imported>Import: Imported current content

2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

Imported current content

New page

Thanks for the content [[KooMar]]. This should give us something to chew on. ---DavidSiegel

<pre>
David: but then i like to live on the edge
surkumdev1: living on the edge? you go dude
surkumdev1:
David: ive been warning her that i dont celebrate v day
David: i think its a toture device invented by women to toture women
surkumdev1: yeah
David: but then i am somewhat melodramatic and prone to understated hyperbole
surkumdev1: oh
mard_tehrani joined the room
mard_tehrani left the room
alabidi77 joined the room
alabidi77 left the room
surkumdev1: brb
surkumdev1 left the room
surkumdev1 joined the room
surkumdev1: hello guys
David: hello
surkumdev1: what u doing?
David: converting 6/7 or 6-6-02 or 06/2002 into a valid date
surkumdev1: oh
David: the web developers neglected to validat input for date at the application level
David: now i have to do it at import time
surkumdev1: oh ok
David: they hand me a random string an i have to parse it . . .

David: sigh ... . meet the real world of programming
surkumdev1: ha, good luck man
David: thanks
David: lol
surkumdev1: wow, u guys log conversations
David: he he
David: that is pretty scary isnt it?
David: sometimes a cool idea has a chance to play around in here and we want to remember it
surkumdev1: yeah
surkumdev1: i am ok with it
David: at first i was like hhmm . . .
David: but then it was cool
surkumdev1: so, how long have u guys been doing it?
David: not sure a couple of weeks i think
surkumdev1: oh ok
David: days all blur together for me
David: not every day gets logged only when something somewhat interesting happens
surkumdev1: yeah ok
surkumdev1: dave, here's a webpage of mine http://www.xanga.com/mdsuresh
David: cool
surkumdev1: mostly my own quotes
David: i allmost started a web log
surkumdev1: yeah
surkumdev1: do u weblog on wikiworld?
David: but figured i didnt have enouhg time for my current endevours
David: yeah some
David: now i log it here though
David: most of the time it makes it to wikiworld
karma''swat''team joined the room
karma''swat''team left the room
David: be back (lunc)
Mr. Subtlety (superfreak247365) joined the room
little''miss''brenda joined the room
runand_rogue joined the room
little''miss''brenda left the room
runand_rogue: heloo
runand_rogue: good entrance no?
brownhairedgirlirl joined the room
runand_rogue: hello
runand_rogue: abort the mission,
brownhairedgirlirl: is this a chat room about the borg
runand_rogue left the room
brownhairedgirlirl left the room
David: I need to write a robot that can be infected with the information physics theory
surkumdev1: ha
David: then i could put it on in this chat room to converse with new commers when no one else is around
David: could one say that the very difinition of intelligence suggests all intelligence is collective intelligence?
David: one could say it but would it mean anything to anyone else
surkumdev1: ha
surkumdev1: the bot?
surkumdev1: yeah, u know about alice?
David: no
surkumdev1: alicebot.org is not working right now
surkumdev1: http://www.alicebot.org/
David: bummer . . . what is it?
surkumdev1: actually it is
David: wont get me in trouble with my internet filters will it?
surkumdev1: what do u mean?
surkumdev1: u are not allowed to access the web from office?
David: <smile> my company blocks certian websites and logs everything
surkumdev1: ok
splenda6 joined the room
splenda6: hey room
David: ello
surkumdev1: hey what do u guys think of
surkumdev1: The first step in failure Is to think that you can outsmart everyone The first step in success is to realize that not because 99% of the populations, think so, feel so, it is true. Besides, 99% of the population is exactly not rich or smart for that reason. So, what am i sayin? That unless you really put ur ideas in motion and experiment, u/they are only outsmarting them/u in vain.
splenda6: makes sensew.. in a way
surkumdev1: yeah
jimscarver: makes 89,7% sence
splenda6: or you could say don't be arrogant
David: we do tend to think we are smarter than the average person
splenda6: we being who?
jimscarver: the average person thinks they are smarter than the average person
David: i have average smartness in mos areas
David: yes
splenda6: lol@ jim
surkumdev1: i have average IQ
David: in some i am less than average
jimscarver: that is true, according to a least one study
David: iq is a very kludgy tool for mesuring intelligence
splenda6: I don't know my IQ... that may say something about my intellegence
David: it is biased
surkumdev1: i really really have an average Iq
jimscarver: IQ only measures a few of the intelligences we know about.
David: yes
