PDA

View Full Version : I'm bored so ask me anything.



The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 09:09 AM
On another set of forums I used to go to there was a traditional topic called the "ask me anything". Pretty much, you can ask the topic creator anything you want and it is up to him/her to answer the question. This goes on until either the questions or the answers stop coming. Of course I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question.

So, ask away. If this goes well, maybe someone else will follow suit. :)

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 09:12 AM
so we can ask you anything?

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 09:14 AM
so we can ask you anything?

Anything at all, within reason.

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 09:23 AM
Anything at all, within reason.
really? anything at all?:cool:

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 09:26 AM
Am I kidding myself? Am I really the problem, and not the solution?

ehondajim
07-31-2007, 09:28 AM
Got Kilt???

MeNorel
07-31-2007, 09:31 AM
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it did it really make a sound?

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 09:35 AM
really? anything at all?:cool:

No, on second thought, no you can't ask me anything. Just everyone else. :)


Am I kidding myself? Am I really the problem, and not the solution?

Yes, Everyone is part of the problem.


Got Kilt???

Nope


If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it did it really make a sound?

Some animal would have heard it, so yes.

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 09:38 AM
No, on second thought, no you can't ask me anything. Just everyone else. :)

aw man why not?

Mizyrlou
07-31-2007, 09:50 AM
Why is it that when you can be in a group of quiet people, the moment you mention what's best on pizza or the best chinese food, then everyone pretty much won't stop talking?

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 09:55 AM
aw man why not?

Because you questions are far to personal.


Why is it that when you can be in a group of quiet people, the moment you mention what's best on pizza or the best chinese food, then everyone pretty much won't stop talking?

I have never noticed that. I will have to try that sometime.

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 09:57 AM
Because you questions are far to personal.


aha you answered another question.

You just cant help it can you?:D

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 10:01 AM
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it did it really make a sound?

The answer is yes. Sound is a form of energy, that exists regardless of the presence of anything to hear it. Even in a mythical wood that nothing but plants live in.

Sound is just how you brain process the energy.

JayDubya
07-31-2007, 10:08 AM
The answer is yes. Sound is a form of energy, that exists regardless of the presence of anything to hear it. Even in a mythical wood that nothing but plants live in.

Sound is just how you brain process the energy.


If the question was "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it cause sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium", I'd agree with you.

But without the presence of a structure that can translate sonic vibrations into neural activity, i.e. an ear, I'm not sure that I can. However, I do think that reasonable people can disagree on this one.

Cataclysm, can we get a ruling? :)

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 10:16 AM
Cataclysm, can we get a ruling? :)

Sure. My ruling is that....

*runs away*

mocat
07-31-2007, 10:17 AM
Why?

Just..... why?

MeNorel
07-31-2007, 10:21 AM
Why?

Just..... why?

Because.

Just....Because. :D

MeNorel
07-31-2007, 10:24 AM
Some animal would have heard it, so yes.

So if the animal was, of the bird variety which came fist the bird or the egg?

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 10:30 AM
Why?

Just..... why?

Because it's there. That is always the answer.


So if the animal was, of the bird variety which came fist the bird or the egg?

Neither has a fist.

WolfSpirit
07-31-2007, 10:34 AM
So if the animal was, of the bird variety which came fist the bird or the egg?

This one is a bit more easy.

As birds evloved from more primitive animals that were already laying eggs, Like small dinosaurs for example, it is feasable that the egg came before the bird.

The egg evolved as a viable way to protect the fetus of said animal and was a successful medium for life from VERY primitive times...

MeNorel
07-31-2007, 10:36 AM
Because it's there. That is always the answer.



Neither has a fist.

Ok which was first? :D

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 10:48 AM
Ok which was first? :D

Oh, in that case it was the egg. Evolution and all.

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 10:54 AM
If the question was "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it cause sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium", I'd agree with you.

But without the presence of a structure that can translate sonic vibrations into neural activity, i.e. an ear, I'm not sure that I can. However, I do think that reasonable people can disagree on this one.

Cataclysm, can we get a ruling? :)

Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.

If you really want to get picky, then the question should be,

If a tree falls in the woods, and there isn't anything around that can "hear" in a way that humans egocentrically call hearing, is that sonic energy considered a sound?

I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 11:03 AM
I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.
but how do you know that if you havent observed it?:p

JayDubya
07-31-2007, 11:12 AM
Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.

I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.

Without an observer to collapse the wave form, Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. That's not egocentric, that's a simple fact of quantum mechanics.

IMO, Sound represents information. There is no information in an un-observed sonic vibration. Hearing it doesn't change its nature, but it does create information.

MeNorel
07-31-2007, 11:15 AM
Is a PB&J really the meaning of live?

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 11:32 AM
Without an observer to collapse the wave form, Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. That's not egocentric, that's a simple fact of quantum mechanics.

IMO, Sound represents information. There is no information in an un-observed sonic vibration. Hearing it doesn't change its nature, but it does create information.

Schrodiners cat is a dumb idea. All it does is reinforce the idea that everything is based on human observation for it's state of existance. The cat can observe it's self, and therefor, knows if it's alive or dead.

The information exists regardless of if it's unobserved. It has to be there, in case someone does observe it, otherwise, we are saying that something ONLY exists once Humans interact with it, outside of that, it's only potentially existable?

It takes a great amount of humitly to not see the human race as the soul purpose of the universte in terms of existance.

If anything, we are probably the speices that comes along and throws the eco balance out of wack, which causes the current system to finally crash, and start new. We aren't the end result, we are the end destruction.

The only thing about us that is unique is that we just might have the ability to see the patern, and save ourselves. Because the world won't really be destroyed by us, we will just destory ourselves. The world will survive, like it has so many times in the past.

8 major waves of extintiction, with 99.99% of all forms of life being wipped out and yet, life goes on, the planet goes on. Once a nitrogen rich atmospher, now an oxygen rich one. Who knows what will happen in say, 500,000, a carbon rich one? With carbon breathing creatures?

And when the sun burns out, then what?

The planet has very little to fear from us. Besides, maybe it just wanted plastic, and now that it has it, is getting ride of us.

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 12:01 PM
Is a PB&J really the meaning of live?

No, pizza is. It's all in the circles.

JayDubya
07-31-2007, 12:02 PM
The information exists regardless of if it's unobserved. It has to be there, in case someone does observe it, otherwise, we are saying that something ONLY exists once Humans interact with it, outside of that, it's only potentially existable?

Yes, in fact, until someone or something observes it, it only potentially exists. Watch this video for an example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4) At the quantum level, things do not "exist" as we think of the word, in a specific state and place. They, in fact, exist in many states at once. This is one of the reasons that us computer geeks are talking about Quantum Computers - these are computers that can solve many problems at once.... not quickly one after another - all at the same exact instant, because the "quantum bits" are both true and false at the same time.

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

At the same time, we are the only species that is in the position of being able to transplant life from Earth to other star systems. That does make us special, in some ways.

Mad_Bombardier
07-31-2007, 12:03 PM
Cat,

Do blondes really have more fun?

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 12:05 PM
Cat,

Do blondes really have more fun?

Blondes are second in having the most fun behind red heads.

cdbd3rd
07-31-2007, 12:05 PM
So, ask away.

Okay.
Of the several options available, which boyfriend will the wife be seeing next. The Jap, The Russian, the Wal-Mart fart ex-co-worker, or the old classmate her mother is trying to hook her up with?

:eek: :rolleyes:

cdbd3rd
07-31-2007, 12:06 PM
And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.



The religious pitfall aside, no truer statement can be said except that the Earth would not only continue to exist (for an interstellar while), but would be far better off without us mucking around on it.:rolleyes:

Borrigain
07-31-2007, 12:33 PM
If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

WolfSpirit
07-31-2007, 01:01 PM
If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

We are the cause. The warming and cooling is a subtle thing, over tens of thousands of years. We have warmed up the earth in under 200 years.
And, its a very simple experiment to prove it.

