Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.2 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Citation Station: Humanity's future

Bottom of Page

51 to 100 of 169

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007
     

    Edited.

  2.  

    Think about this, as a companion reflection to your "are particles expanding?" thought: Quanta (quantum particles) have measurably existed in multiple locations, separated (on our plane of perception) by vast distances

    Different to the way I learnt it. At the point of measurement of position the wave function collapses and the quantum particle will exist only at a single point.

    Plane of perception is a new on me. Sounds a bit spiritual rather than scientific.

    Still, I am out-of-date.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Plane of perception is a new on me

    Basically, a "plane of perception" as it relates to various "layers" or scopes of existence is this:

    We can, with the aid of instruments, perceive the microscopic world. However, without such instruments, there is no perception of this world existing. They are on a different plane or world of perception from us. It's not a widely used phrase but it is the most succinct.

    Also ...

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Different to the way I learnt it

    Check this out - http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0107050 and please follow up with other reading, it's a phenomenal track of research, which eventually will lead you to http://discovermagazine.com/1992/apr/timetravelredux26 (Time travel is theoretically possible!) Yay for science!

    A barely related aside:
    When I was about 9 years old I conducted a thought experiment (not knowing it was that at the time, I just thought it was imagining with some pen and paper), and reasoned that if one were able to travel at or near the speed of light in the opposite direction of the rotation of the earth, directly above the equator, that one could travel back in time. I'm damn proud of that prepubescent thought experiment.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007 edited
     

    Think about this, as a companion reflection to your "are particles expanding?" thought: Quanta (quantum particles) have measurably existed in multiple locations, separated (on our plane of perception) by vast distances (hundreds of miles, in fact), which on their plane of perception is about as widely distant as two galaxies (on the order of millions of parsecs(1 Parsec = ~3.0857 × 10^16 meters)) are on our plane of perception. So how does a quantum that is perhaps 1/10,000,000th of an inch big exist in two vastly, widely separated locations simultaneously? Fugg if I know, but think about it a while. It may just turn your brain inside out, so be careful.

    So, to us, they're, say, 300 miles apart. But to them, they're, say, 300,000,00 miles apart?

    I'm not entirely sure I understand this concept, but then my knowledge on quantum physics isn't great. (I dunno where to start!)

    Edit: I started typing this before RB's previous post.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: Trance

    So, to us, they're, say, 300 miles apart. But to them, they're, say, 300,000,00 miles apart?

    I'm not entirely sure I understand this concept, but then my knowledge on quantum physics isn't great. (I dunno where to start!)

    Edit: I started typing this before RB's previous post.

    Think of it like this...

    Imagine you're a person who, for some reason, has to walk from Point A to Point B, which two points are separated by 100 kilometers. Now, imagine you're an ant who, for some reason, has to complete the same journey. The distance is still exactly 100 kilometers, but relatively, the ant has to travel an incredibly further difference (on the order of several thousand times the distance, as an ant can take approximately 10,000 paces compared to a human's one.)

    Now, imagine the relative distance of 100 kilometers to a life form that is 1 nanometer in diameter (which is very small, in fact 1/1,000,000,000th of a meter, or 1/10,000,000th of a centimeter).

    So a direct answer would be this - 1 mile = 1,609.344 meters. 300 miles then equals 482,803.2m. So if a journey were 300 miles on our PLANE OF PERCEPTION, then to a 1 nanometer life form, that would be 4.828032 × 10^14 nanometers, or 48,280,320,000,000,000,000 multiples of its body diameter. Can you imagine traveling 4.828032 x 10^14 times your own body length?! If you were average male height (5'10") that would be 2.8968192 × 10^15 feet of travel or 548,640, 000,000 miles! ZOMFG! That's 8.82950492 × 10^14 meters!

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007
     

    Yeah, I understand that part, but how does that demonstrate anything to do with a quantum being in two vastly widely separated locations simultaneously?

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007
     

    It's a great distance. Also edited comment above.

  8.  

