currently pulling strings behind the scenes want it that way. Fewer campaigns to finance, clearer lines to be drawn (us vs them) and it's just easier to fool most of the people all the time this way.

Rather than have a different voting system, we need to use one that actually makes sense: every vote counts. Instead of this bull crap with the electoral college deciding who they are going to vote for because they thing that's what the people want. Yeah, I'm sure there would be instances where recounts would be needed in the event of a close race, but it's the most accurate way of seeing who it is that the American people really want to have in offices.

I could be a jerk and ask for sources that prove your "well worth the money" comment but I won't. I'll agree that parts are worth the money. On the other hand most people will see no impact and wonder what all the fuss is about. They may wonder what all those 800,000 people were doing if they can't notice when the doing it stopped. They may also ask why is the government doing anything that isn't essential and why they should be expected to ever pay for non-essential budget items. Those were common questions during the last shutdown.

In the sense of the 2013 government furlough, "nonessential" items are things like national parks, museums, etc that don't impact the government, but are still added into the budget due to their federal funding. As was stated earlier, these things are essential in the financial sense because it generates revenue for the government. Imagine owning a factory to create products, but having no way to sell them because you don't have a store. So without the ability to sell there's no point in continuing production until that store is built. However you still have to add production into your company's budget because when things get going again, you will have to resume.

You seem to be commenting merely on the summary from the news article I shared here, not on the poll or study itself, and consequently you appear to be jumping to misguided conclusions about the intentions of those involved and actual measurements performed.

 

The poll was significantly more robust than you seem to give it credit for, and I recommend you review it more completely prior to engaging in such rants about "sensationalism" and what is or is not shown. I say this in the spirit of kindness and the growth of our collective understanding, not as an attack on you or in any way intended to disparage.

 

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/

I'm sorry, I mentioned that I was commenting on the website that you had linked to. At the time I was writing that, I was still at work and many political sites (among others as well) are blocked, so the access I have to outside information is severely limited. I didn't have a chance to actually look up the full poll that you managed to post this last time. Thanks for posting that. I'll definitely review what is provided and go from there.

In the meantime however, what I said before still stands. The way the information is presented on the original link is indicative of bias. That's all I was saying.

One possibility: They had the experience of seeing Republican Party affiliation trump every other concern once their Republican "best candidate" got to Washington - and faced the penalty of being primaried by a Party endorsed candidate with big money backing, and none for them, if they didn't toe the Party line.

After Nixon's disgrace, when many of the "best candidates" who happned to be Republican betrayed their Party and helped force him out, the "best candidates" were slowly purged, deliberately and overtly, from the Republican Party. And it worked - it created a unified and coherent Party designed and employed as a political tool for lowering the taxes on the upper class, that could nevertheless win elections on a national level.

 

With a Party of tools you cannot actually govern, however. At least, not well. One cannot predict how the Reps will screw up US health care when they get the chance, but one can be fairly certain they will - whether they actually intend to or not. Even if everybody likes it so they rename it Romneycare after its original proponent and source, they won't be able to manage it.

 

As Gore Vidal put it near the end of his life, in explaining one of the most astonishingly prescient assessments I have seen from a political analyst (stating immediately after the 2000 election that W would end his tenure as the least popular President in American history), zookeepers know that when you have monkeys loose, you are gong to have trouble. You don't know what will happen exactly, but monkeys won't clean your house and make supper: monkeys are trouble.

This is what I mean though, Yeah, the republican party may have purged themselves, thanks to Nixon, but individual members will still have their individual beliefs about what is in their own best interest and will push those objectives in such a way that will get other people in the party to view it as a benefit for them as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to abolish parties, but when having a discussion about politics, it should be the policy, not the party itself that is under scrutiny. Of course that's only if the discussion is on policies rather than the party that is supporting it. The Democrats are just as susceptible to screwing up Health Care, regardless of what name it's under, as the Republicans. As are the Libertarians and Tea Party too.

How does being "in favor" of something necessarily indicate a journalistic bias?

 

It's a term, not a phrase. And it's misleading - unlike Reaganomics, which is a suitable label.

And being in favor of something does indicate bias. To be unbiased they need to show all standpoints. Unbiased means that they would present the data in such a way as to not indicate things being for one side or another. This isn't just with politics, though it seems to happen more often. This is one of the reasons why Fox News is considered by many to be Right-Wing. They have consistently portrayed their views to support Republicans and Libertarians. They wouldn't be viewed as such if they presented both sides of a policy on equal ground and with equal coverage.

There is one Republican incumbent I voted for in Washington State.

Sam Reed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Reed

Despite his party affiliation, Mr Reed was instrumental in creating an open primary system in Washington State. We also have Vote by Mail and a distinct lack of voter restriction.

This is my problem with American politics. Just that one line that I highlighted. So many people dictate their votes, their views, etc on whether a politician is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Tea Party. What happened to people voting for the best possible candidate and not the beliefs of the party? I don't care what party someone designates themselves as, individual views will be different from at least 90% of the other people who belong to that party. Yes, I get that many of the people who assign themselves to an individual party share many views with them, but to say with absolute certainty that something is in favor of the people because it's "the (insert political party here) way" is just ignorant.

