Notices
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 308
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: Blurt your pet theory here

  1. #201  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I think cats are the best pets.
    I am ALLERGIC!! and I love them *sigh*
    So am I.
    But one tablet per day fixes it completely.
    The cost is negligible compared to the benefits.
    It affects my eyes more than anything else! Right now I'm just trying to keep my sight!!

    Buried 11 animals in 20 years.

    The only pet I want is 6'0 and only lives with me 5 months a year!!

    Plucking a few more feathers.....by the way are you a male mallard.....I like the colors....but no matter, if not...and down will do......*singing*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    28
    -Dumb theory, removed.
    Last edited by Blahgory; September 4th, 2013 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Removal
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Firstly no particle that has mass can travel at light speed or faster. After that I could make no sense out of your post at all. What are you actually asking?
    Nothing, I removed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    I just had to reply to this question of what the difference could be between protons and neutrons, within your broader context of a universal ether which is governed by the formation of aggregational "particle capacity" units such as subatomic units ("protons" and "neutrons.") -My ether model is that intially symmetric oscillations of elemental points in Space led to vibrational elemental etheric energic units. Oscillational fatiugue led to spatial point-pairs, curving into each other yin-yang fashion, then re-equilibration of the point pairs with the original oscillational setting collapsing local space around the point pairs, with loss of perfect symmetry, and formation of directional vibrational etheric units (vibrational as derived form the oscillational.) The directionality of the etheric energy units can be represented as "nodes" which can interlock or resonate. All resonance occurs between these elemental ether units, which makes for a uniform orderly pattern of resonance and organized cosmic systems through Space. -The first ether energy units were electronic and very small and speedy. As these speedy electronic units described curvilinear resonational paths through space, they induced, via a process of aggregation of the elemental units, formation of larger "particle capacity" units, the protons and neutrons, which are slower and sort of "sit" in the nucleus, while the electronics curve by on the outside of the atom. There is no vast empty space inside the atom as proposed in Quantum Mechanics, likewise no "nuclear spin." Again, resonances occur all via elemental etheric units which resonate instantaneously. -One needs to ask oneself how a world like we see could have been formed by discrete "particles" describing discrete orbits around atomic nuclei in neat lattice arrangements? How could it have arisen? -The difference between the proton and neutron could be one of size, and how a difference in unit size can affect their respective pattern of resonance within the ether. -In the case where a neutron star could form in the context of a chaotic flux after a star destructs, the only way like to like resonance of neutrons could occur would be via size differences. Electric resonance could not occur in such a chaotic flux.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    within your broader context of a universal ether
    There is no such context. Which means that the rest of your post is irrelevant. Which is just as well as it is meaningless tosh full of made up words.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    twechar
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I just had to reply to this question of what the difference could be between protons and neutrons, within your broader context of a universal ether which is governed by the formation of aggregational "particle capacity" units such as subatomic units ("protons" and "neutrons.") -My ether model is that intially symmetric oscillations of elemental points in Space led to vibrational elemental etheric energic units. Oscillational fatiugue led to spatial point-pairs, curving into each other yin-yang fashion, then re-equilibration of the point pairs with the original oscillational setting collapsing local space around the point pairs, with loss of perfect symmetry, and formation of directional vibrational etheric units (vibrational as derived form the oscillational.) The directionality of the etheric energy units can be represented as "nodes" which can interlock or resonate. All resonance occurs between these elemental ether units, which makes for a uniform orderly pattern of resonance and organized cosmic systems through Space. -The first ether energy units were electronic and very small and speedy. As these speedy electronic units described curvilinear resonational paths through space, they induced, via a process of aggregation of the elemental units, formation of larger "particle capacity" units, the protons and neutrons, which are slower and sort of "sit" in the nucleus, while the electronics curve by on the outside of the atom. There is no vast empty space inside the atom as proposed in Quantum Mechanics, likewise no "nuclear spin." Again, resonances occur all via elemental etheric units which resonate instantaneously. -One needs to ask oneself how a world like we see could have been formed by discrete "particles" describing discrete orbits around atomic nuclei in neat lattice arrangements? How could it have arisen? -The difference between the proton and neutron could be one of size, and how a difference in unit size can affect their respective pattern of resonance within the ether. -In the case where a neutron star could form in the context of a chaotic flux after a star destructs, the only way like to like resonance of neutrons could occur would be via size differences. Electric resonance could not occur in such a chaotic flux.
    I'm not an expert, in this field Michael, but I do feel your post could be seen as an important theoretical departure from the mainstream.
    As an aside, I do believe a well-stacked table is a sign of worldly success and status. I intend to post, on this vital topic, after my return from having double-helpings!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    To my critics Strange and PhDemon: My Post of Sept 3 was intended to reply to "Latin..."s Post of July 13th and a few of his following. I clicked on "reply to this post" which I thought would result in a directed reply to that post, but evidently the Forum's procedure is to simply list the posts all in a non specific chronologic (according to date posted) order. -Thus admittedly my Sept. 5 Post does not fit into the chronological flow. I am still learning the Forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    To my critics Strange and PhDemon: My Post of Sept 3 was intended to reply to "Latin..."s Post of July 13th
    It doesn't really matter who you were replying to: it is still meaningless drivel full of made-up words and with no supporting theory or evidence. As such it doesn't belong on a science forum.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Trainee slug trainer
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1
    I joined the forum to explore avenue's that may give me more insight into my own theory. This seemed as good a place as any to park the theory whilst I try and expand it. The theory attempts to answer some of the biggest questions concerning our solar system. Please discuss.

    ICEMOON THEORY - The Fallen One.


    Moving swiftly through the cold dark of the deep solar system. Amongst devastating gravitational forces of Saturn and Jupiter. Alone, each one easily capable of flinging small planet's and massive asteroid's into the fiery young Sun's, atomic heart. Together, their combined gravitational forces are even more merciless and cruel. Snaring, crushing and shoving around all other solar objects before them.


    Here we find Icemoon. Icemoon, originally the same size and make up as that of Titan, Icemoon's sister planet. Titan, long since snared by the massive grasp that is Saturn's gravity. Icemoon's fate is entirely different, shocking and explosive. As Titan was held by Saturn's gravity. Icemoon was instead flung into a severe elliptical orbit of the early sun. A fast orbit, lasting a little more than Earth's orbit of the Sun. Icemoon's new orbit would bring it, directly, catastrophically, to the orbits of the inner solar system planets, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury. Conversely, as Icemoon orbited towards its apogee, far out in the depths of the solar system. It's outward orbit taking it directly through the main asteroid belt and on towards the massive gas giants. The instigators, those gigantic gas planets had conspired to create Icemoon's eventual, inevitable, terminal orbit.


    As Icemoon's orbit draws it nearer the Sun, increasing temperatures melt its frozen surface. Gradually turning ice to water as Icemoon closed on its perigee. Literally, Icemoon was transformed into aquamoon. A liquid ocean surrounding a dense rocky core. The surface of the ocean, refreezing anew, as the planet once more orbited away from the Sun's warmth. Icemoon's ocean would once again freeze over. The planet returning, once more, slowly, gradually, into its outwardly frozen appearance.


    Once out in the depths of the Suns solar system again. Out near its apogee. Amongst the asteroids and comets of the main asteroid belt. Icemoon would once again increase its mass, soaking up anything in its path. The sheer abundance of icy rocks and dirty snowballs, those within the main asteroid belt, guaranteed, any mass lost during Icemoon's graze of the Sun, as it passed its perigee, was easily replaced. The huge tail of water and ice, stretching out behind Icemoon as it approached its perigee with the Sun, would be replaced, indeed, greater mass would be added. Effectively increasing its mass and density every time Icemoon completed an orbit.


    The massive icy rocks and huge dirty snowballs that are present in the main asteroid belt, provide the driving force behind the creation of simple biology within Icemoon's, deep, saline, liquid oceans. As the icy rocks and dirty snowballs crash into Icemoon's oceans, remaining largely intact, the massive chunks of rock and ice, snow and dirt, sink. There they are crushed under the extreme pressure. Icemoons oceans are massive, they cover the whole planet. A planet, now approaching the size of Mars, now much larger in size and density than its sister planet, Titan. Every orbit of Icemoon's apogee, supplying more and more ice and snow. Any rock or heavy elements present would sink and become part of the planets core. The huge amounts of water, on the other hand, added to Icemoon's already burgeoning, liquid oceans. As these objects Icemoon swallowed, sank into its ocean depths. The objects literally implode under the pressure. As these implosions occur, energy, heat and bubbles are released. Occurring in a highly saline, liquid solution, under tremendous pressure. The liquid solution, with concentrations of amino acids, offers a fantastic opportunity for the creation of simple biology. Myriad implosions occur every time an object is hoovered up by Icemoon. This same chemical process occurs innumerable times with innumerably different variables. It has only been successful a handful of times, but it is enough.