    I have to say RB, that the first document has about as much scientific rigidity as a banana. The second is based on time distortion at the quantum level, and I have not heard of this being realised. The original time travel (at the quantum level) theories (I think) were based on linked particles that 'transmit' information from one to the other at the point of wave collapse. This information would be transfered by hypothetical faster than light particles. Not quite sure where that one got to. And they still haven't found gravitons, which is a pity, because there are possibilities there.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    I have to say RB, that the first document has about as much scientific rigidity as a banana.

    I read it twice :confused:
    RB: U O me 1 brain.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    I have to say RB, that the first document has about as much scientific rigidity as a banana

    It was off the internet! C'mon! I was actually just trying to find something that showed accurate data, and skimmed across that one, when I encountered it.

    Also, I did say -

    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    please follow up with other reading,

    Please, follow up with other reading, as this theory has scientific backbone. In numerous instances, photons have been observed existing in multiple locations. Aside from the general quantum mechanical theory that all things must exist somewhere, when examining at which point between points A and points B specific particles exist at, observers found that the particles they were tracking were capable of simultaneous existence at multiple locations between point A and point B.

  11.  

    The objects do not exist at multiple points. They are a wave function that has a probability function defining their existence tt A, B and all other points - nothing to do with a line. Photons have not (or at least had not when I was a lot younger) been observed existing in multiple locations. The act of observing causes them to only exist at one point. It can be observed that they must have existed in multiple locations, but not that they did exist.

    My knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is 35 years old. I was at Imperial College, London as we going through the early stages of "they gotta be joking".

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2007
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Photons have not (or at least had not when I was a lot younger) been observed existing in multiple locations.

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    My knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is 35 years old.

    We're discussing mathematics in which the data are changing on a weekly basis.

  13.  

    I'd love to be Kyle and see all the backbyting and poison flying around in whispers. :neutral:

    Humanity's future seems to be arguing.

  14.  
    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    We're discussing mathematics in which the data are changing on a weekly basis.

    Fine - but please show me the references to two of your definitive points.

    1) A Photon can be observed at two places at the same
    2) Electrons can travel at the speed of light.

    And I am not talking theory here, but a demonstrable Earth based experiment. In my day at Rutherford labs it had not been done. Not that I could necessarily understand what some of them were telling me.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2007
     
    Posted By: [Expletive Deleted]

    Humanity's future seems to be arguing.

    Only a moron would believe that. :tongue:

    •  
      CommentAuthorFact totum
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2007
     
    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    We're discussing mathematics in which the data are changing on a weekly basis.

    Oh -- so if I wait long enough maybe I'll get a passing mark on that calculus quiz I took back in college.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious
    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    We're discussing mathematics in which the data are changing on a weekly basis.

    Fine - but please show me the references to two of your definitive points.

    1) A Photon can be observed at two places at the same
    2) Electrons can travel at the speed of light.

    And I am not talking theory here, but a demonstrable Earth based experiment. In my day at Rutherford labs it had not been done. Not that I could necessarily understand what some of them were telling me.

    [/div]

    Before I answer 1) and 2) for you...

    First of all, Paul, you're asking me to give you a hyperlink to somewhere on the internet, so you can learn briefly and develop quick understanding of problems that humans did not even begin to recognize as existing for effectively the entirety of human history (circa 100 years vs circa 14,000 years). There's no Matrix-style insta-download of knowledge happening for you on the internet Paul.

    Your best bet is to go to your local college/university, get in touch with the admissions department and dust off that old and likely poorly maintained brain of yours. Takes some classes. Interview professionals. Do what others do for their knowledge, don't just try to subsist on google-bytes.

    Further, I found it nearly unbelievable that you worked in the field in the past (at anytime since it's inception with the release of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity) and not encountered wave/particle duality, diffusion effect, or the concept of dual-locality of photons (which has since been proven). Nor have you seemed to have encountered quantum entanglement.