splenda6: true
David: how do we messure alien intelligence with wich we have no common cognitive ground?
splenda6: we wait til we encounter them and take it from there
splenda6: who knows there are aliens?
surkumdev1: may be, aliens will give us a better IQ test
surkumdev1:
David: hmm . . . alien intelligence in any intelligence that is alien to me
David: dolphins could have alien intelligence but im not sure because i dont understand them
surkumdev1: i heard that dophins can understand grammer
David: yeah i head that once
surkumdev1: like stuff like clause
surkumdev1: phrase and stuff
David: maybe they are trying to understand us and succeeding better than we at understanding them
David: they may have several layers of language that we may not even be able to phathom
David: we are just stuck on grammer
surkumdev1: yeah
surkumdev1: so, splenda, what bring you here?
David: for all we know there may be several classes of intelligence trying to make contact that we cant even consider because we are too narow minded
surkumdev1: can be
surkumdev1: dogs could be intelligent and could have had their own language
splenda6 left the room
surkumdev1: do u know that cats only say 'meow' when they try to communicate with humnas
David: look you scared her away
David: lol
surkumdev1: what did i do?
David: i belive that . . . another example of cats making a better attempt at communicating with us than us with them
David: nothing kumar
surkumdev1: in fact, cats do not meow when they are around other cats
surkumdev1: dave,i care less of internet people
David: do baby kittens?
David: i know
surkumdev1: i dunno, this is what a friend of mine told me
David: that is interesting
surkumdev1: cats meow when try to communicate with humans
surkumdev1: and with other cats, they use a completely different tone of vocie
surkumdev1: it's really funny because for more than 1000 years, we have been thinking the opposite
David: could be a function of skinners law but might be an emergant sign of some level of intelligence
surkumdev1: could be
surkumdev1: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl<code>story2&cid</code>571&ncid<code>571&e</code>11&u/nm/20030210/hl''nm/zoloft''phobia''dc''1
David: i need a drug for shyness
surkumdev1: that's just stupid
David: lol
surkumdev1: i hate physcologoical studies
surkumdev1: and stuff
David: i concure
surkumdev1: u know something. I used to be on paxil for depression
surkumdev1: then i heard one study that paxil was a placebo
surkumdev1: so, i realized and stopped it completely
surkumdev1: after that, i never had any attack of depression
David: i think we will look back and think why did we use these stupid brain drugs as if it were a sledgehammer
surkumdev1: it was just that sometimes, i was completely in pain.
surkumdev1: because i sought the pills, it only made it worse
surkumdev1: and increased my reliance on these drugs to get rid of them
surkumdev1: when i releazied i can do it myself, it turned out to have a much better result
surkumdev1: i do not like this drug culture
David: good job . . . . that is no small feat
surkumdev1: one of my mom's friend's son, is very active.
surkumdev1: now the school wants to put him on readalin
surkumdev1: i was active as a kid
surkumdev1: hyper, by american definition
surkumdev1: ADD may be a real disorder. I just donot think every kid has it.
surkumdev1: it's just completely wrong.
surkumdev1: u know what i m saying?
cozmic_serpent joined the room
cozmic_serpent: resistance is futile
surkumdev1: u are too hot of a woman?
surkumdev1: cozmic...
surkumdev1: what up
cozmic_serpent:
cozmic_serpent: wots this room bout?
surkumdev1: we are talking recently about ' http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl<code>story2&cid</code>571&ncid<code>571&e</code>11&u/nm/20030210/hl''nm/zoloft''phobia''dc''1 '
surkumdev1: drugs for shyness
cozmic_serpent left the room
surkumdev1: hello
surkumdev1: people here...
surkumdev1: http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/Koomar%20Tries%20to%20Do%20QM
dsiegel_spkn left the room
David (dsiegel_spkn) joined the room
David: good stuff
jimscarver: awesome
David: I need to take more time to read through it when in am not parsing dates
jimscarver: Coyote
Kitten
(1/3/01 7:36:09 pm)
Reply Cat language I remember hearing or reading somewhere that cats have about 14 different sounds in their "vocabulary" and that each sound means something. For example, "meow" is a combination of two sounds: "me" and "ow." The "me" part is like a general greeting, and the "ow" part is a kind of warning. Therefore, a loose translation of the word "meow" is "I'll hang around as long as you treat me well," or maybe "I'll be your friend as long as you don't tick me off."