Take two clear empty plastic soda bottles and put a thermometer in each. Leave normal air in one and seal it off with a cap, fill the other with Carbon Dioxide (which is the biggest pollutant humans release in the millions of tons per day).
Put them both in the sun for 3 hours and take a reading of the temperature...

Proof positive...

Ziggy
07-31-2007, 01:03 PM
could this (http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q196/z2ggy/Animated%20gifs/apple.gif) be considered canabalism?

Shecky
07-31-2007, 01:08 PM
Yes, in fact, until someone or something observes it, it only potentially exists. Watch this video for an example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4) At the quantum level, things do not "exist" as we think of the word, in a specific state and place. They, in fact, exist in many states at once. This is one of the reasons that us computer geeks are talking about Quantum Computers - these are computers that can solve many problems at once.... not quickly one after another - all at the same exact instant, because the "quantum bits" are both true and false at the same time.

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

At the same time, we are the only species that is in the position of being able to transplant life from Earth to other star systems. That does make us special, in some ways.

Quantum indeterminacy (Schrödinger's Cat) is purely a result of the pitfalls of imprecise language. The simple fact that we are ignorant of a condition until we view it does in NO way mean that a multiple-state condition exists. "The cat is both alive and dead" is sheer anthropocentrism at its worst.


The religious pitfall aside, no truer statement can be said except that the Earth would not only continue to exist (for an interstellar while), but would be far better off without us mucking around on it.:rolleyes:

I don't know why I have these arguments with myself but... You're an illusion in my mind. The idea that the universe existed before I did is a horse laugh. The earth and everything on it is merely a mental vision within my own mind (excellent processing capacity, my brain has :D ), and "you" are merely my own mind expressing itself.

Gawd, solipsism is just plain fun. :D


If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

Because each cycle was triggered by something. An increase in greenhouse gases, whatever the source, contributes greatly to each pendulum swing. We ARE cranking out, directly and indirectly, a LOT of greenhouse gases, not to mention the raw heat output of humanity and its devices in general. The problem is that the question is, at present, too big to be susceptible to analysis with any certainty of truth in the result. However, with the simple fact of greenhouse gases / increased heat output leading to another shift in the cycle, combined with the knowledge that we're putting out a lot of both, we HAVE to be having an effect on that cycle. The only question is how significant that impact may or may not be. The only answer, right now, is, "We don't know, but it doesn't look good for the home team."

Vinos
07-31-2007, 01:16 PM
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 01:18 PM
Quantum indeterminacy (Schrödinger's Cat) is purely a result of the pitfalls of imprecise language. The simple fact that we are ignorant of a condition until we view it does in NO way mean that a multiple-state condition exists. "The cat is both alive and dead" is sheer anthropocentrism at its worst.

Thank you, I knew that how he was explaining Mr. S's Cat was wrong, and that how people use it as an example has become twisted. Some thing exists, you just can't prove it's state until you observe it. It's state exists.

People need to be able to see a world that fuctions and interacts with it's self outside of any human reason.

Just look at life that exists at the bottom of the ocean, and has done so for countless years. Only recently has man ever been able to explore some of these depths. And yet a whole world has been going on down there. Without our observation.

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 01:20 PM
As for the whole, "the world is nothing more then my imagination, line"

Why would I ever imagine such an existance? Sure, I have a good life now. I didn't always. And I've been aware of this concept since I was in my teens. So I would certainly hope that I would have imagined a better life along the way from then to now.

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 01:47 PM
Okay.
Of the several options available, which boyfriend will the wife be seeing next. The Jap, The Russian, the Wal-Mart fart ex-co-worker, or the old classmate her mother is trying to hook her up with?

:eek: :rolleyes:

My hunch is the classmate. Seems like the most likely candidate to me.


If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Going on your premise that we have nothing to do with global warming, it's because we believe we are the cause of everything.


could this (http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q196/z2ggy/Animated%20gifs/apple.gif) be considered canabalism?

Of course.


How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

12 small trees worth.

Yvonne_Blacksword
07-31-2007, 01:53 PM
Where did I leave my keys?
and what exactly is a bean feast?

Shecky
07-31-2007, 01:58 PM
As for the whole, "the world is nothing more then my imagination, line"

Why would I ever imagine such an existance? Sure, I have a good life now. I didn't always. And I've been aware of this concept since I was in my teens. So I would certainly hope that I would have imagined a better life along the way from then to now.

It's because I'm secretly (even my subconscious is only barely aware of it) a masochist, so I imagine all this junk. ;)

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 02:08 PM
Where did I leave my keys?
and what exactly is a bean feast?

VERUCA!

mocat
07-31-2007, 02:27 PM
How do I know that you will truthfully answer my questions?

And.... how do I know if the answer you give me is true, based on my question above?

Why does it feel like my head is going to explode?

YOU WOULDN'T LIE TO ME WOULD YOU?!? :eek:

AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

/runs away, but leaves forwarding address for the answers to be sent to.....

ehondajim
07-31-2007, 02:48 PM
Why won't anyone love me?

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 02:50 PM
Yes, in fact, until someone or something observes it, it only potentially exists. Watch this video for an example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4) At the quantum level, things do not "exist" as we think of the word, in a specific state and place. They, in fact, exist in many states at once. This is one of the reasons that us computer geeks are talking about Quantum Computers - these are computers that can solve many problems at once.... not quickly one after another - all at the same exact instant, because the "quantum bits" are both true and false at the same time.

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

At the same time, we are the only species that is in the position of being able to transplant life from Earth to other star systems. That does make us special, in some ways.

Ok, having watched that video here is what I think.

Why did electrons react differently when observed? Perhaps there is something going on that humans don't understand? Perhaps a new element was introduced into the equation that they aren't even aware of.

The idea that electrons act differently when watched? More like something was effecting their pattern.

I'm sure this experiment has been reproduced enough to get the same results. All that means to me is that not every factor is known. Or that man understands everything.

We also aren't capable of registering everything. There are specturms of light we can't see.

We are also the same creature that for years have said bees shouldn't be able to fly, until someone actually observed bees in flight, via slow motion film, and saw that our "math" showing that the flight of bees was impossible was wrong, because we calculated the ability to do that based on assuming that bees flew like planes, and not like heliocopters.

In other words, we assume we know, and when we don't, we make it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if in time, someone finally figures out why this happens with electrons.

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 04:50 PM
Where did I leave my keys?
and what exactly is a bean feast?

In your front door.

It is primarily an annual dinner given by an employer to his workpeople, and by extension, colloquially, describes any jollification. The phrase is variously derived. The most probable theory is that which connects it with the custom in France, and afterwards in Germany and England, of a feast on Twelfth Night, at which a cake with a bean buried in it was a great feature. The bean-king was he who had the good fortune to have the slice of cake in which was the bean. This choosing of a king or queen by a bean was formerly a common Christmas diversion at the English and Scottish courts, and in both English universities. This monarch was master of the revels like his congener the Lord of Misrule. A clue to his original functions is possibly found in the old popular belief that the weather for the ensuing twelve months was determined by the weather of the twelve days from Christmas to Twelfth Night, the weather of each particular month being prognosticated from each day. Thus the king of the bean of Twelfth Night may have originally reigned for the twelve days, his chief duty being the performance of magical ceremonies for ensuring good weather during the ensuing twelve months. Probably in him and the lord of misrule it is correct to find the lineal descendant of the old king of the Saturnalia, the real man who personated Saturn and, when the revels ceased, suffered a real death in his assumed character. Another but most improbable derivation for bean-feast connects it with M.E. bene "prayer," "request," the allusion being to the soliciting of alms towards the cost of their Twelfth Night dinner by the workpeople.


How do I know that you will truthfully answer my questions?

And.... how do I know if the answer you give me is true, based on my question above?

Why does it feel like my head is going to explode?

YOU WOULDN'T LIE TO ME WOULD YOU?!? :eek:

AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

/runs away, but leaves forwarding address for the answers to be sent to.....