    Now, I'm also going to let you know, this is the second time I've chased these links down, as I accidentally reloaded the page! :shocked:

    So in answer to 1)
    http://www.geocities.com/matterdoc/fundamental_dimensions_and_time.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
    http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node164.html
    http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/JoelKatz/cosres1.html
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-quantum-physics.htm
    http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060225/fob6.asp
    http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/2slit.htm

    Not a single one of these links is going to open to a page that says, "HEY PAULUSTRIOUS HERE'S THE DATA YOU SEEK! HERE ARE ALL THE ANSWERS!" You know why? It's the fucking internet, dude. Again, go to a university, study quantum mechanics, and the answers will all be clear. Or they won't. They're a beginning step for your quest to intelligence on the subject.

    As to 2)
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00892.htm
    http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
    http://www.physorg.com/news88965244.html

    engineers have turbocharged it to not only generate a very precise pulse of electrons, but to ramp the pulse up to 99.7% of the speed of light before it even leaves the gun

    Again, go to a university. Study physics and quantum mechanics for a while. You will, in an elementary level of study, find that humans have forced an electron to surpass the speed of light.

    One last thing.

    You said

    And I am not talking theory here

    Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

    In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence.

    Please do not be a n00b and say that "Science is full of theories and they haven't proven anything" and your quote seems to reflect. A theory in science is not the same as your theory about particular bars dispensing colder beer from their taps, or which your theory about your mother-in-law's meatloaf. Used scientifically, the word theory = fact.

  18.  
    Posted By: Udoboy
    Posted By: [Expletive Deleted]

    Humanity's future seems to be arguing.

    Only a moron would believe that.:tongue:

    No they wouldn't.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2007
     
    Posted By: [Expletive Deleted]

    No they wouldn't.[/p]

    Yuh-huh.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2007 edited
     

    First of all, Paul, you're asking me to give you a hyperlink to somewhere on the internet, so you can learn briefly and develop quick understanding of problems that humans did not even begin to recognize as existing for effectively the entirety of human history (circa 100 years vs circa 14,000 years). There's no Matrix-style insta-download of knowledge happening for you on the internet Paul.

    Please do apply your methods of learning to me. I asked for single references for the 2 points, not to be deluged with a stack. Just one, preferably one that answers the questions and is understandable by this audience.

    I will not be returning to college to dust off my little-used brain. And thank you for using my reference to google bytes. You provided us with an excellent samples.

    Questionable statement 1.

    A Photon can be observed at two places at the same

    I don't know why you are deliberately trying to insult any one that challenges you. Some feeling of insecurity I guess. Yes, I have heard of wave-particle duality. And I have heard of wave-collapse, and I know a little about linked particles. You do not seem to know what observed means. It does not mean that we stand there and watch a little a pretty little photon pass by. So I girded up my loins and read your references.

    Reference 1: Extract from Hypothesis of Matter.
    No reference to observation at all. The extract is from a book that is the physics equivalent of von Daniken's theory of Sasquatch genetic development.

    Reference 2: Good old Wiki.
    I did that diffraction grating thing for Fraunhofer lines in high school. Good article. Not quite deep enough to go into wave collapse, so no mention of effect of observation.

    Reference 3: THANK YOU
    Pretty small but it does say:

    From one of your references

    What will we find? If we place our measuring apparatus on the screen we will see a diffraction pattern, which is a true signal that a wave has passed through the slits. On the other hand, if we place a photon detector at the slit, then we will detect the presence of a photon if it passes through, which is a particle property, and no diffraction pattern will be observed on the screen. In this way, one can demonstrate both particle and wave properties of light, but not at the same time, simply by changing the type and location of our measuring apparatus. The light ``knows'' when to behave as a wave, and when to behave as a particle, but it never demonstrates both properties simultaneously.

    In other words if you OBSERVE the photon with a detector then its wave function collapses and it then only exists as a particle in a single place.

    Reference 4: Thanks for the philosophy pointer. Not looked at Emanual Kant (a real piss-ant) for a while. Doesn't seem to be connected to our conversation, except in terms of your desire that I broaden my education.

    Reference 5: We're off again on an alternative understanding of matter, based on philosophers such as Wittgenstein (the beery swine). Sort of skips by the issue.

    Reference 6: Good old 5/9 theory. However it also indicates that at the point of OBSERVATION the photon exists at a single point.