    Speeding dangerously around the inner planets of the solar system. A place it was never created to enter. Happenstance and chance, conspired, turning this dead, icy husk into a watery, life creating planet. A planet, now with infinite possibilities.


    Icemoon is complete. It has vast amounts of liquid water. A solid, dense, rocky core. This, created from the rocky, dirty remains of comets and asteroids that have been collected during Icemoon's thousands of trips into the cold, still of the deep solar system. Icemoon harbor's many different form of extremophile. Different forms evolving from its predecessors and the harsh environment in which they lived, with more being created every time Icemoon approached its apogee.


    Icemoon's disturbed solar orbit takes it into the inner solar system, warming it as it closes on the early Sun. Manifesting a massive tail behind it as it closed on its perigee. As the surface was warmed, the oceans below would also warm, starting a planet wide melt. During this melt and the subsequent warming and increase in light available. The entire planet would bloom dramatically with extremophile life. The planet would effectively, change color as life took over. Sometimes turning the planet blood red, sometimes subtle shades of blue or green. Once passed its perigee. The Icemoon would, once again, track through the orbit of the inner planets. Once more moving away from the sun and its warmth. The planet gradually refreezes. Any organisms that remain alive, become more and more dependant on evolution. Survival of the most resilient. Until once again, Icemoon's short, quick orbit, takes it back to the warmth of the inner solar system and the chance for any surviving biology to re-bloom one more time.


    The Earth. Early in its life. Vast, heavy and extremely hot with an almost liquid, molten surface. The planets young, volatile surface, capable of boiling off any comet or asteroid impact that may deliver water. Any gaseous remains swiftly blown away by the young, energetic Sun's solar wind. The young Earth had no real magnetic field to protect any form of atmosphere for very long. Mars, the only planet within the inner solar system, in any position to sustain liquid water. Earth had no Moon or water, it remained a molten ball of metal and rock, not so dissimilar to present day Venus.


    Then, the fateful day. The moment that would change everything for two planet's was at hand. The dramatic end of Icemoon was moments away. Orbiting away from its perigee, Icemoon was starting on its cool down as it orbited away from the Sun. The majority of Icemoon's bloom was over and its color was once again turning white as its surface started to cool and refreeze. Any biology remaining was starting its cycle of deep space survival. Any nook or advantage that life could find to survive, it would greedily use to enable this survival. Surprisingly, that advantage would be found on Earths molten surface. Icemoon closed on the young Earth. As the planets closed on each other, a dramatic and deadly, explosive collision seemed inevitable. The unthinkable happened. Instead of colliding in a huge, spectacular, explosion of gases and molten metal and rock. The much greater gravity of the super dense Earth, with its molten metal core. Stripped the still liquid oceans from Icemoon's surface. The dense rocky core of Icemoon failed to impact Earths molten surface, instead, the huge amounts of liquid water mixing violently with Earth molten surface. Forced Icemoon's now naked core to slide and roll into a very low orbit. The inner rocky, dense core of Icemoon with its close orbit, stabilised Earth's rotation. The direction of impact supplying Earth axial tilt and controlled rotation. Kick starting the steady production of a massively strong, magnetic field. The same magnetic field protecting all life on Earth. to this day. The same life, extremophiles of many different kinds, delivered with Icemoon's waters. Life that found the heat, minerals, liquid oceans and protective magnetic field, now present, as the perfect environment to burst forth in a wellspring of life.



    I know right, long winded. Anyway. Thanks for your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    Maybe has promise as an intro to a sci-fi story...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    My pet theory? Use a two syllable name....it is easier to train them. as in .....BOB BY........TOM MY.....CHAR LIE.....CO LIN
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Atomic bomb model of the universe.

    Dark energy... Big rip...

    ENTIRE UNIVERSE EXPLODES VIA NUCLEAR FISSION!

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,319
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fallen One View Post
    ICEMOON THEORY
    In solar system development, they're called "planetissimals" or "protoplanets" and kinda innumerable as they differentiate out of one vast accretionary disc. What we have now is just a scant surviving residue of that initial action. So, Icemoon is already established theory - moreover we assume there were lots of them bopping around, not just your singular protagonist.

    What's interesting is your proposal to have genesis in/on these pre-planetary bodies. I've also blurted this, on the grounds that odds of getting "perfect" life-incubating conditions would be greatest during the accretion disc phase. I didn't imagine it occurring in one particular body though - more like a band of wet disc at the "Goldilocks" distance. Some of this infested material would add to our surviving planets, most would be lost to deep space or fall into the sun, some would be preserved as comets. My pet theory's less specific than yours but it's conclusively testable by sampling a few comets for frozen life.

    I see how the changing stew of Icemoon enjoys lots of chances at life. Surely we must assume life begins where it's most likely.

    Is there any way to prove/disprove your pet theory besides the "arrival" of life on Earth coinciding with water bombardment?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4
    I have a theory about time travel in which i believe that our minds have already have a sort of set goals or "things to do" in the manner of every action that we will make is already "programmed" into our brain by which a certain line is set that we follow throughout out lives and deja vu occurs when an event that has not yet happened is leaked.Now every person has a line and these lines move together in a river like motion or better yet imagine yourself as a molecule of water in river and the river is time.The thing is to break the flow of yourself or your molecule in the river and there is only way to do that, to break the set line in your brain which will result in a stagnation in time or in other words standing entirely still while the line continues to move and then returning to it when you are at a previou point of the line.Simply put before we do anything and i mean absolutely anything there is a brief moment of though no action i made without though, the point is to do an action without any brain activity or simply don't follow the line.The only way i see of doing this is to become a monk and spend you life to grasp complete control of your mind() ,to completely shut off your brain in every possible way which will result in death or to entirely deny your mind by which i mean make an action different of what your mind intended and not be conscious of it in any way.I know that there are lots of holes in it and that it sounds entirely out of a sci-fi novel but i simply wanted to share it because it sounds really good to me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,741
    Quote Originally Posted by EyesAndBerg View Post
    I have a theory about time travel in which i believe that our minds have already have a sort of set goals or "things to do" in the manner of every action that we will make is already "programmed" into our brain by which a certain line is set that we follow throughout out lives and deja vu occurs when an event that has not yet happened is leaked.Now every person has a line and these lines move together in a river like motion or better yet imagine yourself as a molecule of water in river and the river is time.The thing is to break the flow of yourself or your molecule in the river and there is only way to do that, to break the set line in your brain which will result in a stagnation in time or in other words standing entirely still while the line continues to move and then returning to it when you are at a previou point of the line.Simply put before we do anything and i mean absolutely anything there is a brief moment of though no action i made without though, the point is to do an action without any brain activity or simply don't follow the line.The only way i see of doing this is to become a monk and spend you life to grasp complete control of your mind() ,to completely shut off your brain in every possible way which will result in death or to entirely deny your mind by which i mean make an action different of what your mind intended and not be conscious of it in any way.I know that there are lots of holes in it and that it sounds entirely out of a sci-fi novel but i simply wanted to share it because it sounds really good to me
    Just to be picky...
    If we have a set of goals and we're already programmed then surely "breaking" that programming is only "possible" if we're pre-programmed to do so: in which case we aren't - at all - breaking the programme, just following what we think is a new course.
    I.e. you can't become a monk UNLESS your programming allows it (and by "allows it" I actually mean "was already set that way to make you do so).
    If we're programmed we're programmed.
    If we can "break that programming by "choice" then either we weren't programmed in the first place or "[the illusion of] breaking the programme" is part of the programme (and we're still following it).

    How could you tell one way or the other?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Ok here goes. A Pet Theory for "An Evolutionary Tale of 'Self' Explaining the Placebo Effect and the role of the brain and its constituent parts of a MultiCellular Organism"

    The Steps in the Thought Bubble
    1. Is a 'rudimentary' level of self awareness present in unicellular organisms and does this 'rudimentary level of self awareness' get progressively concentrated, enhanced and multiplied in an evolutionary context from unicellullar to colonial to multi-cellular organisms. A notion of 'self' in my opinion is essential for achieving a competitive edge in the game of survival.

    If a possible Yes....move on..... If not then stop, thought bubble now collapses into 'gibberish'.