You don't. Because it is true. Your small kobold size head can't deal with all the thoughts in your brain right now. I would lie to you. I have a great dislike of kobolds. Whenever I ran chains of flames I make sure to leave all the kobold slaves behind. No reason to free them.


Why won't anyone love me?

Because no one likes the Iron Phalanx? ;)

Yvonne_Blacksword
07-31-2007, 05:27 PM
Why did you allow me to edjumacate you?

And are you sure the keys are in my front door?

Isn't that the first place I looked?

Shecky
07-31-2007, 05:30 PM
Ok, having watched that video here is what I think.

Why did electrons react differently when observed? Perhaps there is something going on that humans don't understand? Perhaps a new element was introduced into the equation that they aren't even aware of.

The idea that electrons act differently when watched? More like something was effecting their pattern.

I'm sure this experiment has been reproduced enough to get the same results. All that means to me is that not every factor is known. Or that man understands everything.

We also aren't capable of registering everything. There are specturms of light we can't see.

We are also the same creature that for years have said bees shouldn't be able to fly, until someone actually observed bees in flight, via slow motion film, and saw that our "math" showing that the flight of bees was impossible was wrong, because we calculated the ability to do that based on assuming that bees flew like planes, and not like heliocopters.

In other words, we assume we know, and when we don't, we make it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if in time, someone finally figures out why this happens with electrons.

Uh, they already know. I'll give you a hint: what do you have to use to observe electrons? ;)

Yvonne_Blacksword
07-31-2007, 05:33 PM
radiation....

Hafeal
07-31-2007, 05:41 PM
Is Kargon's Tasty Ham tasty?

Shecky
07-31-2007, 07:54 PM
radiation....

DING DING DING! We have a wiener!

Alavatar
07-31-2007, 08:08 PM
We also aren't capable of registering everything.

Damn skippy! I can't register my Nintendo anymore, nor my old VCR. Also, I don't want to register most of my software, but sometimes I have to.

The_Cataclysm
07-31-2007, 08:39 PM
Why did you allow me to edjumacate you?

And are you sure the keys are in my front door?

Isn't that the first place I looked?

You didn't educate me. I didn't read what I wrote.

Well it's where mine always are. On a unrelated note I seem to get robbed a lot. Never signs of break in either. I haven't figured it out yet.

No, the first place you looked was where they are supposed to be.


Is Kargon's Tasty Ham tasty?

Not really. It is is a processed ham, but Kargon has a good PR company on his side to promote his projects. It is needed after the failure of the Kargon's Spell Headbutting Hat. Let's just say while he can do, they can't get it to work on a helm. Lots of people died when they took a fireball to the head.

Symar-FangofLloth
07-31-2007, 09:11 PM
Ask anything? Okay....


Pants?

Kindoki
07-31-2007, 10:13 PM
Here's one for exposition.

If you had the power of life and death over one thing, what would it be and why?

Dane_McArdy
07-31-2007, 10:27 PM
So, they introduce radiation to "watch electrons" and suddenly, they behave differently.

And man thinks they are smart.

Ziggy
08-01-2007, 08:05 AM
So, they introduce radiation to "watch electrons" and suddenly, they behave differently.

And man thinks they are smart.
I AM SO SMART.... I AM SO SMART....

SMRT......DOH!!!:D

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 09:02 AM
I AM SO SMART.... I AM SO SMART....

SMRT......DOH!!!:D

HA HA HA! I sing that all the time!

And if you haven't seen the Simpsons Movie, it's really good and funny!

Ziggy
08-01-2007, 09:18 AM
HA HA HA! I sing that all the time!

And if you haven't seen the Simpsons Movie, it's really good and funny!
yeah i havent yet.

My movie content this summer has sucked.(no movies):(

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 09:26 AM
yeah i havent yet.

My movie content this summer has sucked.(no movies):(

That's what you get for moving and then getting busy!

Ziggy
08-01-2007, 09:41 AM
That's what you get for moving and then getting busy!
yep.

Mad_Bombardier
08-01-2007, 09:46 AM
That's what you get for moving and then getting busy!He's also getting a little Zigglet from getting busy. ;)

The_Cataclysm
08-01-2007, 10:03 AM
Ask anything? Okay....

Pants?

Yes, I wear pants.


Here's one for exposition.

If you had the power of life and death over one thing, what would it be and why?

My own life. As for the reason why. I wouldn't want control over any other thing besides myself.

Shecky
08-01-2007, 10:17 AM
Ask anything? Okay....


Pants?

No thanks - I'm trying to cut down.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 11:12 AM
We are the cause. The warming and cooling is a subtle thing, over tens of thousands of years. We have warmed up the earth in under 200 years.
And, its a very simple experiment to prove it.

Take two clear empty plastic soda bottles and put a thermometer in each. Leave normal air in one and seal it off with a cap, fill the other with Carbon Dioxide (which is the biggest pollutant humans release in the millions of tons per day).
Put them both in the sun for 3 hours and take a reading of the temperature...

Proof positive...


Well no. The truth is a single volcanic event produces more "pollution" than man has managed to produce in our entire history.

Shecky
08-01-2007, 11:16 AM
Well no. The truth is a single volcanic event produces more "pollution" than man has managed to produce in our entire history.

It doesn't even take a volcano's worth of greenhouse gas to trigger the change - a tiny fraction, depending on the conditions. And volcanoes are sudden phenomena, while humanity's greenhouse-gas output is continuous, day after day, year after year. That kind of stuff adds up.

Go look at wind-sculpted rock in the desert or cave rock that's been shaped by a SLOW DRIP and you'll see that little bits over long periods make a HUGE difference.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 11:17 AM
In other words, we assume we know, and when we don't, we make it up.



Like, for example, your certainty that the energy produced by a falling tree is represented by "sound" even if there is no receiver for that type of energy.

Did you move to NY yet?

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 12:07 PM
Like, for example, your certainty that the energy produced by a falling tree is represented by "sound" even if there is no receiver for that type of energy.

Did you move to NY yet?

Did you just come and post to cause trouble?

Have a hug.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 12:17 PM
Did you just come and post to cause trouble?

Have a hug.


LOL, nope. Just pointing out that waves of energy are not "sound" until those waves are received and that energy is interpreted.

Shecky
08-01-2007, 12:25 PM
LOL, nope. Just pointing out that waves of energy are not "sound" until those waves are received and that energy is interpreted.

Yet another weakness of language. Defining "sound" only as that energy impacts HUMAN EARS is raw anthropocentrism at BEST. Human observation is not what causes a thing to exist, as I'm sure Schrödinger's cat would tell you if he could talk.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 12:32 PM
Yet another weakness of language. Defining "sound" only as that energy impacts HUMAN EARS is raw anthropocentrism at BEST. Human observation is not what causes a thing to exist, as I'm sure Schrödinger's cat would tell you if he could talk.

Who said Human ears? A microphone and recording device, the bear that knocked the tree down, anything capable of interpreting the wave of energy as sound would be fine.

I think the cat would point out that the tree couldn't fall if it didn't exist.

Lorein_Azura_Childs
08-01-2007, 12:48 PM
Why does a minimum caster level appear on slowburst weapons, while everyone can use it still? :(

Lorein_Azura_Childs
08-01-2007, 12:50 PM
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Lorein_Azura_Childs
08-01-2007, 12:51 PM
What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 12:51 PM
That's my whole point! The question is stated that because there isn't something there to "hear" the sound, then it isn't really a sound.

But it is. It exists unto it's self, not on being observed or whatever. it's a sound. Just because I'm not around to hear "krrrreeeee-ASH!" doesn't change it's nature.

Hafeal
08-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Thank you for your assistance. Being that you have been wonderfully helpful, I must ask,

Coke or Pepsi?

:)




Not really. It is is a processed ham, but Kargon has a good PR company on his side to promote his projects. It is needed after the failure of the Kargon's Spell Headbutting Hat. Let's just say while he can do, they can't get it to work on a helm. Lots of people died when they took a fireball to the head.

