General > Biology
Crows are pretty damn smart
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---to explain John Rife Device Theory:
Apparently some man named Johnathan Rife was attempting to identify a virus with a microscope to prove they exsisted. He had to develop a microscope that would emmit enough light to see the virus under intense magnification. He developed a complex microscope of sorts that used a series of high emitting bulbs filled with an inert gas, the idea was to bombard the virus with enough electrons to emmit its own protons back. He managed to identify the virus and as he continued his studies, he was able to produce a frequency which shattered the protein walls of the virus.
--- End quote ---
Nope, can't find any google links about John or Johnathan Rife (or I can, but it seems to be a present-day lawyer). Sure you have the name right (the rest of the story there seems scientifically implausible, so I'm guessing you're remembering some of the details incorrectly).
--- Quote ---But if you have ever used a desk that is prone to magnetism
--- End quote ---
Hmm, sounds inconvienient plugging it in and dangerous for all those floppies I have lying around. Or do you mean prone to static electricity?
--- Quote ---Secondly, we know that the theory of numbers is based on image.
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I think you're making up words here. You don't mean a function's image do you?
--- Quote ---The easiest way to sum up decimals is to determine how a split is made; each place is a reduction from the last split by the same multiplier, meaning at no time can you ever have a difference of 0, but you will have several closer numbers.
--- End quote ---
Are you using abstract algebra? ie: something like this: split on wiki?) New forum rule: there shall be no abelian groups allowed in discussions! Also, all conversations must be reflexive . In all seriousness, I don't think those words mean what you think they do
--- Quote ---...the idea that the paper is producing a frequency can be tested by measuring the minute difference in change of the papers position against parallel to the vector of gravity...
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I measure zero. Do I need more sensitive equipment? Or should I take my desk/paper system out of my Zero Kelvin freezer?
--- Quote ---...quarks are constantly moving in a state described as the Heisemer Principle, and this movement is alternating and constant. Above that the atoms have constant movement of electrons meaning that all matter is a state of constant kinetic energy.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, it's statements like that that make me pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. Because, see, I more or less know what the Uncertainty principle says (not the Heisenberg principle (although it is sometimes called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), which you managed to spell wrong) says, and it certainly does not say that movement is "alternating and constant". In fact I don't believe the uncertainty principle factors in to absolute temperature. It only relates inherent limitations for measuring the momentum and position of a subatomic particle.
You don't have to delve in to quantum mechanics at all to say that molecules are in motion. That's a temperature thing. That's a fundamental principle of the ideal gas laws that let you equate pressure, temperature, and volume for gases. Which is where that whole Kelvin system comes from. And you don't need to delve in to string theory to say that matter is energy. That's a connection with general (special? Can never remember which is which) relativity. And you also don't need to evoke the kinetic motion of atoms. A lump of iron at 0 Kelvin is still an amount of energy given by that famous equation E = mC^2.
And last, the super collider on the border of France and Switzerland that's run by CERN is not operational yet. If it was, and it managed to detect the Higgs Boson (which is not a guarentee), it would, at best, provide weak circumstantial evidence for string theory, not "proof". In fact, the entire standard model for quantum mechanics needs it, so if no Higgs boson is found, that's not only a rather large nail in the coffin of string theory, but a rather large nail in the coffin of the standard model, and with it quite a bit of theory.
At its core string theory is rather untestable, so much so that it really shouldn't be called string "theory", but maybe string "vague idea". Or maybe string "we think it might be something sort of like..." or maybe even string "my Mom told me I was dead on with this!".
Anyway, I can't help but get the impression that you are largely (and incorrectly) self taught on a variety of subjects, and thus do not have the solid grounding a formal math or physics education gives to understand the difference between fantasy/pseudoscience and science.
Peter:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---John Rife... should be able to explain some of that... In short: all frequencies are vibrational energies... all matter has mass... E=mc^2 therefore all mass is energy. Therefore all frequencies and energies are contained within entities as matter. And all matter is contained as a frequency or energy.
--- End quote ---
Who is that John, link please.
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Saying that DNA is energy is like saying that an airplane is wood, wire, aluminum, and a bit of steel. It may be a true statement, but it in no way helps you understand the amazing feat it is capable of. In fact, it's not until you bring the abstraction level up to the level of chemistry that you can begin to understand the amazing DNA molecule. General relativity does not really impact biology at all, in fact. Quantum mechanics just barely overlaps if you include chemistry (which is a pretty pedestrian application of quantum mechanics at that...)
--- End quote ---
A bit of steel...., most airplanes use something like 5% steel mixed with the aluminium. It makes it way stronger, and a little heavier. Pointless informaion, but anyway.
--- Quote ---Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini, he can *fuss*.
Fezzik: Fuss, fuss... I think he like to scream at *us*.
Inigo Montoya: Probably he means no *harm*.
Fezzik: He's really very short on *charm*.
Inigo Montoya: You have a great gift for rhyme.
Fezzik: Yes, yes, some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, are there rocks ahead?
Fezzik: If there are, we all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhyming now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?
Vizzini: DYEEAAHHHHHH.
--- End quote ---
eh?
--- Quote from: gymsum ---So theres no confusion Im double posting:
...
...
TO explain my half-crocked theory on string theory:
--- End quote ---
Well, you're not doubleposting but ok. Yoú're having a theory about a theory, well.....uh....yes...well......indeed.....copl..huh.., what does crocked mean anyway?
--- Quote ---I will say that crows are smart, but I would have to admit that worms are smart for knowing to always rise when its raining so the birds cant eat them.
--- End quote ---
Iám smart for the fact I am posting useless replys on som forums. Not every animal can.
--- Quote ---At its core string theory is rather untestable, so much so that it really shouldn't be called string "theory", but maybe string "vague idea". Or maybe string "we think it might be something sort of like..." or maybe even string "my Mom told me I was dead on with this!".
--- End quote ---
Core phycics modele is pretty untestable too. Any theory nowadays is able to be tested by testing some of the strange forecasts. Like it would be able to travel in time, following phycics theorys. If you would travel at almost light speed, then you come according to your own time ten years later, the earth you knowed would probably have changed a lot. That isn't tested, and if it isn't possible, all theorys are wrong.
--- Quote ---At its core string theory is rather untestable, so much so that it really shouldn't be called string "theory", but maybe string "vague idea". Or maybe string "we think it might be something sort of like..." or maybe even string "my Mom told me I was dead on with this!".
--- End quote ---
Have you looked at the string theory, I does have some interesting points. Like let say a univeral theory. Further, a discussion about your opinion of string theorie is pretty pointless. Like anyone could convince me at a forum, if string theory is plausible or the universal theory of the future. And that is not only becouse I am stubborn
Edit: About that jonathan guy, it sounds a pretty english name.
Virussus where found with the elektron microscope, Germany did the discovery somewhere between WW1 and WW2. I am not sure where your story comes from.
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: Peter ---
--- Quote ---Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini, he can *fuss*.
Fezzik: Fuss, fuss... I think he like to scream at *us*.
Inigo Montoya: Probably he means no *harm*.
Fezzik: He's really very short on *charm*.
Inigo Montoya: You have a great gift for rhyme.
Fezzik: Yes, yes, some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, are there rocks ahead?
Fezzik: If there are, we all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhyming now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?
Vizzini: DYEEAAHHHHHH.
--- End quote ---
eh?
--- End quote ---
It's a quote from the movie The Princess Bride. I'm thinking maybe this is the sort of thing crows are cawing to each other. One caws something, and the other tries to rhyme it.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---At its core string theory is rather untestable, so much so that it really shouldn't be called string "theory", but maybe string "vague idea". Or maybe string "we think it might be something sort of like..." or maybe even string "my Mom told me I was dead on with this!".
--- End quote ---
Core phycics modele is pretty untestable too. Any theory nowadays is able to be tested by testing some of the strange forecasts. Like it would be able to travel in time, following phycics theorys. If you would travel at almost light speed, then you come according to your own time ten years later, the earth you knowed would probably have changed a lot. That isn't tested, and if it isn't possible, all theorys are wrong.
--- End quote ---
You don't have to go that strange. For instance, the standard model for quantum mechanics predicts various particles which have been found in particle collisions. Except the higgs boson, because the energies of current particle accelerators aren't high enough (or that's the idea anyway). Relativity managed to explain anomalies in the orbit of Mercury just a few years after it was formulated, which is why Einstein is so famous. We can also accelerate particles to near the speed of light, and have observed the appropriate changes in mass/energy, there's the whole atom bomb thing, etc. etc. Relativity may be wonky, but it really matches up with pretty much every bit of data (both observational and experimental) that we've managed to throw at it.
gymsum:
http://www.rifeconference.com/
sorry about that... rife device..
Anyways, sorry I cant spell
Trafalgar:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---http://www.rifeconference.com/
--- End quote ---
I don't see a link explaining what it does. I do, however, see a crackpot disclaimer:
--- Quote ---Our Purpose:
"To share the incredible potential of Rife technology for improved health!"
... No statements made, including videos and links to other sites, should be construed as a claim for cure, treatment, or prevention of any disease or as a substitute for professional health care.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version