Jump to content
Science Forums

write4u

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    write4u got a reaction from Catgirl in Dreams-a research by Aisha.Z (an 11 year old)   
    This lecture by Anil Seth may be of interest.  He explains how and why our brain experiences "controlled hallucinations" . 
     
  2. Like
    write4u reacted to marcospolo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    How on earth do these "physicists" justify TWO versions of the one property of an Object?
    Really? my car has a Mass or 1 tonne when in the garage (resting)  but once ii push it down the road, it GAINS MASS?
    No, there is only ONE definition for the  Mass property, and "velocity" has ZERO effect on it, and momentum is an entirely different measured property.
    The only thing in a kinetic sense that changes is the Momentum measurement, which is 100% due to the velocity.
    p=mv,   and that's where the story ends.  "Rest vs inertial" is irrational unscientific nonsense.
    There is no such thing as "inertial mass" or "Rest Mass" its just MASS period.   Even Einsteins fan boys agree that there is only one Mass value for any object, but they falsely and irrationally claim its an "Energy increase", called "Momentum" that Einsteins really meant, when his paper on SR said "Mass", because apparently Einstein just got Mass and Momentum mixed up, which can happen when you are writing a major significance paper with science changing consequences, and he was only the worlds greatest scientific  mind, but just could not get the Mass/ Momentum quite right. Confusing one for the other. Plus in all his equations, he specifically used m for Mass, not p for momentum. An easy mistake, if you have no idea what you are doing.
     
  3. Thanks
    write4u got a reaction from marcospolo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    I gave you the like........😁
  4. Like
    write4u reacted to marcospolo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Well these claims are hardly settled science are they? be honest. Claims like these are hotly contested, and so far no one has a solid reply to the criticisms.
    Not ever has the speed of light been measured to be the same in all frames of reference, not once ever. Neither has anyone ever measured the speed of light in a one way trip setup.
    No no has ever measured any physical lengths shrinking, and none has ever measured any Mass increases.
    And the claim that two clocks can each be slower than the other, is only solid rational evidence that there is a mistake in your theory somewhere, its not possible that the theory is sound with such paradoxes.
    I cant imagine why anyone would hang on to beliefs like these unless he was a member of a mystical cult and it was part of their religious faith.
     
  5. Thanks
    write4u got a reaction from Anchovyforestbane in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    It depends on the scientific discipline you are addressing.  Is there a country named Russia?
    The answer to that is "we know and can demonstrate that Russia exists" .  What it is like is completely subjective.
    It is like all large societies. It has the best of humanity, it has the worst of humanity.
    Those questions do not belong to the physical sciences, those are of the social sciences, which use entirely different criteria than the physical sciences.
  6. Like
    write4u reacted to marcospolo in Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned   
    Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies.
    I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.
     
     
     
  7. Thanks
    write4u got a reaction from Dubbelosix in They stole my work!   
    Looks like I am behind the times. But I am sure the old way will still give you protection. The point of authorship lies in recorded dates , whether by e-mail or by snail-mail.
  8. Thanks
    write4u got a reaction from Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    Yes, indeed.
    I suspect that the brain, instead of increasing in size, evolved more efficient folding thereby increasing the volume of its neural surface area.
    An interesting example of increasing surface area may be found in simple clay, which has the largest surface area than any other substance. 1 cm^3 of clay can coat the surface of an entire tennis court. This is what makes it an ideal candidate for mineralogical chemistry.
    A wonderful lecture by Robert Hazen (mineralogist) on the evolution of life itself. 
    Start viewing @ 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.
     
  9. Like
    write4u reacted to Evolute in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    You've been giving scientific data. Either you accept it or you don't. ALL of it is a matter of public record. If some here can find and post the data then you can also.
  10. Like
    write4u got a reaction from WalkerofLight in Anubis the Death god   
    All gods are incarnations of innate universal mathematical potentials.
    The question that needs answering is if gods are sentient.  If not they are not motivated and worship is not necessary, only caution.
  11. Like
    write4u reacted to Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    Yes, and also this: https://www.hhmi.org/news/meet-three-new-genes-may-have-influenced-human-brain-size and also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6092419/ but keep in mind that it isn't just brain size, it the amount of neuronal development in the neocortex. That's what underlies the production of more progenitors both in the womb and in the years after Human birth. All Human neuronal cell growth doesn't happen during fetal development because, if it did, a newborn's head wouldn't pass through the birth canal. So a lot of neuronal development within the neocortex, and subsequent increases in brain size, happens after birth.
    It's just all been so fascinating to study this Human dynamic.   
  12. Like
    write4u reacted to Turtle in Mars Rovers   
    ___These little buggers amaze me! They have run so long, we now take them for granted. NASA main page for the Rovers:
    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/
     