I don't remember where I heard/read this. (I promise I'm not making this stuff up.) Has anyone else ever heard of this?
jimscarver: http://www.i-love-cats.com/meow/bigsocks/
jimscarver: i thought kittens meow to call their mother
David: it would be interesting if cats translate something familer like meowing for momma into communicating with an alien intelligence like us humans to get food or attention
David: of course this may be explained away with skinners law
David: skinners law has not concept of intelligence its all a black box
jimscarver: skinners law tells how we learn, not why that is optimal, learning is one key aspect of intelligence.
jimscarver: neural networks obey skinners law, that don't mean they are dumb amimals
jimscarver: nice stuff kumar, some of it i will have to add my 2 cents
surkumdev1: ok
David: the entity in question must be able to make a decision based on past experience in order to follow skinners law no?
David: ameoba for example do not follow this law unless you consider the genetic species over time
jimscarver: ameoba learn as i understand it, to avoid shocks etc.
David: an individual ameoba?
David: that is very cool
David: that means that evolution came up with some form of realtime memory very early on in development
David: one might even say some primitive form of cognition was taking place <use of 'cognition' very loose here>
jimscarver: http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1030011.htm um, that's not it, explains amoeba movement
David: thanks for the link
David: i am becoming more and more intrested in the basics of decision making, mechanical and cognitive
jimscarver: Pfiesteria is single-celled dinoflagellate, meaning it uses a tail for mobility. Dinoflagellates are one of the oldest forms of life, and this is one of the strangest, researchers say. It has many guises; about 20 are known. It photosynthesizes like a plant. When threatened, it can turn within seconds from a tiny dinoflagellate into a large amoeba and engulf its predator. While lying dormant in a cyst on the sea floor, it senses the presence of fish and then comes out of its repose to fill the water with poison and kill the fish. It then devours the fish flesh, often leaving deep wounds the size of quarters.
jimscarver: stranger than fiction, single cell blobzilla
David: very facinating
David: physical science is discovering a strange world where the rules of QM and Newtonian physics converge
staypaid2002 joined the room
David: i wonder if a similar domain exists with cognition
David: if complex cognition emerges from 'simple' mechanical decisions
David: it would be intresting to take a microscope and look at the place where it emerges
staypaid2002 left the room
jimscarver: http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_VIII/Chapter2.html The Ubiquity of Mindedness
David: Jennings . . . is that the same that was quoted by [[SevenLambs]]?
David: this is a fantastic link thanks jim