    Reference 7: Here we go again. I suspect you will find this rationale is not taught at most ivy league universities. It does reference Feynman's lectures that I read 35 or so years ago - and I can recommend them.

    Not a single one of these links is going to open to a page that says, "HEY PAULUSTRIOUS HERE'S THE DATA YOU SEEK! HERE ARE ALL THE ANSWERS!" You know why? It's the fucking internet, dude. Again, go to a university

    I'm sure you looked far and wide and failed. You did manage to find one statement that does explain what I meant and is the opposite of what you said. Tis better people think you are an idiot rather than open your mouth and prove it.

    Questionable statement 2.

    Electrons can travel at the speed of light.

    Granted I should have added 'in a vacuum' to my statement, but we have been through that loop before. That is what a reasonable person means when they say the speed of light. Not one of your references points to an electron that has been brought to the speed of light. Close - but not quite there. And according to 'classical' relativity it never will. A more balanced approach can be seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

    engineers have turbocharged it to not only generate a very precise pulse of electrons, but to ramp the pulse up to 99.7% of the speed of light before it even leaves the gun

    Reasonable quick - but nothing compared to various linear accelerators round the world. The new accelerator at cern, which will finally open its tube next year, will accelerate electrons to far greater energies than that. Unfortunately, to accelerate an electron to light speed would take all the energy in the universe according to classic theory. Still, the decade old search for the Higgs particle may be at an end. They will be searching for evidence to back up or disprove a theory.

    And I am not talking theory here

    In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence.

    EXACTLY. I want something that is supported by Earth-based experimental evidence. A goodly chunk of your support documents are quackery backed up by no evidence or scientific research from particle accelerators.

    Used scientifically theory does not mean fact. It is a supposition backed by evidence that may later prove it (very difficult), disprove it or show it to be an approximation.

    Good luck on your quest of understanding the Physics, Religion, Philosophy, the Universe and Everything.

    Edit: It's amazing how many spelling mistakes I can make in one document.

  21.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2007 edited
     

    Paulus: Bravo! great post.

    Legat: Sweet link!

    Edit: Damn. I'm a kiss ass.

  23.  

    The discussion is getting slightly off-topic. I didn't intend for there to be such a heated dispute over scientific theory. I only wished for us to discuss IDEAS. There are many scientific facts out there that can explain how the universe works. The only question many religious followers would ask is: why?

    Asking why would be asking what the purpose of our universe is. Humans tend to overthink and overanalyze many concepts that we have created over the years, but it is done in order to help us better understand everything that is. Is this "purpose" we believe in even a useful concept at all? What makes us think we have a "purpose" in the first place?

    When staring at all of the most updated scientific data in the world, we are left asking ourselves, what essentially is the purpose of life? Knowing the vastness of our universe and the possibility that are a tiny part of an existance much greater than ourselves, what difference does us being alive even make?

    Perhaps we are nothing more than an experiment. A higher being, composed of our thousands of heavenly bodies, could be watching our every move, recording our every action. Perhaps the idea of "alternate dimensions" is just our tiny "Earth" experiment replicated in different "atoms" of this higher being's universe.

    If this being were to try to communicate with us in some way it would have to be extremely primitive in comparison to that being's level of communication. We have seen symbols, miracles, magicks, and have recorded many other fascinating things in our religious texts. Perhaps, due to our society being too primitive at the time, this being's symbolic messages we misinterpreted?

    All of these questions are all lovely yet terribly arbitrary, but it still doesnt address a much more important question: is life an accident?

    Which gives me one last inquiry to give before you all explode with information...take a look at a piece of art. Try a painting. Then ask yourself:

    What are the chances that this painting happened by accident?

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2007
     
    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    What are the chances that this painting happened by accident?

    How "modern art" is the painting? The more modern, the more likely.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2007 edited
     

    Before I address anything else, I'd like to address the following:

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Questionable statement 1.

    A Photon can be observed at two places at the same

    and

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Questionable statement 2.

    Electrons can travel at the speed of light.