    Two precent Rover photos I found interesting:
    Feldspar crystasl? I so forget the geological chemistry I knew so poorly; this looks familiar though.
    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/557/2M175811568EFFAD80P2977M2M1.JPG
    Unusual holes in rock.
    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/557/2M175814826EFFAD80P2977M2M1.JPG
  13. Like
    write4u got a reaction from Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    An interesting projection. Time may tell......😄
  14. Like
    write4u reacted to Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    Many animals do this. Elephants tenderly handle the bones of departed elephants. It's because intelligence isn't ours and ours alone. And yes, Primates can be taught to do all kinds of amazing things that they learn and that helps them communicate- but it's because they are taught. Give them a bicycle and they'll stare at it, throw it around and do whatever, but they will not know how to ride it. I saw a Chimp light a campfire with a match. But it was taught how to, not because it thought of it on their own. Brain-wise I see Great Apes as toddlers that can be taught things, because toddlers won't know of think of how to do most things by themselves either.
    And certainly, count the chromosomes but there is no question that the Notch2NL copies in the Human development of the brain is the piece of he puzzle that separates us. We may have a different number of chromosomes but without the Notch2NL genetic variations we would just be apes with a different chromosome count. Biologically Humans have slower brain growth where stem cells create more progenitor cells than neuron cells. The greater amount of progenitors ultimately allow for more neurons to be created. Ape brains in the womb grow faster and so their stem cells do not create proportionally more progenitor cells but instead are bust creating neurons.
    More neurons translate into a larger neocortex in Humans. Apes have the capacity to learn, Humans have a higher capacity to create. Apes can use a stick. Humans can shape and lash a piece of flint onto the end of one. It was Notch2NL A, B, and C genes paired with respective NBPF genes that set Humans apart from apes. There are many animals with different numbers of chromosome pairs. Humans happen to have fused chromosome 2 but that's not what gave us our brains. Our brains happened on chromosome 1 at the 1p12.1 locus which got copied to the 1q21.1 locus. If need be, I will cite papers supporting this. I also thank you for reengaging on the subject. Much appreciated.
  15. Like
    write4u got a reaction from Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    I live in No. Idaho and have worked with the Kootenai Indian tribe. Several members of the tribe believe Sasquatch exists. While I am very skeptical, I respect the forest knowledge of local natives and am not in a hurry to dismiss the claim, unless it is shown that such a creature or tribe cannot exist.
  16. Like
    write4u got a reaction from Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    I believe there is one indisputable overriding factoid and that is "all skills are learned", from experience and observation. There is no such things as inherent knowledge.
    The brain enters the world as a blank computer which is programmed by it's unique experiential environment.
    There is no innate knowledge except some hardwired instinctual survival mechanisms such as the "fight or flight" mechanism, which already exhibits in single celled organisms. 
    It takes human years to learn certain physical skills which are exceeded by much simpler animals. We may learn to ride a bicycle but so do apes or dogs. But a fawn may learn to walk in hours, which may take a human baby months to learn. "Necessity is the mother of invention"
    I agree, but all hominid apes have Notch2NL. It is just more evolved in humans. You cannot say that Notch2NL is what sets us apart.  We all share this genome to a greater or lesser extent. There are humans with extremely low IQ and there are apes with relative extremely high IQ, due to brain development and teaching.
    OTOH, no apes, except humans, have 23 chromosomes and a human chromosome 2 which is twice as large and complex as the separate chromosomes 2p and 2 q in apes. It is clearly what completely separates humans (and Neaderthals) from all other apes.
    I accept your greater knowledge.  My main point was, when examining hominid fossil remains, the easiest way to tell if it is human is by chromosome count. 
    24 chromosomes = ancestral hominid , 23 chromosomes = human hominid. The number of chromosomes sets us "apart" from ancestral hominids.
    p.s. the pleasure to learn new things is all mine.......☺️
     
  17. Like
    write4u got a reaction from Evolute in My Idea Of How Apes Turned Into Humans   
    But a Bonobo can learn to use a Lexus or a computer.  There are several apes who can express abstract ideas via sign language or computer imagery.
    Koko the Gorilla was devastated when her manx kitten, which she had named "ALLBALL" (no tail), was run over by a car on the street. She sat for days in the window looking out, grieving and signing "allbball gone, no come back, Koko sad".
    That clearly showed her understanding of the situation and her emotional status. 
  18. Thanks
    write4u reacted to VictorMedvil in Is muscle movement quantized or continuous?   
    This is all governed by Newtonian physics(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics) and can still be calculated easily using the laws of motion. The amount of force produced by the muscle does a predictable amount of movement of the arm or leg or whatever, the combination of billions of muscle fibers contracting or expanding using chemical energy from the mitochondria in the form of ATP created by the mitochondria supplied by blood in the form of complex organic molecules such as sugar or carbohydrates along with oxygen. There is nothing special about the organic body it still is governed by physics in a predictable way.
     