Cupcake
08-01-2007, 12:58 PM
What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

Hello Lorein, hope you are well.

*slips out of thread, sorry to intrude.

Gypsy_Mouse
08-01-2007, 01:04 PM
Pants?

No! Totally mustard! :p

Vardak
08-01-2007, 01:37 PM
That's my whole point! The question is stated that because there isn't something there to "hear" the sound, then it isn't really a sound.

But it is. It exists unto it's self, not on being observed or whatever. it's a sound. Just because I'm not around to hear "krrrreeeee-ASH!" doesn't change it's nature.

The energy wave exists, as energy, thats its nature. Not until its recieved does it become something useful, sound.

Borrigain
08-01-2007, 01:37 PM
It doesn't even take a volcano's worth of greenhouse gas to trigger the change - a tiny fraction, depending on the conditions. And volcanoes are sudden phenomena, while humanity's greenhouse-gas output is continuous, day after day, year after year. That kind of stuff adds up.

...

adds up to:

Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role than natural occuring sources, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect. :eek:

I'll concede human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and
transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Bottom line is earth goes thru 100,000 year cooling and warming cycles and we are on a warming trend right now. Check the geologic record. Humans didn't do squat to affect the trend over the previous 800,000 years and it happened anyway. So, are we the CAUSE? No. So, are we adding to global warming: you betcha. How much? Insignificant. I'll even grant you that we are accelerating it a wee bit. Can we stop it? Fuggetaboutit. The point of my previous post was that we delude ourselves into thinking that if we stop industrial activity the sea levels won't rise. Ain't gonna happen. They are going to rise anyway. So if you live on the ocean, get ready to move. :D

Now, I'm not trying to pick a fight Wolf and Sheck, but my point is that there is not enough scientific evidence...hard evidence....to conclude that changing our behavior will stop anything. Healthier for us, you bet, for the planet....the planet don't care about us.....it will shrug us off like fleas when it's ready :)

So, in conclusion, for my next question, if you believe Al Gore's documentary, are you saying that you believe a POLITICIAN is actually telling the whole truth? Or just a "convenient one"?

Don't hate me cuz I'm skeptical,
Borr.

mocat
08-01-2007, 01:40 PM
I think the cat would point out that the tree couldn't fall if it didn't exist.

Hey! Leave me out of this! :mad: :D






What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

Oh ya..... see what happens Vardak? You drag me into this and now someone wants to cook me. :mad: :D

/eyes Lorein accusingly.....

Vardak
08-01-2007, 01:49 PM
Hey! Leave me out of this! :mad: :D







Oh ya..... see what happens Vardak? You drag me into this and now someone wants to cook me. :mad: :D

/eyes Lorein accusingly.....


:) I dono, I did here some discussion over roasted or Barbequed. The good news is, they need to figure out how to prove your existance in a closed box first.

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 01:51 PM
The energy wave exists, as energy, thats its nature. Not until its recieved does it become something useful, sound.

I take issue with the word useful.

The energy wave exists. Whether or not some thing recieves it doesn't matter as to it's nature. Light exists, and all creatures see it differently. Bees see into a specturm we don't.

Dogs hear pitches we can't. So if I blow a dog whistle in the presence of a human and a dog, it's a sound, but if I remove the dog, it's no longer a sound?

Again, it's being egocentric to say that something is useful, or defined because we say it is. Some one hearing the energy wave doesn't change it's natuer. I might reshape it as it bounces of the object and moves in a different direction, and it might cause a chain reaction, such as nerves sending signals, eardrums vibrating and so forth. But those are reactions to the energy wave.

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 01:58 PM
adds up to:

Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role than natural occuring sources, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect. :eek:

I'll concede human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and
transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Bottom line is earth goes thru 100,000 year cooling and warming cycles and we are on a warming trend right now. Check the geologic record. Humans didn't do squat to affect the trend over the previous 800,000 years and it happened anyway. So, are we the CAUSE? No. So, are we adding to global warming: you betcha. How much? Insignificant. I'll even grant you that we are accelerating it a wee bit. Can we stop it? Fuggetaboutit. The point of my previous post was that we delude ourselves into thinking that if we stop industrial activity the sea levels won't rise. Ain't gonna happen. They are going to rise anyway. So if you live on the ocean, get ready to move. :D

Now, I'm not trying to pick a fight Wolf and Sheck, but my point is that there is not enough scientific evidence...hard evidence....to conclude that changing our behavior will stop anything. Healthier for us, you bet, for the planet....the planet don't care about us.....it will shrug us off like fleas when it's ready :)

So, in conclusion, for my next question, if you believe Al Gore's documentary, are you saying that you believe a POLITICIAN is actually telling the whole truth? Or just a "convenient one"?

Don't hate me cuz I'm skeptical,
Borr.

I think Al Gore goes outside of just being a politician, but what you are doing is just trying to smear the messanger.

THAT ASIDE.

What humans do is more then just contribute to greenhouse gases, and it's more then just a small amount.

Where we really make a difference is we have dramaticly lowered the planets natural resources for processing those greenhouse gasses. IE, plants that take those gasses and turn them into oxygen.

Even if we just raise greenhouse gasses as little as you suggest, we've reduced the ability to process those gasses so much, that the planet couldn't process a normal amount.

There is no denying, we have stripped the planet of it's natural resources, and as such, lowered it's ability to function.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 02:18 PM
I take issue with the word useful.

The energy wave exists. Whether or not some thing recieves it doesn't matter as to it's nature. Light exists, and all creatures see it differently. Bees see into a specturm we don't.

Dogs hear pitches we can't. So if I blow a dog whistle in the presence of a human and a dog, it's a sound, but if I remove the dog, it's no longer a sound?

Again, it's being egocentric to say that something is useful, or defined because we say it is. Some one hearing the energy wave doesn't change it's natuer. I might reshape it as it bounces of the object and moves in a different direction, and it might cause a chain reaction, such as nerves sending signals, eardrums vibrating and so forth. But those are reactions to the energy wave.

Ok, rather than useful lets say action/reaction. The nature of energy is to cause an action; the reflection of this energy produces "sound". Other forms of energy produce other reactions; bees see a particular spectrum of light, dog's here within a specific range of frequencies, and so on. My point here is until something reflects a particular form of energy, causes an action, it exists only as potential. So, while a falling tree creates the potential for sound, until that energy is received no sound exists.

The_Cataclysm
08-01-2007, 02:22 PM
What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

For kobolds, I have always found grilling them brings out the best taste. Season to your tastes.


Thank you for your assistance. Being that you have been wonderfully helpful, I must ask,

Coke or Pepsi?

:)

Coke. Always coke. Pepsi just doesn't taste right.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 02:24 PM
There is no denying, we have stripped the planet of it's natural resources, and as such, lowered it's ability to function.

Hmm, perhaps you mean lowered its ability to support us as a species. Sure, Man has in impact; the question really is how much? More to the point; what is the cost/benefit of reducing that impact?

Several extinction events have occurred in Earth's history. Are we arrogant enough to believe we are the first species able to cause/prevent the next?

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 02:57 PM
Hmm, perhaps you mean lowered its ability to support us as a species. Sure, Man has in impact; the question really is how much? More to the point; what is the cost/benefit of reducing that impact?

Several extinction events have occurred in Earth's history. Are we arrogant enough to believe we are the first species able to cause/prevent the next?

There have been 8 major waves of extinction, and only a few are attributed to natural disaters. Ther rest are thought to be caused by the arrival of a species or several species whose behavior causes an imbalance in the eco system's balance, it causes catastrophic collapse of the current system.

How many speices has man himself caused to go extinct? And not just in current times.

And correct, we have lowered the planets ability to support our kind of life.

We really don't have the ability to destroy or save the planet as we see things related to ourselves. We do have the ability to possibly save ourselves. And no, I don't think we can prevent a natural extinction. We certainly can speed it up it seems.