    As far as "questionable statement 1", my original statement with which you argued was "Quanta (quantum particles) have measurably existed in multiple locations," about 4 posts into this thread. You decided to use the word "observed". Not I. I said measurably existed. No, I did not take issue with you supplanting an appropriate phrase with an inappropriate phrase to make my argument become unsound. However, I should have, but felt that we were, at that point, still speaking on the same subject and you had mis-used the word observed. Obviously you used it quite appropriately, knowing that it took an argument from being valid to invalid in one brief instant. Again, however, you said observed, not I.

    As to "questionable statement 2", there's nothing questionable about it. Electrons have in fact surpassed the speed of light. Period. I did not issue a limit to the statement, at all. And it was not until this last post that you yourself attempted to limit my statement of fact, with your factor of "in a vacuum".

    So, I'd have to say the person making questionable statements is you. I was trying to elucidate someone (Trance) who said they didn't know where to start with Quantum Mechanics into some of the phenomenal results of this 100 year old science.

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    EXACTLY. I want something that is supported by Earth-based experimental evidence. A goodly chunk of your support documents are quackery backed up by no evidence or scientific research from particle accelerators.

    First, they're not my support documents. My support documents include the over 200 books on relativism and quantum mechanics and quantum theory that I've read over the past 15 years or so (not that I've really understood all of what I was reading! Or, come to terms with most of it (especially spooky action)), also about 80-90 lecture hours by professional quantum theorists that I've attended or watched recordings of. The links I posted are snippets (or google-bytes) that I skimmed out of the internet (the whorehouse of all information), in about 10 minutes (including the time I took to skim out a second set of links, as I lost the first ones with an accidental reload of the page, as I mentioned).

    You seem to make light of it a bit, but one cannot over-stress the need for education on the concepts of quantum mechanics and quantum theory. I've attended lectures by teachers and professionals. I grew up 20 minutes from Fermilab, and for a solid two years, attended effectively everything that they hosted that was open to the public. I sneaked into lecture halls at Northern Illinois University and University of Illinois at Chicago, not being able to afford in time or money the expenses of college (both time and money because I was working 2 jobs at age 17 to support my parents through some illnesses and other disasters).

    Further, you mentioned before your knowledge of quantum mechanics is 35 years old. That's nearly a decade older than I am, and from a time in the science when the Many Worlds theory was considered quackery. It's now accepted by the gross majority of professionals as being a strong possibility, and a valid explanation of spooky action.

    I'm not going to pick apart your responses and your post because, frankly, you bastardized my statements and made them different than they were intended, as I outlined above. However, I will address this:

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Unfortunately being offensive is his strong suit.

    Yes, I do get heated. Especially when someone takes an idea that is valid, adds to it to invalidate it, and then attempts to claim the original idea was invalid all along.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2007
     
    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    What are the chances that this painting happened by accident?

    Inq - not by accident! By purposeful intervention of the human mind in the universe! The human mind is a force so strong that it takes quantum mechanics to begin to explain how it does what it does.

    Going back to my statements in another (and possibly this?) thread, perception is reality. That makes the human mind, in fact, stronger than reality, in many ways. What is more "real", that which is experienced by a thousand uneducated, unenlightened humans that are just wading through life waiting for the next green light or that which is experienced by a single enlightened, educated and purposeful individual, when the two experiences are vastly different?

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2007 edited
     

    First off, I have an apology to RB. My second message was meant to a whisper to Trance - it now is.

    However in terms of bastardisation ....

    Rot Bottom

    Please, follow up with other reading, as this theory has scientific backbone. In numerous instances, photons have been observed existing in multiple locations.

    But on to Inquisitor's statement. I am trying to imagine what super-intelligent being would design messages that are too complex for the reader.

    In terms of the question, is life an accident my 'faith' says yes. Yours probably says otherwise. I fail to see God in an grain of sand. Is a painting accidental? No, not even a Jackson Pollock. But what has that go to do with the origin of life?

    I think something utterly arbitrary, such as the pattern of meteor craters on the moon, has a much higher chance of being related to TOOL.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2007
     
    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    is life an accident?

    Does it matter? I mean really matter?
    Good inventions are often born out of need. Great ones are accidental.