    Cycle of Chemicals In Life

     
     

     
     
    Muscle Movement Process

     
    Newtonian Physics of kicking a ball
     


     
    I thought I would explain it in pictures to make you understand, which all could be explained in math but you wouldn't understand that and as pictures say 1000 words much longer, but basically in the simplest form, (Chemical Energy Of Total ATP Used) = (1/2)(Mass of foot) (Velocity of foot)^2  and  (Chemical Energy Of Total ATP Used) - (Kinetic Energy of foot) = 0
  19. Sad
    write4u reacted to Evolute in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    I somehow don't think science Forums are made up of panels of PhD's of various disciplines. I belong to several Forums outside this one. Not all are scientific, but I've yet to run across very many at all that I would consider having experts on board. Most are discussion type Forums that discuss subjects more than solve them. And I've been hit or miss with academia myself even when it came to a Harvard geophysics professor addressing my climate change questions regarding Milankovitch Cycles. So you're not alone.
  20. Like
    write4u reacted to Eclipse Now in Climate Change Irrelevant   
    And rather than just quoting something - what are your thoughts on the subject?
    I'm convinced we have the technology to offer everyone on earth a convenient modern life. We just need the political will power to do that. Ecocity or New Urban planning is one of those technologies. Please watch this video, it's only 4 minutes and it rocks.
     
     
  21. Thanks
    write4u reacted to Eclipse Now in Climate Change Irrelevant   
    Yeah, plastics, pollution, overuse - half the world's rivers don't even reach the ocean. But new types of agriculture are coming that use water totally differently.
    On the positive side, there are efforts in some of our cities to unearth old rivers. The Cheonggyecheon in Seoul is a great example. This river was once a mere drain, covered in traffic clogged highways and forgotten. Now it is a peaceful recreational park and cycleway. It attracts crowds that support local businesses. It cut through the choked highway and - with a few bus services and cycleways - the highway traffic didn't just spill over to side streets - it disappeared. Done right, unearthed rivers can become the heart of a New Urban town plan just like a main street or town square. It also became a city ecosystem with fish and birds and bees. It allows wind to blow through the city lowering temperatures in summer by an average 2 degrees. All those air-conditioners have a bit less work to do, saving energy. Once buried, the river in Seoul is now a main feature. It can happen again. 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon
     

  22. Sad
    write4u reacted to OceanBreeze in Climate Change Irrelevant   
    India giving equal rights to the Ganges is a joke. They should be giving it the “Last Rights”, considering how polluted it is.

    “The Ganges River, a holy river that was once pure Himalayan Mountain water has turned into a slimy monstrosity. If we were to look at any other river in the world, the Ganges would be the most polluted by quite the margin.”
  23. Thanks
    write4u reacted to Plautus in Any Ancient Civilizations Without Writing?   
    It's not factually correct, either. 
    http://www.taneter.org/writing.html
  24. Thanks
    write4u reacted to VictorMedvil in Almost 143,000 Bacteriophage Species Live In The Human Gut   
    Biologists have found that almost 143,000 Species of Bacteriophage live inside the human gut, read more at http://www.sci-news.com/biology/human-gut-bacteriophages-09374.html
  25. Like
    write4u reacted to Evolute in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    I've read through this thread. I do understand the OP's pointed inquiry. The eye's photoreceptors. At a highly microscopic level photoreceptors are individual organic structures. And yes, there are billions of them, but since there are quadrillion of photons striking them, do the receptors catch all of the photons or do some of the photons land in between the photoreceptors causing a "pixelated" signal to the brain? The brain, in order to smooth things out, then might do something like "photoshop" the pixels to "fill in" what photons landed outside of the photoreceptors.
    I'm only saying this to help define/refine the OP's frustration with people's responses. Because as far as I could tell the responses missed the substance OP's question. Be that as it may, I would like to help Omnifarious to have confidence that the incredibly small nature the eye's super microscopic photoreceptors is such that for all intents and purposes, in OUR real world, The photoreceptors capture MORE than enough photons for the brain to translate images into smooth landscapes. This should help any anxieties regarding art/color getting somehow missed by an observer.
    I mean let's face it, How art comes across to any individual is highly subjective to begin with. But I dare say that if what you fear had even been an issue historically or currntly it has not affect art appreciation or critique. If you produce a piece of art then you simply have to go with that 99% of the population (assumption) will see what you see. But since no one is exactly the same, no everyone may see the same color tones? There comes a point when our visual macro world is in no way affected by our microscopic, nano-sized rods and cones. Technically, do our photoreceptors catch every photon that hits our eyes? No, but do they catch enough to allow the brain to smooth things out? Indeed they do. Otherwise the art world would be in shambles if it existed at all.
    It isn't easy to think every possibly infinite shade of color in one's art isn't going to be perfectly transported into an observer's brain. And one could certainly overthink the matter to the point of quitting art creation, but I assure you, with around 120 million rods and 6 million cones in each eye sized at about 2-3 microns each, the Human eye won't miss much of anything. Certainly too small for any artist to paint or draw a point small enough that it wouldn't spill over onto adjacent rods or cones. Smoothing things out before the brain ever enters the picture. Hope this helps.
    Answer: A finite number of images? Technically, yes. The ability of an artist to create something small enough to worry about something getting missed in between photoreceptors? Impossible.
    I hope you don't mind if I don't address the afterlife issue 🙂    
×
×
  • Create New...