    2. If an amoeba can sense out and move towards a food source and respond to light by moving away or even respond to an attack of some sort through a defensive reaction, could these rudimentary responses be the basic building blocks of a level of self awareness (eg. a sense of being seperate from the environmental context)? What happens when these amoeba bounce into one another? Is there a concept of self in this arrangement. Could there be some form of very primitive communication which is simply interpreted as a physical/chemical response. Can this at the most rudimentary level be considered a form of communication?

    If a possible Yes....move on..... If not then stop, thought bubble now collapses into 'you take too many drugs'.

    3. As part of a colonial organism, the role of each individual can afford to specialise to a degree where the notion of an individual becomes less important than the notion of a colony for survival purposes. Some of the organisms become a complicated defense system, others become essential for motile functions of the organism, others take on more management functions of the entire colony and develop into ganglion or nerve nets. Assuming this lifeform is simply more successful in its environment than other non-colonial forms, then there is no need to consider an 'intent' of an individual to live in a colony. It is rather a fortunate turn of events. Living together in this colonial style simply out-competes in its niche and collectively the cellular complex thrives. Now what appears to happen is that the previous 'rudimentary' generic functions of the individual amoeba are now concentrated and distilled into more specialised cells that can do these functions better. What appears to happen is that the sense of self held by an individual colonist gets amplified by those specialised cells that manage the colony. The notion of 'self' therefore becomes the colony itself. I am not certain however that any individual sense of 'rudimentary self' is lost by participating cells but that really is not important at this very rudimentary level. (EDIT: Maybe a rudimentary level of self is a necessary pre-requisite to be in a position for a cell to receive and send information and act on it.) Furthermore, while 'self awareness' is amplified to create the impression of self being the entire colonial organism as opposed to its constituent parts, in the same way communication systems as also amplified by specialised cells of the colonial organism so that primitive forms of communication are now more obvious between collective organisms. This form of communication is still rudimentary and not regarded by contemporary science to represent 'actual deliberate methods of communication'. This unfolds later through progressive evolution, specialisation and complexity.

    Ok so in this loose context of a colonial organism this is where a form of dependence develops between individual cells of the colony. As some cells in the colony do things better than others, atrophy sets in with some generic functions of individual cells that do things less efficiently however for a healthy colony, this 'favourable' atrophy must be selected over generations by the environment. Those cells that take over the management functions of the colony in a primitive sense communicate with other specialised cells, and those other specialised cellls do what they are instructed without question. There is no design to this dependence once again, it is simply the most efficient form of surving in the ecological niche this organism inhabits.

    Now this is where the idea of Placebo comes in. The colonial managers (specialised cells and primitive ganglion etc.) become vested with the responsibility of ensuring the colony survives. The decisions of the manager are unswervingly followed by its consituent parts not by intent but simply due to design dependency.

    If you are still with me in a possible Yes....then we are getting somewhere with this thought bubble..... If not then stop, thought bubble now collapses into 'hand waving drug induced nausea'.

    4. Enter the multicellular organism. Cellullar specialisation has advanced to such a degree that 'rudimentary' ideas or self awareness, communication, cellular dependence are now fully fledged and 'obvious' being reflected by the entire organism as an individual entity, not as its parts. Unforunately however we still seem to have problems identifying the cause of 'the Placebo Effect'. We can observe it's effect and acknowledge that the brain has the ability to 'trick' the body but can't really put our fingers on the underlying cause. The thought bubble above has however suggested that it is simply an evolutionary trait that has emerged from cellular dependence in a multi-cellular form. The brain is the manager of this entire assemblage and sends/ receives two way communication with its constituent parts. It's constituents are the measuring instruments that determine the state of health of the organism in its context and they relay this communication to the brain. The brain assesses and analyses this information and then sends communications to the constituents to respond in a manner that further re-inforces the health of the organism. It still is all about survival. These instructions are followed blindly followed by its component parts.

    Now regarding the Placebo effect. If the brain believes, it can make its constituent parts do what it tells them. Convince the brain through blind faith, create an environment of stress for the organism etc. and prepare for a holistic response of the multi-cellular organism.

    So in a sense in some way shape or form I am suggesting you are what you think. However to think something, to actually believe in something is a wrestle in itself which I can never master myself. Perhaps this is why some 'miracles' in unexplained cures to ailments tends to reside in those with such a strong faith and conviction in a belief system that this power of conviction is transferred from the brain to the entire body. Maybe it does not pay to be a sceptic in these matters. Provided the ailment isn't too far gone, or when conventional medicines and treatments fail to address the ailment, maybe there is a degree of scope for the brain to recover the health of the organism provided there is the conviction of belief.

    This thought bubble is not in any sense shape or form having a crack at conventional medicine. It is simply trying to suggest that there may be a less woo and more rigorous scientific opening for other forms of alternate practices that might focus on the power of the brain to heal as opposed to simply shutting out this possibility.

    PS. Anyone for 'herbal tea'? :-))

    :-))
    Last edited by Implicate Order; January 1st, 2014 at 04:18 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    A Pet Theory for "An Evolutionary Tale of 'Self' Explaining the Placebo Effect and the role of the brain and its constituent parts of a MultiCellular Organism"
    Nicely presented!

    So, the "constituent" parts of an organism (that are commanded) normally operate a bit sub-optimally, but with placebo (and maybe some other unusual circumstances?) they are made to operate to their maximum potential? Then our conventional measure of "perfect health" is really measuring "normal sub-optimal state".
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    was he talking pre-determined?.....I really hope not...I find that UTTER NONSENSE
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    So, the "constituent" parts of an organism (that are commanded) normally operate a bit sub-optimally, but with placebo (and maybe some other unusual circumstances?) they are made to operate to their maximum potential? Then our conventional measure of "perfect health" is really measuring "normal sub-optimal state".
    Yes as you suggest.

    I am thinking that the brain, as the manager and regulator of the colony, it's role in the complex arrangement is one of holistic health. A bit like the computer in a modern car. It's components have a specific function but the computer ensures that all parts are working most efficiently. There is a degree of latitude given to the health of its componentry but the brain's aim is to ensure the organism is striving for peak performance. The brain in this context is monitoring the optimal health and success of the organism to ensure survival to ultimate reproduction. Everything from then on is an inexorable state of decline and eventual system malfunction.

    Where problems arise in the state of the system is when rogue cells or its constituent organs etc. get out of kilter with this holistic regulation perhaps attributed to some systemic malfunction attributed to either the working parts or the brain itself. In certain normal healthy individuals, the organism is sufficiently flexible and robust for the brain (working normally) to detect this malfunction and direct its efforts towards making its constituent parts respond to this 'malady' to bring it back to optimal working order. The brain directs the constituent parts to achieve an outcome for the benefit of the entire organism not through some 'woo' mind body herbally gerbally relationship but through a simple state of evolutionary co-dependence.

    In this regard, the brain in this pet theory is responsible for the health and well-being of the organism. Given this basis, if you can coerce the brain into 'thinking' a particular thing, the brain's response will be to act on this information by communicating necessary responses to the rest of the body. For example in some circumstances the 'belief' of imminent death may assist in shutting down the bodies organs (eg. Pointing the bone or voodoo deaths). In times of severe stress, the brain may perceive (or be tricked into believing that the threat is real to the organism) resulting in a defence reaction that may actually be deleterious to the organism. The mind-body relationship may also be a possible avenue to restore a state of health to an organism in situations where local rogue conditions are defeated through the bodies defense systems activated through simply an altered state of mind.

    Don't know. But just have a hunch that's all and hence a good place for this hunch is in this pet theory thread. :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,319
    I think it merits a thread in Health & Medicine. See you there.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I think it merits a thread in Health & Medicine. See you there.
    As if. I would get crucified. But thanks anyway :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    My pet theory is that men have very selective hearing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My pet theory is that men have very selective hearing.
    Did somebody say something? *looks briefly around* :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My pet theory is that men have very selective hearing.
    Did somebody say something? *looks briefly around* :-))
    Thank you for proving my theory! *Laughing*....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I think it merits a thread in Health & Medicine. See you there.
    As if. I would get crucified. But thanks anyway :-))

    Have you considered creating a separate thread about your pet theory?