/rant

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/public-opinion/news/2012/04/02/11388/public-opinion-snapshot-what-the-public-thinks-of-obamacare-by-component/

 

The chart shows the public is favorable toward every component of the act except the mandate, with ratings of at least 69 percent for a majority of the components tested.

 

What this poll doesn't show, that it really should is how much of the remaining percent either A) Doesn't care (Neutral), B) Opposed, or C) Has no Bleeping idea what it's about. Polls like this show sensationalism that can either help or hinder the progress of various tasks that the government puts forth. Even the secondary poll on the linked website doesn't indicate that these other views were even asked. The only thing it shows is that a percentage of the people in favor know that it's part of the ACA. This is intentionally misleading and is nothing short of propaganda. I'm not blaming you, obviously, but this is something that journalists need to leave to the lobbyists. Journalism needs to be unbiased and this is clearly in favor of "ObamaCare". I hate that phrase... It's as bad as saying Reaganomics.

EdEarl, that's definitely an interesting article. Unfortunately I can't view the YouTube videos while I'm here at work in the lab, so comments on that will have to wait for later. To me, it seems like these twins are very closerly related to Amaton's cell before it goes through its fission except in this case, it's believed that there are two separate souls that are in the space of two bodies that are still joined and therefore in one body. If sufficient technology were available to be able to separate the two of them with both maintaining life, would the ability they possess, to essentially feel what is happening in the other body, still continue? Would they be two souls (for want of a better word) that could even trade places? Obviously this is pure speculation but this thread does raise another question.

And that question is: Is there validity to the philosophical debate of "Solipsism"? Wiki article here. The brief run down of this theory is that the only person who is actually conscious and alive is me. Or at least in my head, I'm the only one that is alive and everyone else is a figment of my imagination. This theory has some strength when analyzed. How can one be certain that the actions, speeches, and thoughts of another person are real? As far as anyone can tell, the actions of another person could be nothing more than the brain creating someone to keep you from being lonely. Their actions reflect a causal link between what you think they will do or say in response to stimuli and what they actually do. Unfortunately, theories like this are as untestable and unverifiable as the Brain in a Jar thought experiment (thank you Wachowski brothers for making this a mainstream idea).

It's possible that the reason you (your consciousness) is stuck in your body is because you are the only thing that is real; everything else is all in your head. It's a pretty twisted outlook on life if you really think about it.

There are different translations, some more accurate than others. The bible was originally translated to Latin, which is also what the mass had been in. Then when the Vatican II came about, the mass, prayers, etc were all translated to English, but it was put on a rush. Because of this many of the translations are the fly by type that doesn't portray the depth of everything being said. Because of this, last year and into this year, the Catholic church has done an overhaul of everything to get the translations to be more accurate.

The translation that Iggy was referencing said that the earth was "fixed". Fixed gives the connotation that it is stationary and isn't moving. As in fixed to the floor.

 

You don't understand. I'm proving this statement wrong: "To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center."

 

I'm using your example of a spinning top as a counterexample. If the universe is the shape of a top, and earth is in the handle, then everything moves and earth isn't at the center. A rotating sky doesn't imply a spherically symmetric sky

Perhaps saying a top gives the wrong impression of what I'm trying to convey. A gyroscope would be a more accurate representation of my previous statements.

Imagine the earth is located at the point where the center bar (brown/copper) meets the golden disk. At that point is the center, the Origin (0,0,0) and all other matter (other planets, stars, etc), as viewed in the ancient world, is scattered in various directions and at different distances from the Origin. Are we all on the same page here about the imagery? Relative to Earth, or the Origin, all other celestial bodies are orbiting the earth. I could turn the above image on its side and still be able to say the same. Regardless of what way the Earth is rotating, all other bodies will appear to be orbiting the earth, which to an observer on earth would then appear to make it the center of the universe.

So the only way for an ancient observer, who didn't have the technological advances that we do today, to be able to understand where we are in the solar system is to say that we are at the center. This is because if we placed the earth in a location other than Origin, say (5,3,9) then anything they could view would have to be moving along the same trajectory and thus nothing would appear to move at all, so long as it was moving at the same speed. The Earth would be moving in an elliptic around an Origin.

So, as I stated before, the only way for the earth to be stationary would be if a Geocentric Universe were an accurate observation. As we all know, the earth isn't the center of this solar system, let alone the Milky Way Galaxy. The solar system is in orbit around an origin at the center of this spiral galaxy. Imagine how much matter would have collided with this planet if Earth was stationary in it's position in the Milky Way...

I'm not saying that we are at the center of the universe, just that to an observer in biblical times the world as they knew it would have appeared so.

I said the center of the top, not the handle. The Earth being the handle would have made me state that the earth is on a separate plane from the rest of the matter. Rather saying that it is the center of the top insinuates it being on the same plane. And thus, with it being in the center on all axis (x, y, and z) it would not be able to rotate in any direction without the Earth remaining at the Origin (coordinates 0,0,0). This is true even if all the other matter were on planes other than the one the Earth lies on.

I don't see how these are tangents. My statements have been in line with previous comments focused on the celestial position of this planet.

Progress Report: I am currently on level 21... Many more to go.