Jump to content
Science Forums

Omnifarious

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Omnifarious last won the day on February 17

Omnifarious had the most liked content!

About Omnifarious

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

273 profile views
  1. 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. Especiall
  2. 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?
  3. But as I understand it, robotics use constant currents. Muscles use quantized pulses right? Doesn't that make them different?
  4. 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
  5. 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 trie
  6. 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 bein
  7. 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
  8. Ok but how complete is our knowledge of photoreceptors?
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. It matters because it's connected to my issues regarding the possible infinitude of art from my other discussions. If our movement is limited like this then so is our ability to create in the physical world. You mentioned the movements of our eyes compensate for our photoreceptors. I also thought of that but if muscle movement is quantised then so is eye movement right? And how is putting forth my hypothesis and then asking what people think of it unacceptable?
  13. You're no an expert? Are you at least someone who knows about these things?
  14. I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying that it's true and common knowledge? I'm thinking of any image that can fit in our field of vision. I understand the answers you gave me, I just don't think they fix my problem. I don't think I "move the goal posts." If anything I think I've only made the question clearer. Through my research I found that eyes do constantly move and at first I thought that solved the problem but then I wasn't so sure.
  15. With all due respect I don't think VictorMedvil or Write4u should be considered reliable sources or have their writings taken too seriously. Write4u has shown he/she cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and personal opinion. And has no trouble passing one off as the other. VictorMedvil not only makes erroneous and extreme claims about science but uses sources to to back him/her up. Sources which ironically state that these matters are still theoretical.
×
×
  • Create New...