    You can opt to put it in the Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas sub-forum and if it has any merit,
    you can send a request to a Staff member who can move your thread to the Health & Medicine section.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Have you considered creating a separate thread about your pet theory? You can opt to put it in the Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas sub-forum and if it has any merit,
    you can send a request to a Staff member who can move your thread to the Health & Medicine section.
    Ok.When I have some spare time I will re-frame it a bit more rigorously and less provocatively in the Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas sub forum and see if there is any life in the thought bubble. :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EyesAndBerg View Post
    I have a theory about time travel in which i believe that our minds have already have a sort of set goals or "things to do" in the manner of every action that we will make is already "programmed" into our brain by which a certain line is set that we follow throughout out lives and deja vu occurs when an event that has not yet happened is leaked.Now every person has a line and these lines move together in a river like motion or better yet imagine yourself as a molecule of water in river and the river is time.The thing is to break the flow of yourself or your molecule in the river and there is only way to do that, to break the set line in your brain which will result in a stagnation in time or in other words standing entirely still while the line continues to move and then returning to it when you are at a previou point of the line.Simply put before we do anything and i mean absolutely anything there is a brief moment of though no action i made without though, the point is to do an action without any brain activity or simply don't follow the line.The only way i see of doing this is to become a monk and spend you life to grasp complete control of your mind() ,to completely shut off your brain in every possible way which will result in death or to entirely deny your mind by which i mean make an action different of what your mind intended and not be conscious of it in any way.I know that there are lots of holes in it and that it sounds entirely out of a sci-fi novel but i simply wanted to share it because it sounds really good to me
    Just to be picky...
    If we have a set of goals and we're already programmed then surely "breaking" that programming is only "possible" if we're pre-programmed to do so: in which case we aren't - at all - breaking the programme, just following what we think is a new course.
    I.e. you can't become a monk UNLESS your programming allows it (and by "allows it" I actually mean "was already set that way to make you do so).
    If we're programmed we're programmed.
    If we can "break that programming by "choice" then either we weren't programmed in the first place or "[the illusion of] breaking the programme" is part of the programme (and we're still following it).

    How could you tell one way or the other?
    Exactly, it's in every way impossible because you are stuck in a paradox.That paradox is that if you want to get out of that programming simply by trying to you follow it.So it's is entirely impossible.Everything is already set in stone even you reading this has already been decided as a part of you "line" the thing is to somehow break out and i have no idea how.
    Thanks for the interest in my theory by the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1
    My pet theory :Þ

    Since gravity affects time, would time not be at its maximum speed before the big bang and ones it reaches that speed it would cause the big bang (so it would seemingly instantly cause the big bang).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    First I will post the essence my pet theory, and then I will elucidate some of it:

    "Genetic modification of certain plants in order to make them fluorescent will result into a decrease of electricity usage."


    There are three things that I want to stress:
    1. The plants must be tolerant of different types of soil and environment and must be non-edible.
    2. The fluorescent protein must be natural (i.e. without artificial modifications) and must be non-toxic.
    3. The fluorescent protein may not interfere with the basic metabolism of the plant, must be produced consecutively and must be broken down at a constant rate in order to avoid cell death by overproduction.
    The purpose of this idea is that a significant number of fluorescent plants might reduce the electricity bills because people would use less artificial lighting in their house and garden. Furthermore, it would produce oxygen, resulting into a healthier environment.

    Yet, this is just a pet theory due to the fact that, even if this idea was viable, fluorescent plants cannot compete with the benefits of modern lighting.

    A few months ago, I posted this pet theory about plants being able to emit visible light as a means of lighting the house without using electricity.

    It turns out that the company Bioglow has already done research to produce these plants and they succeeded!
    The researchers engineered the Nicotiana alata plant and named it "Starlight AvatarTM".


    Source:
    We may one day be reading by the light of a houseplant | I Fucking Love Science
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Wouldn't it be great if we could have rugs and carpets made of bio-luminescent moss?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    A few months ago, I posted this pet theory about plants being able to emit visible light as a means of lighting the house without using electricity.

    It turns out that the company Bioglow has already done research to produce these plants and they succeeded!
    The researchers engineered the Nicotiana alata plant and named it "Starlight AvatarTM".

    Cool!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Wouldn't it be great if we could have rugs and carpets made of bio-luminescent moss?

    The idea of bio-luminescent moss should be doable (and moss as a carpet sounds very nice).

    Bioglow is founded by i.a. Alexander Krichevsky, who (with other researchers) reported the construction of the first, artificial bioluminescent plants.
    In the Discussion section of the study (Krichevsky, A. et al., 2010), he states:
    The basic biochemical machinery required (...) for light emission is very similar across all plant kingdom, making our approach applicable to essentially any plant species.
    If you could engineer moss and algae to emit visible light (without the usage of UV or chemicals), it could have applications for space travel.
    Daecon likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Wouldn't it be great if we could have rugs and carpets made of bio-luminescent moss?
    I and my husband and children are allergic to carets....we are hardwood floors and tile.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I and my husband and children are allergic to carets...
    ^^^^^^^
    That's you coming out in hives for the rest of the day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,741
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I and my husband and children are allergic to carets.
    I'm allergic to circumflexes - a closely related disease.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by phdemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    i and my husband and children are allergic to carets...
    ^^^^^^^
    that's you coming out in hives for the rest of the day

    whack!!! Brat!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I and my husband and children are allergic to carets.
    I'm allergic to circumflexes - a closely related disease.
    Oh shuddup! *Laughing* I meant CARPETS!!! Spousy, the children and I are allergic to Carpets!!

    If I am coming out of a hive Mr. PHDEMON, YOU WILL get stung!! *L*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    I think I have a few pet theories, but I can't think of any, just now. I'd like to mention one of Freud's, though: penis envy. What the heck was he thinking ? I have never met
    anyone who didn't think this idea was laughable, especially women. How could the person who mapped the human mind so well have been so wrong about this idea ? Woody Allen claimed to be the only male afflicted with this neurosis. Any woman I ever asked thought the notion ridiculous. So do I. I suspect Freud would like to take that one back.
    Nobody's right all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Oh I often have that particular type of envy. But then, I'm a size queen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Oh I often have that particular type of envy. But then, I'm a size queen.
    I'm not sure you do. Not in the way Freud meant, if I understand things. Which may or may not be true. But, I see how this may be interpreted several ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    When people say they're allergic to dogs, I'd say about 85 to 95% of the time they mean they either don't like, or are afraid of dogs. I can't really understand how anyone can not love dogs. Humans have such a close relationship with them. I know many prefer cats, among many other preferences. Horses are majestic and beautiful, but I was seldom around any and horses seem to sense that in people. I spook them, a little. Oh, and people, once in a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    How could the person who mapped the human mind so well have been so wrong about this idea ? Woody Allen claimed to be the only male afflicted with this neurosis. Any woman I ever asked thought the notion ridiculous. So do I. I suspect Freud would like to take that one back.
    Oh come on. Freud was right that childhood experiences are important to our development and that sexual development begins long before puberty.

    But he was completely inside out and upside down, entirely confused and totally imaginary, about what childhood experiences were important and why they might be.

    The oral, anal, phallic, latent, genital sequence of psychosexual development is nonsense, and the idea of "fixation" in a stage is absurd.
    The id, ego, superego idea is simply made up thinking out loud rubbish.
    The Elektra and Oedipus complexes don't exist.
    His interpretation of dreams stuff was bog standard, superstitious, uptight-Victorian-sex-obsessed malarkey.
    Psychotherapy is not a universal panacea and is positively harmful to many people.

    He gave the science of psychology something to work with. And little more than that.
    umbradiago likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    As I said. I have one pet. His name is husband, and also affectionately known as "Spousy".

    He is the only pet theory I have.

    Except why many men have two left feet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    [QUOTE=Numsgil;157271]I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

    Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. [/QUOT ]

    Note; " that that was from post #3 in 2009... ( I'm a slow reader..)"

    Incidentally I sort of had a near as to this idea while still a school age student.. Might it have been a cosmic message we both got..and the answer is no.. but I will share with you all, the daft idea that was born of this... Stating clearly that I have been and am still a atheist. I have no interest in spirituality or discussions of 'after-life's..' If you are not alive... you are dead.. My personal silly theory is; ( was ) That planet earth has had alien input. The christian bible when it was composed was not the document we see today. Thrown away, misinterpreted, and added to, god only knows what.. and that some of it was intended as a guide for humanity. Some stories of people and events. Some real, some not. but all intentions were to teach and guide humanity.. and it sort of worked. I am not ever suggesting a genetic or physical link with aliens.. no. just a guiding hand.. and that I have rejected the idea as unsupported.. seems fair enough.. ~ It's been fun reading the whole thread.. and I noted that warning of post #2..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    [QUOTE=astromark;540814]
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil View Post
    I half believe that humans are in fact aliens from another planet transplanted to Earth. I explain the fossil record as other humanoid species we out competed.

    Incedentally I had this idea before I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. [/QUOT ]

    Note; " that that was from post #3 in 2009... ( I'm a slow reader..)"

    Incidentally I sort of had a near as to this idea while still a school age student.. Might it have been a cosmic message we both got..and the answer is no.. but I will share with you all, the daft idea that was born of this... Stating clearly that I have been and am still a atheist. I have no interest in spirituality or discussions of 'after-life's..' If you are not alive... you are dead.. My personal silly theory is; ( was ) That planet earth has had alien input. The christian bible when it was composed was not the document we see today. Thrown away, misinterpreted, and added to, god only knows what.. and that some of it was intended as a guide for humanity. Some stories of people and events. Some real, some not. but all intentions were to teach and guide humanity.. and it sort of worked. I am not ever suggesting a genetic or physical link with aliens.. no. just a guiding hand.. and that I have rejected the idea as unsupported.. seems fair enough.. ~ It's been fun reading the whole thread.. and I noted that warning of post #2..
    Interesting concept
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    His interpretation of dreams stuff was bog standard, superstitious, uptight-Victorian-sex-obsessed malarkey.
    Psychotherapy is not a universal panacea and is positively harmful to many people.
    So I was right. There was an "I hate Sigmund Freud" thread.

    It's a good thing there's a "like" function so uniformed people can pat each other on the back and alienate me for an innocuous thread I started way back. Thanks, "thescienceforum.com"
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; March 18th, 2014 at 07:44 AM.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    How could the person who mapped the human mind so well have been so wrong about this idea ? Woody Allen claimed to be the only male afflicted with this neurosis. Any woman I ever asked thought the notion ridiculous. So do I. I suspect Freud would like to take that one back.
    Oh come on. Freud was right that childhood experiences are important to our development and that sexual development begins long before puberty.

    But he was completely inside out and upside down, entirely confused and totally imaginary, about what childhood experiences were important and why they might be.

    The oral, anal, phallic, latent, genital sequence of psychosexual development is nonsense, and the idea of "fixation" in a stage is absurd.
    The id, ego, superego idea is simply made up thinking out loud rubbish.
    The Elektra and Oedipus complexes don't exist.
    His interpretation of dreams stuff was bog standard, superstitious, uptight-Victorian-sex-obsessed malarkey.
    Psychotherapy is not a universal panacea and is positively harmful to many people.

    He gave the science of psychology something to work with. And little more than that.
    Freud gave Psychotherapy a foundation; one which remains largely intact. He was certainly wrong about much. But he seems to have had much of it right. Dreams often have meaning (I have gained insights by interpreting mine and other's). The Oedipus complex seems evident in many father/son relationships. Id, ego, superego are terms and ideas still in popular use. His views about sex were undoubtedly formed by
    the nature of Victorian society and by the, mostly, female Viennese patients of his practice. His views on the wonders of cocaine are certainly archaic.
    Last edited by umbradiago; March 19th, 2014 at 12:30 PM. Reason: lost sentence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The Oedipus complex seems evident in many father/son relationships
    That sons want to sexually "possess" their mothers?

    It's much more about men not letting go of their superior, one-and-only senior male status in a household/family as their sons mature. One bit of good advice I read from a modern writer about raising sons was that, at some stage, a son must "defeat" his father at soemthing. And it must be a real win, not an indulgent dad letting his boy have a good day.

    (Though I'm not so sure about this. I recall a meeting at our little kids' childcare centre where a counsellor was advising parents on various things and the subject of board games and physical games came up. She said there's a real problem with fathers of sons. Men who would normally do the encouraging adult thing when playing a game with a 3 year old daughter and happily let her "win" occasionally, but they'd never let their 3 year old boys have any such pre-schooler leeway. My feeling is that boys raised by competent, relaxed fathers who let little kids have a bit of latitude in such activities when they're small will be more supportive and role-modelling mentors for their sons as they mature rather than competing with them for family supremacy. Fathers are just as capable as mothers of being authoritative rather than authoritarian.)
    babe and umbradiago like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    His views on the wonders of cocaine are certainly archaic.
    Not so archaic when you find out how much cocaine he was using himself. Vienna was flooded with the stuff in Freud's time.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    No, I've never accepted that sons want to 'sexually' possess their mothers. You are quite correct; that part is rubbish. But there IS a struggle for mother's attention, as well as for father's respect,
    I believe. The elder son, especially, must establish his manhood by challenging his father. Mine surely did, but I'm not an authoritarian father; I have always had a healthy, I feel, disrespect for authority which both of my sons exhibit. When my sons were in their early teens, I would 'allow' them to beat me at things, (basketball, say) but before very long I had no need; they just started beating me on the level. I loved it and do, still. Nowadays, they like to tease me about senility and such. I laugh harder than they. Some fathers remain too proud of their 'status' for too long. I don't mean that I neglected to instill the importance of civility in them; just that authority should be held accountable, that fences need to be tested, at times.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The Oedipus complex seems evident in many father/son relationships
    That sons want to sexually "possess" their mothers?

    It's much more about men not letting go of their superior, one-and-only senior male status in a household/family as their sons mature. One bit of good advice I read from a modern writer about raising sons was that, at some stage, a son must "defeat" his father at soemthing. And it must be a real win, not an indulgent dad letting his boy have a good day.

    (Though I'm not so sure about this. I recall a meeting at our little kids' childcare centre where a counsellor was advising parents on various things and the subject of board games and physical games came up. She said there's a real problem with fathers of sons. Men who would normally do the encouraging adult thing when playing a game with a 3 year old daughter and happily let her "win" occasionally, but they'd never let their 3 year old boys have any such pre-schooler leeway. My feeling is that boys raised by competent, relaxed fathers who let little kids have a bit of latitude in such activities when they're small will be more supportive and role-modelling mentors for their sons as they mature rather than competing with them for family supremacy. Fathers are just as capable as mothers of being authoritative rather than authoritarian.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Freshman Anathema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    31
    My completely uneducated pet theory: Spiral galaxies have central black holes, elliptical galaxies do not.

    This is based on the assumption that it is the gravitational pull of the black hole, combined with the motion of the galaxy itself through the universe, that creates the spin of the spiral galaxy. For all I know, however, this has already been shown to be true, or untrue
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Anathema View Post
    My completely uneducated pet theory: Spiral galaxies have central black holes, elliptical galaxies do not.

    This is based on the assumption that it is the gravitational pull of the black hole, combined with the motion of the galaxy itself through the universe, that creates the spin of the spiral galaxy. For all I know, however, this has already been shown to be true, or untrue
    The shape of a galaxy has nothing to do with how it is moving relative to anything else, except when in close proximity to another galaxy.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    It's a good thing there's a "like" function so uniformed people can pat each other on the back and alienate me for an innocuous thread I started way back. Thanks, "thescienceforum.com"
    Do you always bitch when you learn something new? Not critiquing the technique - it it works for you, fine. Just curious. I tend to thank them myself. But if you want to set yourself apart don't blame people who like accuracy for alienating you.

    The above post is based on the presumption that your post was serious. If it was tongue in cheek then ignore mine completely. (Probably best to do that either way.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Freshman Anathema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anathema View Post
    My completely uneducated pet theory: Spiral galaxies have central black holes, elliptical galaxies do not.

    This is based on the assumption that it is the gravitational pull of the black hole, combined with the motion of the galaxy itself through the universe, that creates the spin of the spiral galaxy. For all I know, however, this has already been shown to be true, or untrue
    The shape of a galaxy has nothing to do with how it is moving relative to anything else, except when in close proximity to another galaxy.
    Okay. I am sure you're right. But just for giggles, I'll supply my reasoning (if you can call it that).

    Let's assume you've got a lump of stuff out in space and it's sitting still relative to everything else in the universe. If you plop a black hole in the center of it, then it's going to draw everything around it directly in toward the center... the direction of motion would be perfectly perpendicular to the surface of a sphere centered on the black hole.

    But if that lump of stuff were moving relative to the other things in the universe, and you plop a black hole into the center... then the force won't be perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the sphere - it would be slightly off because that stuff is already in motion. The black hole causes it to accelerate in toward the center, but it's also moving linearly (or is it accelerating? and is it linear or curvilinear?) in space. So the resultant total motion is necessarily slightly off from perpendicular. In aggregate, this should produce a spiral effect as the globs of stuff accelerate toward the black hole.

    So my assumption then is that in galaxies that do NOT present a spiral pattern, there is not a central mass of sufficient density to gravitationally cause that effect.