jimscarver: amazing what you find when you don't find what you are looking for.
surkumdev1: yeah
David: ive thought the same many times
goin''with''a_robot joined the room
goin''with''a_robot: So what are we trying to solve, a more efficient silence?
David: yes
David: what is on your mind
goin''with''a_robot: Dunno, programmers block, boredom
David: hmm. . .
David: me too
David: this is what has been on our mind http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_VIII/Chapter2.html
David: among other things
David: how can something have a memory without a brain
David: or learn
goin''with''a_robot: I do not believe that is possible
David: this suggests that our memories are not in our brain
David: well it apears to be the case in many single cell organisms
David: it kinda defies the concept of mind does it not?
surkumdev1: Dave, u are fogetting something. The DNA (a blueprint of the creature) which has billions of bits of information resides in the neclues of the cell
David: yes that would be a memory of the species as a whole
surkumdev1: yes
David: not the learning of an individual cell
surkumdev1: so, it is definitely possible that the cell stores in inside on the molecules inside it
goin''with''a_robot: I dunno, I tend to take a more traditional approach to cognitive science; we don't really know enough about the brain to suggest something besides chemistry
David: unless the cell can modify its DNA directly without reproduction
surkumdev1: well, they do not have to modify the DAN
surkumdev1: you still have RNA
David: ok
surkumdev1: ribosomes, etc
surkumdev1: which the cells can definitely modify
David: RNA actually carries out the process of creating the mechanical operations of the cell right?
surkumdev1: yes, i think
surkumdev1: but i dunno
surkumdev1: i am no biologist
David: me either only took bio101 and forgot most of it over 5 years ago
David: might need to brush up though
David: some form of decision making and learning seems to be taking place with single cell animals
surkumdev1: a single cell has can do multitude of things
surkumdev1: the cell is microns in length
surkumdev1: but atoms are about amstrongs in length
surkumdev1: compute the average volume of the cell and how many hydrocarbons one can fit in there
David: so there may be sufficient complexity in a cell to contain some sort of decision making information system?
surkumdev1: yes
jimscarver: dna is long term storage
jimscarver: rna us immediately usable to make arbatrary protiens
David: given enough complexity some form of basic AI may emerge
surkumdev1: may be
jimscarver: ceel have more information processing capability than a super computer
jimscarver: cells
surkumdev1: biological machines are exteremely efficient
surkumdev1: dna with 2 billion strands packed into 1 micron x 1micron x 1 micron
surkumdev1: i dunno about the dimensions
David: Drexler envisions the day when we can improve on the cellular information system with nano rod computers
David: see [[EnginesOfCreation]]
surkumdev1: yeah
David: but i am not sure if we can
David: the bilogical cell may be the theoretically most efficient system possible once we understand the mechanics of it
surkumdev1: the funny about biological systems are that they are still suboptimal
surkumdev1: even after billion years of perfection, they are all imperfect
David: that seems to be a difficult asserstion to support when so little about the information system of the cell is understood
David: sure they are by definition limited to in vitro environments
surkumdev1: well, what seems to be difficult assertsion? that cells are suboptimal?
David: yeah
surkumdev1: well, they are because they use things like reproduction to create new ones
surkumdev1: and species, even humans around us are imperfect
David: what is suboptimal about that . . . optimal of course is a subjective bench mark . . optimal for what purpose
strawberrigirl73 (strawberrigirl73) joined the room
cakyguy66 joined the room
David: hmm . . .
surkumdev1: i agree that it is dificult to define optimal
strawberrigirl73: hello im here
strawberrigirl73: cakyguy66 here?
David: cells don't seem to be able to multiply numbers very well
David: yello
cakyguy66: yes im here wrong room thop
David: awww
surkumdev1: however, because of techniques used by evolution, they are still suboptimal
strawberrigirl73: lol
strawberrigirl73: u can add me to ur friend's list
David: hang out and give us some clues into the nature of cognition
surkumdev1: hey girl
surkumdev1: david, computer scientist use GA type algorithms to solve NP-complete problems all the time
strawberrigirl73: who are you talking to surkumdev
David: no u
surkumdev1: even primitive GAs are good at finding suboptimal solutions
David: hmm. . . sometimes punctuation even in chat can be usefull <thinking to self>
cakyguy66 left the room
David: bye
David: hope you stop by again soon
strawberrigirl73 left the room
surkumdev1: so, Dave, u know what i am getting at?
surkumdev1: they are optimal, as they are
David: hmm
surkumdev1: but nature is always interested in greedy optimization
David: not sure what a GA is
surkumdev1: Genetic Algorithms
David: ok
surkumdev1: basically, suppose you want to make an aircraft that flys
surkumdev1: you have the parts like wings, screws, wheels, motor, etc
surkumdev1: now, make a random prespriction for a flying aircraft
surkumdev1: fly it and see how far it travels
surkumdev1: now make many aircrafs with different but random presprictions
surkumdev1: and do the same
surkumdev1: now, mate the fittest aircraft with another fittest aircraft by randomly combining their prescriptions
David: i have a rudimenteray familerarity with genetic algorithms . . . just didn't make the connection to the Acronym GA
surkumdev1: oh ok
surkumdev1: but the thing is that Aircraft will start flying over time
David: thanks for the refresher though
surkumdev1: flying, in the sense,it would fly a certain distance and fall into the ground
David: why does the human cognitive process beat GA's for finding solutions
jimscarver: they mix random and directed approaches
surkumdev1: humans are still optimal solvers for many problems
David: or do engineering teams actually use GA to when they design
surkumdev1: well, GAs, in their current state are not the most optimal algorithms
David: maybe the are deep GA built into human cognitive processes
surkumdev1: humans are not good at number crunching. Although they are good at optimizing things with many many variables
surkumdev1: for example, Intel still uses human designers to do chip layout
surkumdev1: and to do chip design
David: we can intuatively discover that componants with less drag are better for the air plane
surkumdev1: yes
David: how does a Machine GA accomplish that . . . trial and error . . . but we get to that conclusion from the very begining
jimscarver: GA approach optimal much faster than brute forse
surkumdev1: yes
surkumdev1: but they get stuck
surkumdev1: just like neural networks
surkumdev1: on local minimas / maximas
jimscarver: designs do evolve in groups, but usually one guy leads each area.
surkumdev1: so, you introduce random perturbations in their genetic structure
David: we connect old ideas with new ideas to introduce new elements into the GA process Machine algorithms cant seem to do this very well
jimscarver: GA don't get stuck, they can mis a solution, but they will try it eventually.
surkumdev1: yes
David: human processes seem to prioritize branches of exploration as more or less likely for success
David: this is known as the directed approach
David: yes?
jimscarver: no, the whole reason to use GA is that you aviod getting stuck in local mins and max
surkumdev1: yes, but nature doesnt put its faith in a single human though
surkumdev1: it's interesting the best scientist most do not come from a family of best scientist
goin''with''a_robot: nature in this discussion seems to be the opposite of entropy, no?
surkumdev1: or the best musicians do not always come from the family of musicians
David: entropy . . . now that is an intresting domain
surkumdev1: entropy always increases
jimscarver: synergy is opposite of entropy
surkumdev1: because many species die whereas only a few survive
David: assertions everwhere assertions
surkumdev1: assertions???
goin''with''a_robot: how about 'a formula for synergy'?
surkumdev1: entropy is a probabilitistic concept
goin''with''a_robot: or am I lost?
David: yes but welcome to the lost boys club
surkumdev1: you are right that entropy does not always have to increase
David: we are all lost if we could only admit it
surkumdev1: but mostly it does
goin''with''a_robot: I'm just seeing nature being described as a formula here, but, you know, a formula for what?
David: nature applys skills to convert energy and mass into complexity
David: it seems the very nature of the so called laws of physics will create complex systems over time
Vanity High (unwilling_temptations) joined the room
Vanity High: hello
David: yello
goin''with''a_robot: hi
David: complex systems begat complex systems
Vanity High: ?
surkumdev1: dave, it's interesting
David: which will continue to create more complex systems untill every partical of the univers is part of one unified complex system
Vanity High: or is it already?
David: exactly