Borrigain
08-01-2007, 03:08 PM
Thank you Vardak :)

But, I too, with my B.S. in Geophysics, (i know just a b.s. atm, but then I joined the Army to pay off the college loans. And of course I know I'm not as smart as Al with his B.A. in Gov't, even though my speciality was planetary science) also agree with you Dane.....

it's just that all that climate change "save the planet" hogwash is just that.....the planet will be around long after we're gone. Any changes we "cause" will not affect "the planet", it will adapt and regulate itself over time. Conversely, I believe we "should" change the slogan to read "save the stoopid humans and the species their arrogance threatens". So yeah, if I could convince Brazil to stop clear-cutting the rainforests, I would. Helps process the junk we put into the atmosphere.....for "our" health. Is is smart to live cleaner and develop cutting edge technologies to reduce our "footprint"? Damn skippy. It will help "us" to "continue" to thrive in this "present" environment.

But the planet will still go thru it's warming period whether we want it to or not. And life here will adapt, just as it has for millions of years. So to say climate change is all our fault is just screaming "DOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!" for doom's sake.

Borr.

Vardak
08-01-2007, 03:26 PM
There have been 8 major waves of extinction, and only a few are attributed to natural disaters. Ther rest are thought to be caused by the arrival of a species or several species whose behavior causes an imbalance in the eco system's balance, it causes catastrophic collapse of the current system.

How many speices has man himself caused to go extinct? And not just in current times.

And correct, we have lowered the planets ability to support our kind of life.

We really don't have the ability to destroy or save the planet as we see things related to ourselves. We do have the ability to possibly save ourselves. And no, I don't think we can prevent a natural extinction. We certainly can speed it up it seems.

Hmm 8, 5 whatever but. These all sound like natural disasters to me. Man has caused a tiny fraction of total species extinctions. Global warming is a fact, however that our species is its cause is largely unproven and unlikely.


Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, probably caused or aggravated by impact of several-mile-wide asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater now hidden on the Yucatan Peninsula and beneath the Gulf of Mexico.

End Triassic extinction, roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, most likely caused by massive floods of lava erupting from the central Atlantic magmatic province.

Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago. Many scientists suspect a comet or asteroid impact, although direct evidence has not been found. Others believe the cause was flood volcanism from the Siberian Traps and related loss of oxygen in the seas. Still others believe the impact triggered the volcanism and also may have done so during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction.

Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago, cause unknown. It killed 22 percent of marine families and 57 percent of marine genera. Erwin said little is known about land organisms at the time.

Ordovician-Silurian extinction, about 439 million years ago, caused by a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed, then by rising sea levels as glaciers melted.

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 03:31 PM
Hmm 8, 5 whatever but. These all sound like natural disasters to me. Man has caused a tiny fraction of total species extinctions. Global warming is a fact, however that our species is its cause is largely unproven and unlikely.

Man has caused more then a tiny fraction of recent extinctions.

Man's history is littered with causing this. There used to be large heard animals in the LA area, like rhino and elephant and giraffes. Prehistoric man hunted them to extinction.

I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.

Ziggy
08-01-2007, 03:43 PM
I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.
CAUSE THATS HOW WE ROLL.:D

well technically you dont know if any other specied are taking credit cause you dont speak their language.

How do you know they arent?:cool:

Dane_McArdy
08-01-2007, 05:04 PM
CAUSE THATS HOW WE ROLL.:D

well technically you dont know if any other specied are taking credit cause you dont speak their language.

How do you know they arent?:cool:

I can talk with the animals,
walk with the animals,

cdbd3rd
08-01-2007, 05:07 PM
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


How much chuck would a chuck up chuck if a wood chuck could up chuck?

:p

cdbd3rd
08-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Why won't anyone love me?

Are you kidding?!? Have you seen your gutter recently??
LOL.:D

Oh, yeah. My question....
Ummm.....

Prove or Disprove: Everything I say is a lie.

:confused:

cdbd3rd
08-01-2007, 05:13 PM
But the planet will still go thru it's warming period whether we want it to or not. And life here will adapt, just as it has for millions of years. So to say climate change is all our fault is just screaming "DOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!" for doom's sake.

Borr.


Yeah, but it's a real pain in the utility bill meanwhile.:o

_

Vardak
08-01-2007, 07:23 PM
Man has caused more then a tiny fraction of recent extinctions.

Man's history is littered with causing this. There used to be large heard animals in the LA area, like rhino and elephant and giraffes. Prehistoric man hunted them to extinction.

I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.

Recent, perhaps. Total, not even close. The fact is we are the dominate species on the planet for the moment, everything else is in competition to compete for resources with us. Frankly, Yea US!

Natural Selection is good, as long as you are not selected for extinction.

Borrigain
08-01-2007, 07:34 PM
...

Natural Selection is good, as long as you are not selected for extinction.

That's what I'm talkin' about! :D

Borr.

Alavatar
08-01-2007, 07:40 PM
I take issue with the word useful.

The energy wave exists. Whether or not some thing recieves it doesn't matter as to it's nature. Light exists, and all creatures see it differently. Bees see into a specturm we don't.

Dogs hear pitches we can't. So if I blow a dog whistle in the presence of a human and a dog, it's a sound, but if I remove the dog, it's no longer a sound?

Again, it's being egocentric to say that something is useful, or defined because we say it is. Some one hearing the energy wave doesn't change it's natuer. I might reshape it as it bounces of the object and moves in a different direction, and it might cause a chain reaction, such as nerves sending signals, eardrums vibrating and so forth. But those are reactions to the energy wave.

I just thought I would put in my 2 copper.

Sound is nothing more then vibration of mass at specific frequencies. As such, it is only considered sound if there is a receiver that can translate the frequency as sound. While the vibration caused by the crash of a falling tree would exist it is only considered 'sound' when something is around to hear it.

So, no receiver means no sound, but that does not mean there is an absence of energy transfer.

Shecky
08-01-2007, 09:38 PM
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

I'll field this one.

There's an absolutely clear answer to this one. I'll even step you through the process so you can replicate the results in your own home:

1) Turn on recorder.
2) Clap with one hand.
3) Play back result.

That'll answer your question sure as shootin'.

Oh, and Borr? That's precisely right - the pseudo-altruism of "save the planet!" is off-base for any practical purpose. Some people think we should off the human race so Mother Earth can be "left alone". We ARE the dominant species, but it behooves us to balance our dominance to make sure that the planet can keep on SUPPORTING us as the dominant species. See, self-interest can be a GOOD thing. :)

Heinlein said it best:


There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement — and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnaturaI" and a "despoiling of Nature."

PS Lor? I really have figured out how to clap with one hand. No joke. Think about it and you'll be able to do it, too.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 06:25 AM
Recent, perhaps. Total, not even close. The fact is we are the dominate species on the planet for the moment, everything else is in competition to compete for resources with us. Frankly, Yea US!

Natural Selection is good, as long as you are not selected for extinction.

I didn't say total. Man hasn't been around long enough. But we are a speices that has actively caused the extinction of many many speices, and many of our actions are causing speicies to head towards extinction.

Pushing the current system closer and closer to collapse.

Yes, all speices compete. But there is a balance, that keeps the system going. There are checks and balances. Like preditor to prey.

Man has eliminated it's checks. We aren't a source of food for another animal. We have lowered the death from diesease. We control our food source.

Boo us. If you can't see that we are starting another system collapse, then there isn't any hope for the survival of humans.

And great quote Shecky. That's just how I feel. We are part of nature, and not set aside from it, as much of western ideaology, philosphy and religion tries to make us.

And what happens to nature, what we do to nature, we do to ourselves. Nature developes diesease, virus' and many deadly things that don't seem good. Who says that we are one of the good guys? When nature doesn't need something anymore, it goes away.

Vardak
08-02-2007, 10:21 AM
And what happens to nature, what we do to nature, we do to ourselves. Nature developes diesease, virus' and many deadly things that don't seem good. Who says that we are one of the good guys? When nature doesn't need something anymore, it goes away.

Our discussion has shifted from greenhouse gasses and pollution control to survival of the species. A reasonable shift I suppose a reflection of the gravity of the issue.

It is mankind's nature to consume and to believe otherwise is a bit like the shark saying "fish are friends not food." Earlier I suggested that global warming was a result of natural processes over which man had limited control. The question is; does the benefit obtained from control of greenhouse gasses outweigh the cost?

Is our belief that we can control nature simply self delusional.

The extinction of man is inevitable, but hopefully not tomorrow.

Shecky
08-02-2007, 10:25 AM
I didn't say total. Man hasn't been around long enough. But we are a speices that has actively caused the extinction of many many speices, and many of our actions are causing speicies to head towards extinction.

Pushing the current system closer and closer to collapse.

Yes, all speices compete. But there is a balance, that keeps the system going. There are checks and balances. Like preditor to prey.

Man has eliminated it's checks. We aren't a source of food for another animal. We have lowered the death from diesease. We control our food source.

Boo us. If you can't see that we are starting another system collapse, then there isn't any hope for the survival of humans.

And great quote Shecky. That's just how I feel. We are part of nature, and not set aside from it, as much of western ideaology, philosphy and religion tries to make us.

And what happens to nature, what we do to nature, we do to ourselves. Nature developes diesease, virus' and many deadly things that don't seem good. Who says that we are one of the good guys? When nature doesn't need something anymore, it goes away.

It could even be said, and with great evidence, that man is his own predator. We're pretty efficient at killing ourselves off, even when we think we're trying to save ourselves (e.g., inadvertently breeding superbugs that are resistant to all the vaccines and 'cides). In a way, our attempt at circumventing Darwin's presence (immunizing people, treating people with illnesses who would otherwise die, etc. - all the humanitarian things we should do) is succeeding... in making the species weaker. Look at how much of the race's resources is going towards saving people whom nature is attempting to kill, and ask yourself how much MORE of our species' energy is going to be put towards this in the future. We're not really making the species stronger; we're setting ourselves up for a massive die-off if there's even a little hiccup in the human race's health-care system. That, of course, would be nature's way of telling us to stop breeding and to stop saving the weak (please don't think that I believe that humanity SHOULD have a die-off; I'm just saying that it's getting more and more inevitable). The only real problem with this is that if we do something that REALLY kills ourselves off big-time, we'll take a big chunk of the biosphere down with us.

JayDubya
08-02-2007, 10:37 AM
So, they introduce radiation to "watch electrons" and suddenly, they behave differently.

And man thinks they are smart.

I'm not a high-energy physicst, so I may get this wrong. Any HEP people out there, please feel free to correct.

When the electrons leave the gun, they are just clouds of probability, and they can occupy multiple locations.

In order to observe this electron, you have to hit it with a photon (or any other particle). Do we agree? You can't "see" something without photons reflecting from that thing and hitting your eyes, yes?

But at the instant when the photon intersects with the electron's "probabilty cloud", the electron has to decide whether the photon hit it or not. So it rolls some dice to determine exactly where it is, relative to the photon that intersected its cloud.

But that very effort of rolling the dice to determine its exact location causes the "probability cloud" to collapse into a single point - essentially the electron is no longer a cloud, it is a particle.

Thus the reason the experimental result changes when something observes it. It's not the observer, so much as the photons that must be allowed to hit the electron in order to make observation possible.

Vardak
08-02-2007, 10:45 AM
I'm not a high-energy physicst, so I may get this wrong. Any HEP people out there, please feel free to correct.

When the electrons leave the gun, they are just clouds of probability, and they can occupy multiple locations.

In order to observe this electron, you have to hit it with a photon (or any other particle). Do we agree? You can't "see" something without photons reflecting from that thing and hitting your eyes, yes?

But at the instant when the photon intersects with the electron's "probabilty cloud", the electron has to decide whether the photon hit it or not. So it rolls some dice to determine exactly where it is, relative to the photon that intersected its cloud.

But that very effort of rolling the dice to determine its exact location causes the "probability cloud" to collapse into a single point - essentially the electron is no longer a cloud, it is a particle.

Thus the reason the experimental result changes when something observes it. It's not the observer, so much as the photons that must be allowed to hit the electron in order to make observation possible.

This is as good an explanation as is necessary for the ongoing discussion. The point here is that observation inevitably alters the experiment. In order to demonstrate that a wave of energy with the potential to produce sound, actually produces it you must provide a reciever, which alters the experiment.

JayDubya
08-02-2007, 10:47 AM
In a way, our attempt at circumventing Darwin's presence (immunizing people, treating people with illnesses who would otherwise die, etc. - all the humanitarian things we should do) is succeeding... in making the species weaker. Look at how much of the race's resources is going towards saving people whom nature is attempting to kill, and ask yourself how much MORE of our species' energy is going to be put towards this in the future.

Just to be fair - the asteroids, comets, supervolcanoes, death clouds, minature black holes and other extinction-level events in the Earth's future do not care whether there are 100,000 super-fit human beings living on an Eden-like paradise, or 9 billion not-so-fit human beings living on a somewhat scuffed up planet. All of those humans, and virtually all of the mammals and large non-mammals will be equally dead.

The advantage of 9 billion not-so-fit humans is the ability of their accumulated brains to create new technologies, new innovations that will get us, and our animal friends, off of this planet, out of this solar system.

While I recognize the chance of this occuring in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes are small, they are not zero. We can do no greater service to our animal friends and our own species than to leave the cradle of Earth and take them with us.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 11:24 AM
I'm not a high-energy physicst, so I may get this wrong. Any HEP people out there, please feel free to correct.

When the electrons leave the gun, they are just clouds of probability, and they can occupy multiple locations.

In order to observe this electron, you have to hit it with a photon (or any other particle). Do we agree? You can't "see" something without photons reflecting from that thing and hitting your eyes, yes?

But at the instant when the photon intersects with the electron's "probabilty cloud", the electron has to decide whether the photon hit it or not. So it rolls some dice to determine exactly where it is, relative to the photon that intersected its cloud.

But that very effort of rolling the dice to determine its exact location causes the "probability cloud" to collapse into a single point - essentially the electron is no longer a cloud, it is a particle.

Thus the reason the experimental result changes when something observes it. It's not the observer, so much as the photons that must be allowed to hit the electron in order to make observation possible.

So, to observe the electron, we have to interact with is, by hitting it with a photon. And at no point do people think that this just might effect the behavior of the electron?

Because without hitting it with a photon, we get an interference pattern and decide that because we do (Based on what we EXPECT to see, and then not getting that). Because we set prescribed ideas on behavior, and then when we don't get that, decided what it must mean, rather then finding out what it really means.

Man's math and science is filled with man's mistaken beliefs. And yet, we think that just because we "observe" we have discovered the truth.

Then a decade later, we have a new truth, because someone "observed".

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 11:27 AM
This is as good an explanation as is necessary for the ongoing discussion. The point here is that observation inevitably alters the experiment. In order to demonstrate that a wave of energy with the potential to produce sound, actually produces it you must provide a reciever, which alters the experiment.

But we aren't just observing the experiement. We are introducing a new element into it, and then making the conclussion that observation changes the behavior of of the electrons. When in fact, hitting the electrons with photons changes the behavior of the electrons.

We made it all up.

Shecky
08-02-2007, 11:38 AM
Just to clarify:

Electrons do not "exist as a cloud of probability". That's just mathematicese to say, "We don't know and can't know without interfering, so statistics tell us it should probably be here. Or here. Or here. You get the idea." The electron is where it is, and we do not have the ability to DETECT its location without INTERFERING with its location, so, from our anthropocentric perspective, it "exists as a cloud of probability." In other words, we've got some pretty good guesses.

It exists. It's THERE. We just can't TELL it's there without making it go elsewhere. :)

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 11:45 AM
Just to clarify:

Electrons do not "exist as a cloud of probability". That's just mathematicese to say, "We don't know and can't know without interfering, so statistics tell us it should probably be here. Or here. Or here. You get the idea." The electron is where it is, and we do not have the ability to DETECT its location without INTERFERING with its location, so, from our anthropocentric perspective, it "exists as a cloud of probability." In other words, we've got some pretty good guesses.

It exists. It's THERE. We just can't TELL it's there without making it go elsewhere. :)

Exactly! Also, we do one experiment, the one shooting metal balls through one and two slots, to see the emerging pattern.

We do the same with electrons, and expect the same pattern, but we don't get the same pattern. The pattern we get is the interference pattern you get with waves.

Since we can't see the electrons, we introduce photons. Since we really don't understand or know the nature of electrons, and still don't we really can't say the photons are NOT having an effect on the behavior of electrons.

JayDubya
08-02-2007, 11:56 AM
Just to clarify:

Electrons do not "exist as a cloud of probability". That's just mathematicese to say, "We don't know and can't know without interfering, so statistics tell us it should probably be here. Or here. Or here. You get the idea." The electron is where it is, and we do not have the ability to DETECT its location without INTERFERING with its location, so, from our anthropocentric perspective, it "exists as a cloud of probability." In other words, we've got some pretty good guesses.

It exists. It's THERE. We just can't TELL it's there without making it go elsewhere. :)


Shecky, there are two factors involved here - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (the thing you're talking about) and quantum mechanics. If an electron is always a particle, it can only go through one slit in the double slit experiment. But a cloud of probability can go through two slits, and create interference patterns.

Non-collapsed electrons do just that - they go through both slits at the same time and create interference patterns. Collapsed electrons go through only one slit.

And quantum bits are not "possibly true or false, we just don't know" - they are literally true and false at the same time.

JayDubya
08-02-2007, 12:05 PM
Since we can't see the electrons, we introduce photons. Since we really don't understand or know the nature of electrons, and still don't we really can't say the photons are NOT having an effect on the behavior of electrons.


I think we just said the photons are having an effect on the behavior of the electrons....

If you're going to be a skeptic about quantum mechanics, fine. But it seems to be that you should be even more of a skeptic about Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Even the scientists involved admit that they don't have a good idea of what increased cloud cover will have a positive or negative effect on overall warming trends.

Quantum Mechanics is very well understood and experimentally proven to accurately demonstrate quite a bit of the behavior of the universe, to the point that a physicst who claims QM is "invalid" is pretty much labelled a quack.

Are we at the end of the road of understanding how the universe works at the sub-atomic level? Of course not. It will turn out that QM is wrong in some ways or in certain situations. But Newtonian mechanics are still incredibly useful, even though they are technically "wrong" at the atomic level. I think you can expect the same out of QM - useful and meaningful 99.9% of the time.

cdbd3rd
08-02-2007, 12:17 PM
Just to clarify:

Electrons do not "exist as a cloud of probability". That's just mathematicese to say, "We don't know and can't know without interfering, so statistics tell us it should probably be here. Or here. Or here. You get the idea." The electron is where it is, and we do not have the ability to DETECT its location without INTERFERING with its location, so, from our anthropocentric perspective, it "exists as a cloud of probability." In other words, we've got some pretty good guesses.

It exists. It's THERE. We just can't TELL it's there without making it go elsewhere. :)

LOL. Love it.
We're chasin' that neon rainbow...

/withers under the weight of silent stares..... sidles back to his chair on the sidelines.
:D

Vardak
08-02-2007, 12:19 PM
This is as good an explanation as is necessary for the ongoing discussion. The point here is that observation inevitably alters the experiment. In order to demonstrate that a wave of energy with the potential to produce sound, actually produces it you must provide a reciever, which alters the experiment.


But we aren't just observing the experiement. We are introducing a new element into it, and then making the conclussion that observation changes the behavior of of the electrons. When in fact, hitting the electrons with photons changes the behavior of the electrons.

We made it all up.

Which is exactly my point, to observe we must add an element to the experiment. A camera, a microphone, photons, our senses, something must be added to detect or measure the result.

Lorein_Azura_Childs
08-02-2007, 12:21 PM
I'll field this one.

There's an absolutely clear answer to this one. I'll even step you through the process so you can replicate the results in your own home:

1) Turn on recorder.
2) Clap with one hand.
3) Play back result.

That'll answer your question sure as shootin'.

Oh, and Borr? That's precisely right - the pseudo-altruism of "save the planet!" is off-base for any practical purpose. Some people think we should off the human race so Mother Earth can be "left alone". We ARE the dominant species, but it behooves us to balance our dominance to make sure that the planet can keep on SUPPORTING us as the dominant species. See, self-interest can be a GOOD thing. :)

Heinlein said it best:



PS Lor? I really have figured out how to clap with one hand. No joke. Think about it and you'll be able to do it, too.


Figured id throw that one into the arena since its on the same level with falling trees and how much wood can a wood chuck chuck. :)

Vardak
08-02-2007, 12:30 PM
Are we at the end of the road of understanding how the universe works at the sub-atomic level? Of course not. It will turn out that QM is wrong in some ways or in certain situations. But Newtonian mechanics are still incredibly useful, even though they are technically "wrong" at the atomic level. I think you can expect the same out of QM - useful and meaningful 99.9% of the time.


That .1% is a heck of a lot more intriguing than the 99.9 though. Leave it to Jay to pull both of these conversations together.

Shecky
08-02-2007, 12:40 PM
I think we just said the photons are having an effect on the behavior of the electrons....

If you're going to be a skeptic about quantum mechanics, fine. But it seems to be that you should be even more of a skeptic about Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Even the scientists involved admit that they don't have a good idea of what increased cloud cover will have a positive or negative effect on overall warming trends.

Quantum Mechanics is very well understood and experimentally proven to accurately demonstrate quite a bit of the behavior of the universe, to the point that a physicst who claims QM is "invalid" is pretty much labelled a quack.

Are we at the end of the road of understanding how the universe works at the sub-atomic level? Of course not. It will turn out that QM is wrong in some ways or in certain situations. But Newtonian mechanics are still incredibly useful, even though they are technically "wrong" at the atomic level. I think you can expect the same out of QM - useful and meaningful 99.9% of the time.

An English-speaking particle physicist (by this I do NOT mean an American/Canadian/Brit/etc. physicist - I mean one who can speak Human English and make himself understood by laypeople LOL) will tell anyone a few things: QM, as with any theory, IS not the LAW but merely a description of the part of it we can observe, and it contains the seed of human fallibility and perspective. As with Einstein's brilliant relativity, every single higher-physics theory, no matter how "proven", has always turned out to be a decent rough approximation for the time but ultimately incorrect, as you willingly note. Directly related to this, he will also tell you that QM and the HUM MUST be understood as "We don't know but we have a decent idea based on our limited ability to observe." It would be hubris to claim that the particle does and does not exist or is and is not in X position; we simply don't have the data.

Yet. ;)

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 12:40 PM
I think we just said the photons are having an effect on the behavior of the electrons....

If you're going to be a skeptic about quantum mechanics, fine. But it seems to be that you should be even more of a skeptic about Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Even the scientists involved admit that they don't have a good idea of what increased cloud cover will have a positive or negative effect on overall warming trends.

Quantum Mechanics is very well understood and experimentally proven to accurately demonstrate quite a bit of the behavior of the universe, to the point that a physicst who claims QM is "invalid" is pretty much labelled a quack.

Are we at the end of the road of understanding how the universe works at the sub-atomic level? Of course not. It will turn out that QM is wrong in some ways or in certain situations. But Newtonian mechanics are still incredibly useful, even though they are technically "wrong" at the atomic level. I think you can expect the same out of QM - useful and meaningful 99.9% of the time.

I don't have much faith in man created explainations of how the universe or nature works, so yes, I don't have much faith in QM. Because if you pay attention to the history of science and math and all the things that man has invented, you see that it's always being corrected and changed.

if it was so true to begin with, why would it change? Simple, we observed and decided this is what it means. Then someone comes along with better toys and say, Oh no, this is what it means.

And just because something works, doesn't mean we understand it. What is happening is we are trying to define what it means, without understanding it.

And from the sounds of it, many of you are just repeating scientific dogma.

Once we believed the world to be flat, it was a fact based on the observations and what was known at the time. But now it's not.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 12:44 PM
Which is exactly my point, to observe we must add an element to the experiment. A camera, a microphone, photons, our senses, something must be added to detect or measure the result.

If I run the experiment in that video, with the metal balls, I get the same result as if I do it while standing in the room, or not standing in the room. I don't need to observe to get the same results.

Hitting an electron with a photon is NOT observing, it's interacting. You have altered the behavior of the electron. You have not just merely observed it.

And by interacting, you alter.

The word causing the problem is observe. What is more accurate, is interact.

Vardak
08-02-2007, 12:57 PM
If I run the experiment in that video, with the metal balls, I get the same result as if I do it while standing in the room, or not standing in the room. I don't need to observe to get the same results.

Hitting an electron with a photon is NOT observing, it's interacting. You have altered the behavior of the electron. You have not just merely observed it.

And by interacting, you alter.

The word causing the problem is observe. What is more accurate, is interact.

With electrons you observe nothing by standing in the room. If it were possible to SEE the electrons your eyes would have to receive light reflected from their surface. If light is reflected, then the electrons have interacted with that light energy. Therefore, it is impossible to observe without interaction.

<edit> it is similarly impossible to interact without altering.

Alavatar
08-02-2007, 01:05 PM
Did you know that the Eqyptians had electricty? They actually used acid and dissimilar metals to plate things, which requires electricity. And here we are, several thousand years later, saying "They were so close to a fantastic technology".

In the next thousand years will humanity look back at the 21st century and say our technology was "so close" to some great breakthrough? I think so.

Dane, many experiments have to be "interacted with" in order to observe results. Saying that interacting with the subject being studied invalidates the experiment is a false conclusion.

In biology the easiest way to find data is to add specific chemicals to the subject. If the subject reacts to the chemical (by turning colors in simple biology) then data can be acquired.

By shooting metal balls are you not interacting with them? You have to apply the force in some way. And light (photons) is bouncing off them which allows the experiment to be recorded/observed. By your definition those photons are altering the behavior of the metal balls.

Also, many conclusions are derived from altering things. "If I do this, then this happens. If I do this instead, then this happens. That means this."

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 01:32 PM
With electrons you observe nothing by standing in the room. If it were possible to SEE the electrons your eyes would have to receive light reflected from their surface. If light is reflected, then the electrons have interacted with that light energy. Therefore, it is impossible to observe without interaction.

<edit> it is similarly impossible to interact without altering.

My point exactly.

The act of observing the electrons isn't changing their behavior, therefor causing the multi-state to collapse and form the expected pattern. The interaction of the photons on the electrons is changing the pattern.

Therefor, we can't assume that the first pattern we get is because the electrons are everywhere and nowhere at the same time, they are in all locations simultaniously.

They are acting in a manner that we can't observ, and the only way we can observe them is to alter thier behavior.

So, we still don't know how electrons behave in an unaltered state because currently, we can't observe them without altering their behavior.

So the big piece of missing information, how do electrons behave when not subjected to an introduced element, in this case, photons.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 01:45 PM
Dane, many experiments have to be "interacted with" in order to observe results. Saying that interacting with the subject being studied invalidates the experiment is a false conclusion.

The experiement is to observe the behavior of both when shot out of a cannon through either one or two slots in a wall, and the pattern they create.

In the first experiment, nothing is introduced after the balls are shot through the cannon.

In the second with electrons, we have to hit the electrons with photons after they have been shot out of the cannon, but before they pass through the slots.

Since we can't observe electrons without using photons, we don't know how electrons behave without doing this. We can only make a guess. So we can't say that the photons don't or do effect the behavior of the electrons.

And there for, the experiment doesn't give us a better understanding, it shows what we don't know.

Vardak
08-02-2007, 01:45 PM
Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.





So, we still don't know how electrons behave in an unaltered state because currently, we can't observe them without altering their behavior.

So the big piece of missing information, how do electrons behave when not subjected to an introduced element, in this case, photons.

Which brings us right back to the begining. We cannot know what the nature of sound energy is unless we measure it, to measure it we must interact with it.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 01:45 PM
Which brings us right back to the begining. We cannot know what the nature of sound energy is unless we measure it, to measure it we must interact with it.

Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 01:58 PM
Ok, while fun, I've run my course on this subject. I'm not going to continue it on my end.

But talk amongst yourselves.

Vardak
08-02-2007, 02:03 PM
Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

Man, no. Something to interpert the vibrations as sound, YES.

I still don't need that hug.

Alavatar
08-02-2007, 02:37 PM
The experiement is to observe the behavior of both when shot out of a cannon through either one or two slots in a wall, and the pattern they create.

In the first experiment, nothing is introduced after the balls are shot through the cannon.

In the second with electrons, we have to hit the electrons with photons after they have been shot out of the cannon, but before they pass through the slots.

Since we can't observe electrons without using photons, we don't know how electrons behave without doing this. We can only make a guess. So we can't say that the photons don't or do effect the behavior of the electrons.

And there for, the experiment doesn't give us a better understanding, it shows what we don't know.

Light consists of photons. We cannot observe the metal ball without light (i.e. photons) bouncing off of it. The same with any visual observation.

Insert the word "anything visually" for "electrons" in your sentance and you get the following:

"Since we can't observe anything visually without using photons"


Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

Wrong. Sound requires a receiver. The "nature" of the energy that you keep referring to is just vibration of matter. If there is no receiver to interpret the vibration as "sound" then the vibration is merely matter moving and energy transferring kinetically.

Raath
08-02-2007, 02:45 PM
Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 02:54 PM
Please refrain from addressing me about those conversations, as it's not really fair to keep asking or addressing comments about them to me, when I have said my piece.

Gypsy_Mouse
08-02-2007, 02:59 PM
Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?


?? (http://www.jinx.com/men/shirts/geek/african_or_european.html?catid=33#bigdesign)

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 03:20 PM
?? (http://www.jinx.com/men/shirts/geek/african_or_european.html?catid=33#bigdesign)

Ooo excellent!

Vardak
08-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Please refrain from addressing me about those conversations, as it's not really fair to keep asking or addressing comments about them to me, when I have said my piece.

I see no one addressing you, I do see some responses to your final comments. Are you posting this just to cause touble? :)

JayDubya
08-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?


What do you mean, African or European?









































WEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!@!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!!1! 1!:eek:

Dane_McArdy
08-02-2007, 03:52 PM
I see no one addressing you, I do see some responses to your final comments. Are you posting this just to cause touble? :)

Since I have taken my point of view out of the conversation, there isn't any reason for anyone to continue addressing my point of view. To quotes someone and respond, is addressing that person. More so when someone responds by saying they are wrong.

I'm done with the conversation, everyone else is welcome to continue discussing their point of view with each other.

It's that simple.

Dane_McArdy
08-03-2007, 08:32 AM
Why did God kill my cat?

Vardak
08-04-2007, 04:40 PM
Why did God kill my cat?


Cause you were mean to me in that last post :(

Dane_McArdy
08-04-2007, 05:32 PM
Cause you were mean to me in that last post :(

No just factual, and my cat died several months ago.

Valzoric
08-06-2007, 12:18 PM
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.


Here's my question:

Hypothetically: If I were traveling in a car at the speed of light and then turned on the headlights, what would happen?

Yvonne_Blacksword
08-06-2007, 12:50 PM
How can you give your word...if everyone takes the words from you?

Attomic
08-14-2007, 07:56 PM
/almostnecro

This (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/06/02/im-in-ur-quantum-box/)is for the physics discussion that happened much earlier.

bigal4458
08-14-2007, 10:32 PM
I believe this belongs in the "Off-Topic" forum



















.....oh, i see.