    Where I fall down is that I can't tell if this only works when there's a medium that the globs are moving through. Would it still occur in a vacuum? I think it *might* because I think it's the result of momentum and acceleration, not friction. But I also don't know enough to speak intelligently (or even not-dumbly) about how much of the various forces etc. cancel each other out in the humongous vastness of space...

    So like I said. This was my reasoning, and it's completely uneducated and likely to be wrong. But I'd enjoy something more concrete than simply being told I'm wrong ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Anathema View Post
    But if that lump of stuff were moving relative to the other things in the universe, and you plop a black hole into the center... then the force won't be perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the sphere - it would be slightly off because that stuff is already in motion.
    But the force (gravity) would still be perpendicular.

    The black hole causes it to accelerate in toward the center, but it's also moving linearly (or is it accelerating? and is it linear or curvilinear?) in space. So the resultant total motion is necessarily slightly off from perpendicular. In aggregate, this should produce a spiral effect as the globs of stuff accelerate toward the black hole.
    Or just an orbit...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ My attempt at expanding your understanding leads me to consider that the black hole is of the galactic mass it is part of.. That rotational velocities dictate spin, or orbital velocities. Some galactic cores may contain multiple Black Holes.. and we know of many that are no place near to the Galactic core of the Galaxy they are in. I might suggest the history of galactic encounters dictates a galaxies shape. The angle and mass effect of each encounter will determine a shape observed. That it is mostly complicated and on going.. fair..
    Anathema likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    chuckle....

    Men from Mars

    Women make up the rest of the galaxies.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Freshman Anathema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anathema View Post
    But if that lump of stuff were moving relative to the other things in the universe, and you plop a black hole into the center... then the force won't be perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the sphere - it would be slightly off because that stuff is already in motion.
    But the force (gravity) would still be perpendicular.

    The black hole causes it to accelerate in toward the center, but it's also moving linearly (or is it accelerating? and is it linear or curvilinear?) in space. So the resultant total motion is necessarily slightly off from perpendicular. In aggregate, this should produce a spiral effect as the globs of stuff accelerate toward the black hole.
    Or just an orbit...
    Ha ha ha... yes. I see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Freshman Anathema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ My attempt at expanding your understanding leads me to consider that the black hole is of the galactic mass it is part of.. That rotational velocities dictate spin, or orbital velocities. Some galactic cores may contain multiple Black Holes.. and we know of many that are no place near to the Galactic core of the Galaxy they are in. I might suggest the history of galactic encounters dictates a galaxies shape. The angle and mass effect of each encounter will determine a shape observed. That it is mostly complicated and on going.. fair..
    Blob-of-cosmic-goo A bumps against blob-of-cosmic-goo B and at least one, if not both, wobbles off with a net spin as it journeys out into the cosmos? Billiard balls writ very, very large... and that makes more sense and is less complicated, than my pet theory.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Freshman Anathema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    chuckle....

    Men from Mars

    Women make up the rest of the galaxies.....
    I don't understand your implication...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    It's a good thing there's a "like" function so uniformed people can pat each other on the back and alienate me for an innocuous thread I started way back. Thanks, "thescienceforum.com"
    Do you always bitch when you learn something new? Not critiquing the technique - it it works for you, fine. Just curious. I tend to thank them myself. But if you want to set yourself apart don't blame people who like accuracy for alienating you.

    The above post is based on the presumption that your post was serious. If it was tongue in cheek then ignore mine completely. (Probably best to do that either way.)
    Here's a reply anyway. It was not tongue in cheek.

    I did learn that I could go to a different forum, ask the same question and, get a relevant, scientific answer right away. Here, all I got was ridicule from members, with no attempt at an answer. (Maybe they couldn't.) Not what I'm used too, and not what I was expecting. It was a crash course in attitudes on this forum cause it was my first thread. In which believe I taught other members things, If they cared to know.

    The only other thread I started was about the circumference of a circle with a Planck length diameter. I asked because, in string theory the strings are around the Planck length, and they can form closed loops. Plus, if you look close enough they can be like a hose and not a one dimensional string. So, playing around with the Planck length with String Theory messes with my head. xyzt, answered immediately and I said thank you.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ To be twixt and turned by the time of it all as in the minds of men does the short period of our lives become a issue while the women's overview is of fools and questions of the longer view.. In the minds of men does a question be asked at all ? With thanks, I give ye.. J. R. R. Tolkien.. 1937. Let the drinking begin. and the glass did not break but was filled with joy and question.. ~

    When Tolkien was asked of his writings, a smile of and a comment made.. " I write of the wonder of the the whole of everything."
    That so long ago did such things set minds at a 'question'. That from China's Library of English did I pluck this in 1968. It's funny what I remember it now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, I guess neither moderator can bring it.


    Thank you "Thescienceforums.com"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Well, I guess neither moderator can bring it.


    Thank you "Thescienceforums.com"
    Who can match you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Not so much wacky, as it is science fictional.

    Gravity and light relate to one another. Gravity can even bend light.

    So I was thinking, what if light was ATTRACTED to gravity or vice a versa?

    Who knows if this is wrong or right. Kind of hard to even test. But light is absorbed by all objects that have mass, reflected too.

    If you had anti-gravity, it would be the oppossite of that, if it were a material. Seems logical anyway.

    Anti-gravity then, going by this logic, means anti-light, meaning no light can be absorbed or reflected by the material, so it's completely black and dark. It also means no GRAVITY, whatsoever.

    I have heard that gravity and acceleration are the essentially the same thing. That said, an anti-gravity material following this logic would be black dark, and not accelerate any more. It would stay still, while the universe passed it by. If it was already accelerating, you could not slow it or accelerate it to a higher speed.

    It would block any gravitational forces, and even if you tried to emit some gravitational force on it by firing a rocket it wouldn't move at all. It would be unmoveable.

    Maybe Thor's hammer has that ability, albeit with an on and off switch? And minus the darkness that should happen with antigravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Not so much wacky, as it is science fictional.

    Gravity and light relate to one another. Gravity can even bend light.

    So I was thinking, what if light was ATTRACTED to gravity or vice a versa?

    Who knows if this is wrong or right. Kind of hard to even test. But light is absorbed by all objects that have mass, reflected too.

    If you had anti-gravity, it would be the oppossite of that, if it were a material. Seems logical anyway.

    Anti-gravity then, going by this logic, means anti-light, meaning no light can be absorbed or reflected by the material, so it's completely black and dark. It also means no GRAVITY, whatsoever.

    I have heard that gravity and acceleration are the essentially the same thing. That said, an anti-gravity material following this logic would be black dark, and not accelerate any more. It would stay still, while the universe passed it by. If it was already accelerating, you could not slow it or accelerate it to a higher speed.

    It would block any gravitational forces, and even if you tried to emit some gravitational force on it by firing a rocket it wouldn't move at all. It would be unmoveable.

    Maybe Thor's hammer has that ability, albeit with an on and off switch? And minus the darkness that should happen with antigravity?
    Light is more closely related to the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, we can't really connect any of those to Gravity until someone comes up with a workable "Theory of Everything".

    Gravity influences spacetime, and light travels through spacetime, they're not really any more connected than that. It's like saying the Moon influences fish because of tides.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    Light (electromagnetic radiation) is much more closely related to electromagnetism than nuclear forces (or gravity).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Oh yeah, of course it is. That's totally what I meant when I said "Light". EM radiation. Honest.

    *hides in a corner*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Light (electromagnetic radiation) is much more closely related to electromagnetism than nuclear forces (or gravity).
    Thanks for educating me. *S*....I didn't know this!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    People in the 1920's used to walk faster. Alternative theory: motion picture camera's were set to run too fast.
    Also, hats; people used to wear them much more often then, than now.
    Hats, again; stove-pipe hats made people look taller, but silly.
    The coolest hats were the tri-cornered ones of the 18th century.
    Fashion is a meaningless enterprise. Here's my fashion statement: I don't care a rat's ass about fashion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    People in the 1920's used to walk faster. Alternative theory: motion picture camera's were set to run too fast.
    Also, hats; people used to wear them much more often then, than now.
    Hats, again; stove-pipe hats made people look taller, but silly.
    The coolest hats were the tri-cornered ones of the 18th century.
    Fashion is a meaningless enterprise. Here's my fashion statement: I don't care a rat's ass about fashion.
    Chuckle!!

    I still walk very fast....at 5'3, I am vertically challenged as most people I spend time with are 5'9 to 6'5.
    I wear them all the time......playing golf, at the beach, in my convertible when the top is don.
    Ya think?
    I couldn't pull that off....that hat would wear me.
    I love fashion and follow my own....sometimes to my daughters dismay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    people from mountainous regions are slightly shorter-legged than those whose ancestors come from the steppes or plains.
    these traits are selected for by Darwin's theory. I notice other traits among the people of the world that geography helps shape.