goin''with''a_robot: but astonomers say that the universe is actually spreading out, not in
David: vanity read my mind or do we share the same mind?
surkumdev1: it would interesting if our galaxy was one gaint cell
David: yeah but what do astronamers know . . <tounge in cheek>
punkin_15424 joined the room
punkin_15424: http://www.imagine2020.com/2450298 v
Vanity High: well really wouldnt say cell but somen u could compare it to
goin''with''a_robot: don't get me started, the indeffinate recursion theory is something I think about constantly
punkin_15424: http://www.imagine2020.com/2450298
surkumdev1: what is it punkin
David: elaborate on theory robot
Vanity High: i hate theorys
David: just another system of thought completing for your brain waves vanity
punkin_15424 left the room
goin''with''a_robot: well you know what recursion is, if we're all one cell...
surkumdev1: well, actually Ed Fredkin wrote about it a little
David: ok i think i get what you hinting at . . . like fractal recursion . . . the smallest part has many smaller parts that look just like the biger part
goin''with''a_robot: you know, open ended go nowhere question with no answer, but I can't stop thinking about it
goin''with''a_robot: exactley
surkumdev1: where robot, there could be a suitbale point over which us creatures may not be to able to know anything
David: elaborate on that kum
surkumdev1: like think of the characters in the Quake world
David: ok
Vanity High: whats that?
surkumdev1: the game quake
Vanity High: oh
goin''with''a_robot: I always wondered how space can exist, considering how every known object, including the universe itself exists inside something else
Vanity High: nvr played
David: electron exlusion events
Vanity High: no use wondering about it if u cant ever know
surkumdev1: well, they will never able to know they are running on top of the computer
surkumdev1: and even if they find out, they may not know how it works
goin''with''a_robot: well...I have a hard time sleeping whit this crap running through my head

David: hmm . . . that is of course only if the charachter can know anything at all
surkumdev1: u know what i am getting at
surkumdev1: ?
goin''with''a_robot: totally
David: robot take a quick perusal through www.wikiworld.com
Vanity High: maybe u should get a ps2
David: put in the things that keep you up at night
surkumdev1: yes, think of a baby who is born and raised in a Virtual relality
goin''with''a_robot: I've been looking through it as you two were discussing memory thing
surkumdev1: something like the matrix
David: like a bio baby that is fed vitural information or like an algorithm with the exact same complexities as a baby?
surkumdev1: yes
David: which one?
surkumdev1: bio baby that is fed virtual information
David: ok
surkumdev1: well, may be, it will realize that Quake world is made od pixels
David: ok
surkumdev1: but it may not be able to know how the graphics card that makes the world works
surkumdev1: can u understand where i am going with this...?
David: if the input was of suficient resolution the baby would not know
David: ok
goin''with''a_robot: yea, like we can't learn beyond a point
Vanity High: this is what i do when i outgrow the athiest room....
David: lol
David: ok
Vanity High: /
unwilling_temptations left the room
David: the very fact that we are emerssed in this bianary universe means that we have no access to certian governing dynamics of the universe
surkumdev1: yes, something Ed Fredkin calls the other world
David: either conceptually or experimentally
surkumdev1: whose implementation or purpose we will not be able to know
David: you might be on to something
David: but then it seems to me there are a multitude of possible ways of knowing that we have yet to explore
goin''with''a_robot: j'ever notice every field of science leads to these questions?
David: yes
David: i have acttually
David: it seems the more we learn the more we hit the same walls
surkumdev1: it seems funny that even humans are not born knowing their human body works
surkumdev1: like they are not boring know what their bodies are composed of
David: does the cytoplast?
surkumdev1: boring know born knowing*
David: did i get that right?
surkumdev1: cytoplast?
goin''with''a_robot: more of an instinct to stay alive, possibly on the level of your cells
surkumdev1: oh
</verbatim>
-----
<pre>
outradulous (1:41:02 PM): why is everyone smarter than me so dumb?
outradulous (1:41:28 PM): because they didn't have my parents
outradulous (1:41:37 PM): or my siblings
outradulous (1:41:51 PM): too bad you guys wasted all that good sense on me
[[JimScarver]] (1:52:54 PM): http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/DearDiary.2003-02-08
outradulous (2:33:41 PM): from an interview in newscientist:
outradulous (2:33:43 PM): I don't think there's any future for journals. They're just a waste of time. I haven't read a journal in years. The future is the Web: the Web archive doesn't filter out the good stuff, and the bad stuff is there just as much as it is in the journals. I think in the future people will just publish in the Web archives.
outradulous (2:33:53 PM): http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?idns23811
outradulous (2:36:11 PM): http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/
outradulous (4:38:44 PM): http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list<code>sub&sub</code>30 be there or get nuked
outradulous signed off at 5:09:10 PM.
outradulous signed off at 12:19:42 PM.
outradulous signed on at 1:06:00 PM.
outradulous (4:30:44 PM): http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map''discovery''030211.html
outradulous (4:32:46 PM): it all makes you sound very smart
outradulous signed off at 5:19:16 PM.
[[JimScarver]] (10:13:38 AM): http://www.quantumfields.com/ZPV.htm his calculations dont jive with mine, guess i am wrong.
outradulous (10:13:49 AM): it's ok
outradulous (10:14:05 AM): you've just misjudged the amount of zpe that matter absorbs
outradulous (10:14:14 AM): you'll get it
outradulous (10:14:23 AM): the universe isn't expanding THAT fast
outradulous (10:14:40 AM): zpe must be absorbed only slightly slower than it propagates, no?
[[JimScarver]] (10:57:33 AM): same rate but most is lost forever to future
[[JimScarver]] (10:58:35 AM): i added abunch of related work references http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/ZPE
[[JimScarver]] (10:59:18 AM): when we get it right, and complete, Science will succumb.:-)
outradulous (10:59:22 AM): yeah
[[JimScarver]] (11:02:21 AM): i am thinking that the discrete nature of ZPE waves may give it an actual energy closer to the amount of supposed dark matter.
outradulous (11:02:45 AM): zpe is a range of frequencies right?
[[JimScarver]] (11:02:47 AM): i don't think it could be wrong.... we shall see.
outradulous (11:03:10 AM): basically everything we can't detect
outradulous (11:03:20 AM): all the photons we are having a hard time counting
[[JimScarver]] (11:11:47 AM): it is hard to measure.... I assume energy density doubles in background radiation as the wavelength doubles. This is the case through microwave and then it goes back down to zero for waves bigger than the universe. We just dont see the background lower than microwave as it cancels, it is too uniform.
outradulous (11:13:46 AM): can we affect fluctuations?
outradulous (11:13:53 AM): i guess
outradulous (11:13:54 AM): we do
outradulous (11:13:57 AM): gravity
outradulous (11:14:04 AM): gravity is the evidence
[[JimScarver]] (11:14:53 AM): you can listen to it's noise on an unused am radio station.
outradulous (11:15:15 AM): how the hell is a radio receiver picking it up
[[JimScarver]] (11:15:42 AM): everthink is a radio receiver, these are elecromagnetic waves
[[JimScarver]] (11:15:48 AM): everything
outradulous (11:18:24 AM): but a radio receiver is tuned to a certain frequency
[[JimScarver]] (11:24:06 AM): so is atom
[[JimScarver]] (11:25:42 AM): well can receive a range, 2 atoms can receive double together or independently
[[JimScarver]] (11:26:03 AM): so matter can receive A LOT of frequencies.
outradulous (11:26:32 AM): yeah
[[JimScarver]] (11:27:04 AM): the neucleus receives only very high energy waves very infrequently.
[[JimScarver]] (11:27:16 AM): they miss
outradulous (11:27:44 AM): how does it get zpe
outradulous (11:27:54 AM): just because it is so abundant?
[[JimScarver]] (11:29:09 AM): it gets as part of an atom or set of atoms
outradulous (11:30:28 AM): so gravity might not increase exactly linearly as mass
outradulous (11:30:46 AM): because propensity to receive is altered by the size of the agglomeration
[[JimScarver]] (11:31:35 AM): but mass is gravity
outradulous (11:31:41 AM): ?
outradulous (11:31:48 AM): i thought eating zpe was gravity
[[JimScarver]] (11:32:00 AM): equivaent
outradulous (11:32:08 AM): k
outradulous (11:32:12 AM): i gotcha
outradulous (11:32:13 AM): i do
[[JimScarver]] (11:34:31 AM): a mass listens to state changes that fit, gravity and inertia, hence mass are the properties that manifests
[[JimScarver]] (12:05:06 PM): a gazzion heads and a gazzion tails add to zero. the actual mass of the zpe depends on the noise level, which should be detectable in some frequency regions and extrapolatable.
outradulous (12:06:11 PM): that's not a word
outradulous (12:06:22 PM): but i gotcha
outradulous (12:07:01 PM): lunch

outradulous (12:07:05 PM): keep thinking
outradulous (12:07:09 PM): do some math

</pre>

[[Category:DearDiary]]

DearDiary.2003-02-11 - Revision history

imported>Import: Imported current content