    Examples:
    Microwave ovens were invented through accident
    Super glue was invented by accident
    Crisps (that's 'tater chips to all you yanks) were invented by accident
    Slinkies were invented by accident

    I bet everybody on this forum has used at least one of the above, which goes to show accidents aren't all that terrible. OK - so if there is a God, and he created the Universe by accident, that doesn't mean he doesn't like/love it.

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    what is the purpose of life?

    To me, the question shouldn't be "what is the purpose of life?" but should be: "what is the purpose of my life?"

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    Humans tend to overthink and overanalyze many concepts that we have created over the years, but it is done in order to help us better understand everything that is.

    Is it? Overthinking concepts don't necessarily equal better understanding. An example is Schrodinger's cat:

    "A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

    It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."

    Schrondinger presupposes this seemingly paradoxical statement to demonstrate how overthinking can be detrimental to understanding.

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    If this being were to try to communicate with us in some way it would have to be extremely primitive in comparison to that being's level of communication. We have seen symbols, miracles, magicks, and have recorded many other fascinating things in our religious texts. Perhaps, due to our society being too primitive at the time, this being's symbolic messages we misinterpreted?

    Our society wasn't too primitive at the time, in fact, it was the most up to date society at the time.
    Who's to say we dismissed it because we didn't understand it without implying we dismissed it because we knew it as nothing.

    If you see graffiti on the street, do you know what it always means? Probably not - that doesn't mean the person that wrote it is of another dimension/world/intelligence to the reader, it just means they don't share a common knowledge in the aspect. If personA paints a painting, with a particular meaning that only people that know personA and personA himself, will understand then a personB from another Planet won't know the meaning of the painting, even though personB's intelligence could far surpass personA's intelligence, the painting makes no sense to personB.

    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    I was trying to elucidate someone (Trance) who said they didn't know where to start with Quantum Mechanics into some of the phenomenal results of this 100 year old science.

    And I 'preciate it. Thanks!

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2007
     

    Got me. When slapped with the proof, I'll accept defeat. I used observed as well. :shamed:

    I'm sorry. :contrite: The rest stands.

    Posted By: Trance

    Crisps (that's 'tater chips to all you yanks) were invented by accident

    The American tale of the invention of potato chips is a good one, I wonder if it corroborates with the UK version! Some cook was being harassed by a particular customer about the thickness of his fried potatoes, and sent 2-3 orders back saying he wanted them thinner. So the cook thought "I'll get him!", and proceeded to slice a potato almost paper-thin on a mandolin, then fried them in the thin layer of vegetable oil he used for his fried potatoes. The result was potato chips, which were then modified, improved, and made the lovely snack they are today!

    Does that compare?

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     
    Posted By: Rot Bottom

    The American tale of the invention of potato chips is a good one, I wonder if it corroborates with the UK version! Some cook was being harassed by a particular customer about the thickness of his fried potatoes, and sent 2-3 orders back saying he wanted them thinner. So the cook thought "I'll get him!", and proceeded to slice a potato almost paper-thin on a mandolin, then fried them in the thin layer of vegetable oil he used for his fried potatoes. The result was potato chips, which were then modified, improved, and made the lovely snack they are today!

    That's how I know it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007 edited
     

    It's odd that the variety of flavours in chips / crisps never made it to the USA. Canada has a much larger range, though not approaching the UK one. Wiki once again has a reasonable article under 'Chips'.

    As an aside, I do miss the varieties of potato I could once buy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     

    You'd probably get too many people mispronouncing 'Worcestershire sauce.'

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     

    Trance, we use Worcestershire sauce in the US- it's one of the top seasonings used for steak cooking.

    Japan has weird chips
    http://greggman.com/japan/chips/japanese%20potato%20chips.htm
    http://greggman.com/japan/chips-02/chips-02.htm

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007 edited
     

    Worcester sauce is also correct in the US provided it is not Lea and Perrins. (which I think is owned by Heinz 5700 varieties now)

    Incidentally

    Brown sauce (UK) = HP sauce (Canada) = Steak Sauce (USA)

    And to complete the circle - do they still have Worcester sauce flavoured chips in the UK?