    My thought is that short-leggedness makes climbing easier and less calorie consumptive.
    I know others notice that American plains Indians are long legged, often. Japanese are among the shortest people in the world and Italians, likewise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    people from mountainous regions are slightly shorter-legged than those whose ancestors come from the steppes or plains.
    these traits are selected for by Darwin's theory. I notice other traits among the people of the world that geography helps shape.

    My thought is that short-leggedness makes climbing easier and less calorie consumptive.
    I know others notice that American plains Indians are long legged, often. Japanese are among the shortest people in the world and Italians, likewise.
    OK BUSTER than explain why I am 5'3 and have a 29 inch inseam? San Francisco? *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    You're in theatre. Everybody in theatre has long legs. I used to know a girl who became a Radio City Rocket, Arlene Columbo It would only apply to many generations to cause adaptations. The Eskimo have adapted to their climate, clearly.
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    people from mountainous regions are slightly shorter-legged than those whose ancestors come from the steppes or plains.
    these traits are selected for by Darwin's theory. I notice other traits among the people of the world that geography helps shape.

    My thought is that short-leggedness makes climbing easier and less calorie consumptive.
    I know others notice that American plains Indians are long legged, often. Japanese are among the shortest people in the world and Italians, likewise.
    OK BUSTER than explain why I am 5'3 and have a 29 inch inseam? San Francisco? *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Been a while since I've measured a girls inseam, but I'm still willing. Is 29 long ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    A few days ago, I constructed this pet theory:

    "Each individual on the Science Forum (with more than M posts and more than n words per post) possesses an unique linguistic fingerprint (ULF),
    which allows others to identify a member on the Science Forum via a linguistic analysis of all their posts."


    Suppose we have a member X, who has (M = 50) posts, each posts containing at least (n = 10) words. By analyzing the sentence structure, readability and relative usage of specific infinitives, adjectives, adverbs and nouns, one can estimate the chance that a piece of text is written by member X.

    If this technique is viable (which I doubt), it could be used to detect sock puppet members a lot faster.
    However, it is not demonstrated that each member (on the SF) has an ULF, let alone is it shown that such a concept can be used to gauge the identity of a SF member.
    Daecon likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Probably true. Some investigation has been done showing that things like word count, word pair counts and word choices (among other techniques) can be used to distinguish authors: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Research/M...rid-csna05.pdf. I'm not sure any of these techniques are reliable enough on their own to automatically deal with sock puppets.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Probably true. Some investigation has been done showing that things like word count, word pair counts and word choices (among other techniques) can be used to distinguish authors: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Research/M...rid-csna05.pdf. I'm not sure any of these techniques are reliable enough on their own to automatically deal with sock puppets.

    Although I appreciate the fact that you provided a paper, I am afraid that my knowledge of statistics is inadequate to understand its content.
    Nevertheless, it is fascinating to know that my pet theory is more than just 'hot air' (which implies that I am unable to formulate good pet theories, as my previous one was also realized, cf. post #229).

    Sock puppet members are easily spotted by the Staff anyway, so implementing an ULF-analyser (if possible) is not necessary.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    You're in theatre. Everybody in theatre has long legs. I used to know a girl who became a Radio City Rocket, Arlene Columbo It would only apply to many generations to cause adaptations. The Eskimo have adapted to their climate, clearly.
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    people from mountainous regions are slightly shorter-legged than those whose ancestors come from the steppes or plains.
    these traits are selected for by Darwin's theory. I notice other traits among the people of the world that geography helps shape.

    My thought is that short-leggedness makes climbing easier and less calorie consumptive.
    I know others notice that American plains Indians are long legged, often. Japanese are among the shortest people in the world and Italians, likewise.
    OK BUSTER than explain why I am 5'3 and have a 29 inch inseam? San Francisco? *chuckle*
    Actually Denise was 4'9 and 20 inch inseams...not all of us have long legs! Spousy is 6 feet with 32 inch inseam...he is more equally proportioned...daughter is built just like mom minus the boobs and son is built same frame as his father...interesting how that worked ut!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Been a while since I've measured a girls inseam, but I'm still willing. Is 29 long ?
    for 5'3 *L* yes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    A few days ago, I constructed this pet theory:

    "Each individual on the Science Forum (with more than M posts and more than n words per post) possesses an unique linguistic fingerprint (ULF),
    which allows others to identify a member on the Science Forum via a linguistic analysis of all their posts."


    Suppose we have a member X, who has (M = 50) posts, each posts containing at least (n = 10) words. By analyzing the sentence structure, readability and relative usage of specific infinitives, adjectives, adverbs and nouns, one can estimate the chance that a piece of text is written by member X.

    If this technique is viable (which I doubt), it could be used to detect sock puppet members a lot faster.
    However, it is not demonstrated that each member (on the SF) has an ULF, let alone is it shown that such a concept can be used to gauge the identity of a SF member.
    WOW!! You are amazing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Here's my favorite. I think I authored It, but I could be nuts: People are crazy. All people, all the time. The only real questions are; how much and what kind of crazy ? I'm referring to our human frailties, not our scientific short-sightedness. None of us ever experiences the way it feels inside someone else's mind. Not for a second of our lives, can we do this. I just welcome opinion from every possible source. Technical/scientific, philosophic, even religious. But apply Reason to every bit of it. Reason and Humor combined, well that's impenetrable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Wow. A new epithet. Cool ! I'm getting-up a collection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Probably true. Some investigation has been done showing that things like word count, word pair counts and word choices (among other techniques) can be used to distinguish authors: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Research/M...rid-csna05.pdf. I'm not sure any of these techniques are reliable enough on their own to automatically deal with sock puppets.

    Although I appreciate the fact that you provided a paper, I am afraid that my knowledge of statistics is inadequate to understand its content.
    Nevertheless, it is fascinating to know that my pet theory is more than just 'hot air' (which implies that I am unable to formulate good pet theories, as my previous one was also realized, cf. post #229).

    Sock puppet members are easily spotted by the Staff anyway, so implementing an ULF-analyser (if possible) is not necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    Stoned again :lol'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    So, when will this sock-puppet weapon be ready ? I must know.
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    A few days ago, I constructed this pet theory:

    "Each individual on the Science Forum (with more than M posts and more than n words per post) possesses an unique linguistic fingerprint (ULF),
    which allows others to identify a member on the Science Forum via a linguistic analysis of all their posts."


    Suppose we have a member X, who has (M = 50) posts, each posts containing at least (n = 10) words. By analyzing the sentence structure, readability and relative usage of specific infinitives, adjectives, adverbs and nouns, one can estimate the chance that a piece of text is written by member X.

    If this technique is viable (which I doubt), it could be used to detect sock puppet members a lot faster.
    However, it is not demonstrated that each member (on the SF) has an ULF, let alone is it shown that such a concept can be used to gauge the identity of a SF member.
    WOW!! You are amazing!
    Last edited by umbradiago; April 1st, 2014 at 03:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    It's an "inside" joke. Very. I'm the only one. No, there are always some others, actually. I must blow my nose now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    An "inside joke" if you are the only insider is a good working definition of insanity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ I am a semi retired and have worked with and in a public position. and that I can say was good at it and enjoyed it makes me the fortunate one. . I see and saw insanity.. all too often. Now please do not rush off and tell everyone that most of the contributors here in this and these forums are stark raving certifiable crazy loons... fortunately we remain in control, some only just... ..
    I see that some want to be the one that postulates the theory of everything. The ONLY person who understands reality. That the sad truth is very few of us actually understand much at all. Never willingly conceding to others wisdom. For me a sort of micarb amusement is if nothing else a entertainment. I am however strong enough to see that even I must be equally loopy and am happy here.. Interesting and onward we go.... Tally ho., and into oblivion we march. But it's April, see ? ~ OH.
    scheherazade, babe and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Good point. You ever laugh at yourself ? Or is it always others ? 'Cause that leads to my next question.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    An "inside joke" if you are the only insider is a good working definition of insanity
    scheherazade, astromark and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,486
    I often laugh at myself, but I'm then usually I'm not the only one laughing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I often laugh at myself, but I'm then usually I'm not the only one laughing...
    DITTO!!

    I mean...I am going to a reception and I have to put some topical med on my forehead....so I put this BIG RED CURLER to keep my bangs from getting icky....so Spousy and I drive to the reception.....here I am with the VP of South Pacific Operations and he is just trying not to laugh, Head of Golf....same thing...and I'm thinking...."Ok, babe, what is it that they are trying SO hard not to laugh at." Then the LIGHT GOES OFF!!

