Omnifarious

Because everything I've ever read about nerve impulses tells me that they function as on or off pluses and not like the constant current you get in a machine. And logic tells me that our movement is limited by they way our nerves and muscles work. I want to know if this theory of muscle movement is true. The only way I have to do that is by Googling these things to find out what the scientists have said. But sometimes I get no results so I come to places like this. And I can't work these things out for myself because I am no expert. So are our movements limited in this way, yes or no? And either way, why?

I have no objection to speculation, what I object to is people presenting theories to the general public without telling them that they are theories. Otherwise the air they have when they convey them is the same as a school teacher reading from a textbook. And weather you realize it or not, you trust them implicitly. Trust they know what they are talking about and assume they are telling you about a perfectly true thing, that they are speaking from a position of proof. There is so much that is fact, so much is theory. Yet the people who take it upon themselves to tell us don't tell us which is which. How are people without scientific backgrounds supposed to figure it out for themselves? You don't make dvds without putting an age rating on every box. Why should you talk about theories without telling people that's just what they are? It's like when the media makes biased stories or imply a natural death was a covered up murder. Legally, they can do it but they have an obligation to tell the people the full story because people assume they do. Indeed they have to assume because they won't get any news if they diddn't.

Well why don't they say that when they write articles and make documentaries? If someone sates something without saying it's speculation, it implies that it's a known and proven fact.

I just saw a documentary that mentioned the Andromeda galaxy colliding with ours. It said that it would lead to the creation of a lot of new stars. But when they all go supernova it will lead to a massive increase cosmic radiation in our galaxy. Implying this would be a threat to any life. I also read an article that said, assuming our species survives, we would have to find a way to leave the Milky Way before that happens. Though it didn't quite mention why. And yes I know that this won't happen for billions of years but I still want to know if our galaxy will become some kind of galactic radioactive wasteland.

I think you mean given. Are you saying the info given to me here is true? I was just talking to my therapist about this earlier. When I receive data I don't decide weather to accept it or not. I accept all of it. I am aware that there are things that scientists disagree on and things they all agree on. But I can't tell which category things like the ones I've been talking about fall into. I always assume it's the latter. Not that I'm gullible but when scientific information is given to me in any media, I can't help but assume it's already been proven beyond all doubt. Especially because I assume the people who do it are far more qualified then me. And it's not just science, I have difficulty arguing with most people. When they say this is the way thing are, I assume they know more then me. When my opinion clashes with theirs's, I think there might be something wrong with mine. I have very black and white thinking, I don't think my brain can process the idea of a partial truth, something being between true and false.

So all the people that I've been talking to here are just armatures, enthusiasts and hobbyists? I wanted to know if thing things I'm worried about are true. I assume that science already has the answers and the people here have access to that information. That all the stuff I've asked about is a matter of public record. Is that not the case?

But as I understand it, robotics use constant currents. Muscles use quantized pulses right? Doesn't that make them different?

I assumed the people here are experts. Or at least far more knowledgeable about scientific matters then me. In my experience you can't just find a scientist. You can't find them in the yellow pages. And you can't google "Scientists in my area." I know because I just tried it. And you can't just call them up to ask them something out of the blue. I know because I did that too. I found a professor of quantum mechanics teaching at a university. I left a message for her and to my surprise she called back. But it was still really awkward and she hadn't even heard of the thing I was asking about.

Actually if we were talking about metal bones it wouldn't be quantised positions. If we were talking about some kind of robot, it's joints would be on a hinge moved by a motor that moves continuously while fed power. Assuming time and space are not quantized, you could stop them at any position. But I don't know if that's how organics work. I don't want to think so and I don't want to. That's why I used the word "if". How does this say "I think it's true"? Are you criticizing me for asking people this question? If so, what is the point of this website? I tried googling this question but got nothing.

That is perhaps the WORST thing you could have said to me! It was this theory that started all this obsession for me, all these different questions that I've been asking stem from that! Years ago my father told me about it because he thought it was interesting. But it was the most horrific, soul crushing, life destroying thing I'd ever heard. It sent me into a spiralling depression I've yet to recover from. And 90% of the people I've asked have said it was true. And that number now includes you. I thought you were different from the others, that you were that rare combination of being scientifically minded and against this theory. And now you tell me it's mathematically true?! I was hoping you'd give me a reason to doubt it, you were a source of comfort to me because I believed what you said. But now that you are confirming it, I can't help but feel that makes it true.

Actually I thought science is absolutely about absolutes, they are exactly what it deals in. Saying that things are this way or because of this and that's the end of it. That scientists are supposed to be sceptical and reject any kind of paranormal or supernatural explanation without even considering it. That's why I can't imagine how scientists can be religious. I remember when I was a child, I saw a cartoon where a scientist says "I don't believe in fairy tales, only in scientific facts. That's what being a scientist is all about." I think that played a part in shaping my understanding of science. I've long supposed that somewhere out there, there's a panel of scientific minds that decide what is true or false and stamp them accordingly... Phrenology-false, evolution-true, and then they are the ones who authorize putting those truths in books and teaching them in school. I wanted to know what they had stamped this and other things that worry me. In my experience scientists, or at least scientifically minded people, are anything but open minded. My father was a scientist, he worked in a chemical co's lab, helped to set up laboratories across the country and in his spare time he had a hobby in astronomy and read any of the 4 science magazines he subscribed to. And he is completely inflexible in his beliefs, particularly when it came to science. Some theories he treats as gospel. I have talked to people about science here and on other sites about all the ideas and theories that bother me. Most, if not all of of them say they are true right away. that these are truths so self evident that they aren't even up for discussion. And then there are the people who make science documentaries who are always talking about things as if they are proven. On the tv show Nova, in the episode about multiverses, the presenter (I think it was Brian Greene) said... "Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..." He doesn't start by saying "Theoretically there is.." "Hypothetically..." or "If it's true that..." No he just geos straight to "Since" like it's proven. And when people talk like that I can't help but assume they know it for a fact.

Ok but how complete is our knowledge of photoreceptors?

I haven't actually seen write4u's latest post because I blocked him/her. Not for upsetting me but for being so unscientific. But my mind is not made up, I am not determined to believe it. If anything I want to dis-believe it. Actually believe is not the right word, I want to know if it's true or not. I wondered if photoreceptors work like pixels and I found someone, the creator of that image, who said yes. I just want to know if that person is speaking scientific truth or personal opinion. And I strongly resent Evolute's claim that I am mentally ill. I admit I can be obsessional and struggle with depression. But that doesn't mean I should not be engaged with or my words ignored as the meaningless rantings of a lunatic. I'm having a discussion on a forum, not telling people on the street about how my tinfoil hat keeps the Illuminati from reading my mind. There is a difference between talking to a therapist for an hour a week and being consigned to a padded room in a straitjacket. And exactly what qualifies Evolute to diagnose anyone as mentally ill anyway? Even my therapist said she wasn't qualified to do that. Furthermore, so what if I've asked this before? What harm is it doing? Any why come here and tell everyone about it and that I'm mad? Who are you, the Forum Police? Why are question forums so strict, are web pages rationed?

I'm not sure if I ever thought about science like that. I suppose I thought it was like a compendium of absolute truths. A directory of true of false.

I'll have you know your post came in while I was talking to my therapist about this very issue and I told here what you just said. She said I was not mentally ill and that you a rude and abusive bully.