    •  
      CommentAuthorRot Bottom
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Worcester sauce is also correct in the US provided it is not Lea and Perrins. (which I think is owned by Heinz 5700 varieties now)

    Not Lea and Perrins? Isn't that the #1 brand of Worcestershire sauce in the US?

    Also, pronunciation: WERSH-ter-SHER sauce.

  36.  

    I believe so. The original is available in the UK. I think in the US it's a concentrate from the midlands somewhere that is reconstituted and bottled. Seems to taste the same as I remember.

    Pronunciation in the UK is more wus-tuh-shuh. (Back to them schwa thingies). Although local accents cause this to vary.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     

    Most people up North say it woo-stuh-shuh

    And yeah, it's still available as a crisp/chip flavour across the pond, matter of fact it's my favourite!

    •  
      CommentAuthorAthene
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    I believe so. The original is available in the UK. I think in the US it's a concentrate from the midlands somewhere that is reconstituted and bottled. Seems to taste the same as I remember.

    Pronunciation in the UK is more wus-tuh-shuh. (Back to them schwa thingies). Although local accents cause this to vary.

    That's how I've always pronounced it, too. Must be a regional thing.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPiggie8
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2007
     

    My two bits:

    No, I don't.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2007
     

    Wur'-ster-sheer"

  41.  

    Sounds Tennessee to me.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2007
     

    Ten'-neh-see"

  43.  

    Where does the mind lie? Do the mind and soul even exist in the first place? If so, are they connected in any way?

    Or is the mind more of a 'process' than anything else?

    What makes us so different from animals? What was it that caused the one generation/family of a primeval ape species on our planet to gain more intelligence than its rival families?

    What was it that made our millennium-old ancestors so much smarter than other species? What influence could have possibly spawned such astounding brain growth?

    (Excluding the amazing ability of a species known as cockroaches. I’m fairly certain it’s the best species at surviving against all odds)

    Why do we have so many detailed difficulties in our life? Have we chosen it to be this way forever? Or have our minds accidentally evolved into these beliefs and moral values due to thousands of factors depending on different people's perceptions on events that have occurred throughout history?

    The answers probably aren't important much less than the questions themselves.

    Then what is important?

    Ay...there's the rub

  44.  

    Let's take these one by one:
    Where does the mind lie? (After work, it often rests in the Lazy Boy and reads magazines.)
    Do the mind and soul even exist in the first place? (Where is the first place?)
    If so, are they connected in any way? (Nokia, I think.)
    Or is the mind more of a process than anything else? (Applying for a new bank account, now that's the most process I can think of.)
    What makes us so different from animals? (My salary.)
    What was it that caused the one generation/family of a primeval ape species on our planet to gain more intelligence than its rival families? (Not sure, but now they're probably a Nielson family.)
    What was it that made our millennium-old ancestors so much smarter than other species? (It's the Touch God tab, man. Since I know you, price is $3.)
    What influence could have possibly spawned such astounding brain growth? (I'm tellin' ya, man, it's this, stuff, man. Just touch it man, your mind will expand, brotha.)
    Why do we have so many detailed difficulties in our life? (Not sure about yours, but mine, once again, often boils down to my salary.)
    Have we chosen it to be this way forever? (It's good stuff, isn't it? That's like, a $15 tab I gave you for only $3!)
    Or have our minds accidentally evolved into these beliefs and moral values due to thousands of factors depending on different people's perceptions on events that have occurred throughout history? (Right on. Look at the elephants on the ceiling! Ha ha ha....*stares at hand for way too long*)
    The answers probably aren't important much less than the questions themselves. (Naw, you're right...let's play Halo.)
    Then what is important? (I'm better than you at Halo.)
    Ay...there's the rub (Cut that out. That's why girls never hang out with us, man.)

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2007 edited
     

    Dear Mr Inquisitor

    Thank you for the multiple choice examination paper. Is there any one of those you would like us in particular to 'mine'?

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    The answers probably aren't important much less than the questions themselves.