    I put my hand to my head and there is the HUGE RED CURLER!!

    I just about killed my husband....the twerp didn't NOTICE!! I mean how could he NOT NOTICE!!

    So I pulled it out and said something flippant and they all lost it.

    One NEEDS to be able to laugh at oneself!

    It is HUMBLING!!!
    scheherazade and astromark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    So, when will this sock-puppet weapon be ready ? I must know.

    If you must know, then the answer is: never.
    It was a pet theory, not a serious suggestion.

    Besides, the Staff and some members detect most sock puppets within a reasonable amount of time.
    So there is no use in implementing an ULF-analyzer.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; April 4th, 2014 at 10:06 AM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    It is quite difficult for most people to write in a contrived manner unless they have had some practice at it. Writers who use a pseudonym come to mind, often choosing to write a completely different genre and not wanting it critiqued from bias toward another/previous genre or style.

    Most people do have a signature rhythm and vocabulary that a reader absorbs after some exposure to it, subconsciously more than consciously, in my opinion.

    Perhaps one way to get beyond one's own style is to write as if one were a different gender and/or culture as these would automatically default to another vocabulary and perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,741
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Perhaps one way to get beyond one's own style is to write as if one were a different gender and/or culture as these would automatically default to another vocabulary and perspective.
    I tried writing as if I were human.
    But it didn't last long.
    scheherazade and babe like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Perhaps one way to get beyond one's own style is to write as if one were a different gender and/or culture as these would automatically default to another vocabulary and perspective.
    I tried writing as if I were human.
    But it didn't last long.
    Why not try a Hollywood angle and write about yourself from the perspective of your cat?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,741
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Why not try a Hollywood angle and write about yourself from the perspective of your cat?
    Feed me.
    Rub my belly.
    Leave me alone I'm going to sleep.

    Done.
    scheherazade and babe like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Why not try a Hollywood angle and write about yourself from the perspective of your cat?
    Feed me.
    Rub my belly.
    Leave me alone I'm going to sleep.

    Done.
    They do say that owners begin to resemble their pets...
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298 Entanglement, Inflation, and Time 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4
    I believe this is the correct place to post crazy ideas. This one has been rattling around in my brain for a while now and I'd like to let it out. And, I would appreciate it if y'all would tell me WHY it's crazy; I already know THAT it's crazy. (Usually when I get a crazy idea like this someone gently informs me that some 12th century monk thought of that and it was disproved a couple of hundred years ago. I expect this to go much the same. So feel free to revel in my ignorance, have fun with it and Flame ON!) Here it is:
    So if a three dimensional particle was sent accelerating through space, as it approached the speed of light (c) an observer at its source would see it contracting in its direction of travel. The Lorentz contraction dictates that as the particle's speed approaches c, its length approaches zero. However, the particle can never actually achieve c; if it did, its length would actually be... undefined.
    Photons, conversely, start out their existence at c with respect to their emitter. But lets take the Lorentz contraction at face value and say that a photon's length in its direction of travel is also undefined. Essentially we'd be saying that photons are only two dimensional. That's consistent with the plane wave model of the photon and implies that, from a photon's point of view, between the time it is emitted and the time it interacts with three dimensional matter again (e. g. is absorbed, refracted, reflected, or otherwise detected) it travels zero distance. That is to say that to the photon it would “seem” that one instant it was located at the emitter and the next instant it was located at the detector.
    Quantum entanglement is often achieved by splitting a photon into two photons and sending them off in different directions. However, if the above is correct, the photons have separated by zero distance until one of them interacts with a three dimensional object (e. g. is detected) at which point it would “seem” to instantaneously vanish from the emitter and appear at the detector.
    The obvious problem with this view is that if we take the Lorentz contraction as applicable to photons, we also have to apply relativistic time dilation. Now our photon is not only limited to two spatial dimensions, but it has no temporal dimension at all. That makes it tough to move! Albert Einstein famously conducted a thought experiment when he was 16 years old in which he chased a photon and encountered this same paradox. While to the chaser, moving along with the photon, the photon would seem be “at rest,” (that is unmoving through space) it should also seem to be frozen since its “elapsed time clock” would be stopped (or in this case non-existent). So how could it continue to move?
    So, here's the REALLY crazy part; simple solution – add another clock. Add a frequency clock and the problem goes away (yes, I'm suggesting a second temporal dimension that, at least for the purposes of this crazy idea, only affects the frequency of photons). Now the photon can continue to move (i. e. oscillate and propagate) even though its “velocity time clock” is... well, non-existent. So now, between emission and detection, from a photon's “point of view,” not only is no distance traveled but no time elapses either. As far as the photon can tell its just sitting there oscillating. No more “spooky action at a distance” because there is no more distance between entangled photons. Hence quantum entanglement.
    So the photon wouldn't travel through four-dimension space-time in the same way a three-dimensional piece of matter would. Perhaps the photon's wave function really IS an accurate description of how it travels (again I indulge my penchant for taking things literally). It doesn't actually exist at each specific 4-D location along its path. Until it “re-enters” 4-D space-time, by interacting with some 4-D object, there would only be a very high probability of finding it where (and when) it is predicted to be, but there would always be a much smaller probability of finding it... anywhere else in the universe. Hence quantum superposition (spatial and temporal).
    If two spaceships travel away from each other at high speed and one emits a photon toward the other it is blue-shifted when detected by the other ship although its speed is still c. So I assume that its “frequency clock” is affected by the relative motions of emitter and receiver, but not its non-existent “velocity clock.” Presumably because it propagates at the same “speed” regardless of what's going on around it in 4-D space. It's a 2-D+1 object traveling through 4-D space-time.
    (If you made it this far, don't quit now, this is my favorite part!)
    Finally, if one could “stand” just above the event horizon of a black hole and emit a photon directed outward, a detector a billion miles away would see the photon red-shifted but not slowed. So, I assume gravity affects the “frequency clock” of the photon but not the non-existent “velocity clock.” If this view is correct, then at the instant of the Big Bang all the energy in the Universe sped outward at … zero velocity, for an immeasurable period of “wave time,” unhindered by gravity. Every quantum in the Universe entangled. (Like the Australian aboriginals' “dreamtime.” Glorious!) Spreading evenly into 3-D space (2-D space?) until the first subatomic particles formed and “velocity time” began. Hence cosmic inflation. (So I'm predicting that no gravity waves will ever be found.)
    So, let the Flames begin!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by CJPote View Post
    But lets take the Lorentz contraction at face value and say that a photon's length in its direction of travel is also undefined.
    A photon is not a valid frame of reference, so it is not related to any other frame via Lorentz transformations.

    The obvious problem with this view is that if we take the Lorentz contraction as applicable to photons
    It isn't.

    Hence quantum entanglement.
    Quantum entanglement does not involve the exchange of information, it is just a relationship between quantum states.

    So the photon wouldn't travel through four-dimension space-time in the same way a three-dimensional piece of matter would.
    A photon can only propagate in 3-dimensional space; in 4-dimensional space-time it becomes a static null-geodesic world line.

    So, I assume gravity affects the “frequency clock” of the photon but not the non-existent “velocity clock.”
    I can't really make out what you are trying to say in the last two paragraphs of your post, but you need to remember that Doppler shift ( due to relative motion ) and gravitational redshift ( due to differences in gravitational potential ) are physically distinct effects. You appear to be under the impression that they are the same thing.

    zero velocity
    Velocity of what ?

    So I'm predicting that no gravity waves will ever be found.
    I do not see how any of this is connected to the existence of gravitational waves, or lack thereof. In any case, gravitational waves not existing would be tantamount to GR being wrong, since such waves are a basic solution to the field equations - since GR is well tested and thus far in excellent accord with experiment and observation, and also due to the fact that there is already plenty of indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves, this seems unlikely to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    This is very strange, I guess many of the users on this forum think alike. I was just noticing some behavior in one of my pets that seemed to always hold true, and when observing this behavior on other pets the theory also held true.


    I call it the "Watch Dog Effect". I have noticed that Dogs ( the species I have observed at least two very small dogs so that may have some criteria to this affect) like to be near the entrance to wherever they are. For example in a bedroom the dog will be by the door. If all doors in the house are open dogs stay where they have the most vision of entrances to their current location. In my house it is a flat spot between the upstairs and downstairs. If the dogs are upstairs they always sit right next to the stairs. If in a room with door open they are always by the door, but if the door is closed they are often not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •