Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 668
  1. zifn4b
    Yesterday 01:19 PM
    zifn4b
    It's discussed at length on this very forum. I understand the logic if the machine that observed the electrons works the same as the human eye then theoretically human observation could affect the particles. Then the jump there is that because our perception is based on a rendering based on sensory input which we can never verify what we actually sense is actually there then an alternate explanation might be that our minds fabricate some part of our perception it could be that mechanism does that.

    That's the logic. I don't buy it based on the evidence.
  2. zifn4b
    Yesterday 07:05 AM
    zifn4b
    Yes, so "observation" is being used loosely. Of course if a photon bumps into an electron something is going to happen. It doesn't mean that if a person looks at something that their observation is going to change it especially considering that eyes only receive photons. The experiment was effectively like shining a flashlight on some electrons. Thanks! I always suspected that's what was going on and that people were inferring strange things from it. I've seen people try to use this as a basis for why subjective observation changes reality. While you might say that's still up for debate, this particular experiment doesn't support that conclusion.

    Also, the experiment was one slit then two slits but the pattern observed by the two slits was not what they expected so they tried to "observe" the electrons and the pattern changed again. They say the electron decided to act differently because of the observation but I would say that device that performed the "observation" affected the electrons.
  3. zifn4b
    02-04-2016 03:21 PM
    zifn4b
    That's not the part I'm referring to. One of the experiments involves using a machine to "observe" the electrons. It is said that "observation" changes the pattern of the electrons on the foil you mention. It is from that the idea of observing something changes it arises from. I am curious what the machine is that did the "observation" and how it does it because depending on how it does it, it may have affected the particles. For example, you could imagine firing particles at other particles may influence them.
  4. zifn4b
    02-04-2016 11:36 AM
    zifn4b
    Ah bummer, well if you run across anything about that and want to, I would be much appreciative if you would send it my way.
  5. zifn4b
    02-04-2016 11:14 AM
    zifn4b
    Hey question for you if you really are knowledgeable about physics. Do you know how the device that was used to measure the position of the electron in the double slit experiment works? I've been trying to find information about that and can't seem to do so. I imagine that the device for "observation" is based on firing some type of particles at the electrons to measure their position. Do you know by chance?
  6. SelfMadeBum
    01-20-2016 09:15 AM
    SelfMadeBum
    Yeah it's awesome.
  7. SelfMadeBum
    01-20-2016 08:59 AM
    SelfMadeBum
    Nice avi.
  8. Imperator
    01-15-2016 09:35 AM
    Imperator commented on Theology for the NT: Open View Theism
    Pretty much how I see it thus far too
  9. SkyBright
    12-31-2015 09:07 AM
    SkyBright
    No problem. It's a minor issue.
  10. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 12:38 PM
    SkyBright
    Wtf. I already said that mammals plants and fish belong to the same domain. That's the best I can do. Beyond that it's not cut and dried except to say evolution happens in communal ecosystems of different organisms.
  11. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 12:18 PM
    SkyBright
    You're badgering is getting old real fast. I just spent twenty minutes posting my evidence. It's excerpts from the same paper I already posted for you.

    Leave me alone now.
  12. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 08:24 AM
    SkyBright
    Also, I think that's getting personal, attacking my motives, which are borne out of your own preconceived notions of why anyone would disagree. But I don't take it too personally anymore.
  13. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 08:23 AM
    SkyBright
    Well you can think that but I think you have misjudged my motives in that regard; this is, I think, because of your background. That's what you are used to seeing.
  14. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 08:16 AM
    SkyBright
    Sure. I get it. Your position is entirely reasonable. I just disagree on some theory about it. I am learning how not to unnecessarily screw things up or over complicate with emotions, and I get train in a fair fight. Thank you for arguing. It's not exactly a debate. It's more of a disagreement among panelists. A gentleperson's disagreement.
  15. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 08:04 AM
    SkyBright
    You're welcome.
  16. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 07:56 AM
    SkyBright
    And then I would probably put the following quote from Nietzsche on the bottom or as a border:

     
    Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science: with a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs

    Maybe you see why I haven't actually done it?

  17. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 07:49 AM
    SkyBright
    I imagine I would draw a background of letters representing amino acids of RNA. I would fill the entire sheet with rows of letters, in both standard right to left orientation, but also, top to bottom. To resent genetic material transfer both horizontally and vertically. Also some fluffy clouds at the top to represent the unknown progenote time period. Then I would draw see through organisms on top of the letters, to represent the flow of genetic material we all share. But also the emergence of organisms as coming out of this, but slightly veiled because we don't know yet exactly how that happened. The hard part is I would like to draw a 4d representation to demonstrate the Darwinian threshold and speciation, and the difference in tempo and mode of evolution after that threshold. I would also need to demonstrate the domains (archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes), and perhaps leave room for some more domains yet undiscovered. Also we would need a bright sun in the cloud raining radiation, and some other natural forces and random events.
  18. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 07:34 AM
    SkyBright
    Look, I know how it feels to be accused of something by someone else; when you feel like that wasn't actually what you did, you feel that the accusation was unjust. That's not a good way to feel. I'm sorry for accusing you of quote mining.
  19. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 07:26 AM
    SkyBright
    I also provided plenty of evidence. You just haven't read it. XD
  20. SkyBright
    12-30-2015 07:24 AM
    SkyBright
    Hehe. You still aren't getting it; it would help if you read Woese's articles. Genealogies of all these creatures do not prove common descent in the way Darwin proposed it. But that's ok, it still shows how they are related. Also, Darwin himself and other imminent scientists point out it would just be interesting to look into, it's not necessary to evolution.

    Thanks though.

About Me

  • About clock40man
    Gender
    Male
  • Personality
    MBTI Type
    xxxx
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Brain Dominance
    Left

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: Today 06:12 PM
  • Join Date: 01-27-2013
  • Referrals: 0

Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 20 of 33

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.