    :confused:

    Stop passing the buck. I'll pick one: What influence could have possibly spawned such astounding brain growth? Now we have something to work on, but I await your opinion first.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2007
     

    ED: you so funny!

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    Where does the mind lie? Do the mind and soul even exist in the first place? If so, are they connected in any way?

    Does the mind exist? if it's in the leg are longer-legged people smarter than shorter legged people? I think the term 'mind' is coined to a collection of beliefs,thought patterns and habits.

    Muscle memory! Your muscles can 'remember' things, but if memory lies in the brain, how can that be? People with amnesia can still ride bikes?!

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    What makes us so different from animals? What was it that caused the one generation/family of a primeval ape species on our planet to gain more intelligence than its rival families?

    Scientifically, it's more developed brains. The difference in intelligence between humans and animals is that we can willingly use two sides of our brain in unison (at least, so I'm told, there are probably exceptions). However, is that the only thing that makes intelligence? Sharks can detect electrical impulses in water and can smell blood from miles away, humans can't, and we're supposed to be more intelligent...

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    (Excluding the amazing ability of a species known as cockroaches. I’m fairly certain it’s the best species at surviving against all odds)

    Cockroaches are good, but there are better. For instance, in the deepest trenches explored in the Pacific, there are organisms that live without sunlight, and feed of sodium bubbles for their energy input.
    Also, grass is a pretty amazing survivor.

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    Why do we have so many detailed difficulties in our life?

    Detailed difficulties? Things are only difficult if you let them become difficult!

    Posted By: Paulustrious

    What influence could have possibly spawned such astounding brain growth?

    I'd say... Intricate thought. I think that's what really determines us from animals, animals do things without asking a lot of questions, humans ask the questions, like... Why are we doing this again, Bill?

    On a sidenote: It's been discovered that chimps can willingly commit murder for reasons other than survival. (IE: I don't like you so I'll kill you) They hide the body and everything, the documentary showed a chimp dragging another chimp that was dead through a rainforest.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulustrious
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007 edited
     

    Numerous animals commit 'murder', usually for one of the following reasons:

    1) I'm hungry
    2) My kids are / will be better than yours.
    3) Whoops!
    4) I'm horny
    5) You're pissing me off, kid.

    In terms of brain growth - there are a number of creatures with comparable size brains. Some of things that differentiate humankind's brain include:

    1) Reasoned foresight
    2) Analysis
    3) Consciousness of thought
    4) Communication and verbal cooperation

    The wiring is radically different. Whilst it may be possible to teach a chimpanzee to drive a simple vehicle, it is extremely difficult for it to grasp what an emission test is and what impact it has on global warming. So where did this radical growth in brain ability come from?

    •  
      CommentAuthorFact totum
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     

    If your 2nd set of criteria defines humans I work with several non-humans.

  49.  

    I'm glad we have a sense of humor about all this.

    If nothing else, I can at least confide in that Paulustrious and Expletive are hilarious individuals.

    Am I being obsessive and overly-analytical? Maybe my head is just way too high in the clouds. I just hope nobody felt like I was being condescending.

    Elephants on the ceiling? I think I've been doing too much acid.

    As for my opinion on my earlier question: "What influence could have possibly spawned such astounding brain growth?"

    I don't know...some sort of giant monolith that gave off telepathic brain waves that increased the size and cognitive processes of a bunch of apes somewhere in prehistoric Africa.

    Beats me. All of you seem to have much more factual intelligence under your belts than I do. Hence the name "Inquisitor."

    I just like to ask questions. But I'm more interested in your answers. Whether or not they humorously mock my sometimes very irrelevant questions. And I tend to have a lot of those, so forgive me for my flaws.

    Plus, the elephants on the ceiling don't like it when I ignore them.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrance
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2007
     
    Posted By: Paulustrious

    Numerous animals commit 'murder', usually for one of the following reasons:

    I generally meant for reasons other than survival (eg: to murder not just for hunger) Do you have any examples of these animals? I'd be interested to know.

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    Am I being obsessive and overly-analytical?

    Posted By: The Inquisitor

    I just hope nobody felt like I was being condescending.

    Not at all!

51 to 100 of 169

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >