Author Topic: Crows are pretty damn smart  (Read 43621 times)

Numsgil

• Bot God
• Posts: 7742
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2008, 07:08:25 PM »
Quote from: gymsum
The conservation of energy applies both at atomic and massive scale, it causes suns to burn out... If electricity is energy, then it is in fact , massive..

Ah, but see, how massive?  The mass you're talking about, the amount of energy (and therefore mass) lost as an electron moves from an area of higher potential to lower potential, is practically 0.  Yes, there is some non zero amount, but it only comes in to play in a purely academic theory-type setting.  From a practical engineering standpoint, it's 0.

Quote
Anyways this is becoming a debate of words more than fact, as mass and energy have to be equal for the conservation of energy to exist, otherwise you burned things there would be an imbalance in total energy spent, meaning you would produce either less light, ash or other.

No!  Well I certainly agree you're using more words than facts   But that other part is wrong.  You do not need mass-energy equivelance to balance energy conservation in something like a campfire.  If you weigh the wood before you start the fire, and then weigh all the ash + gases given off by the fire after it dies, they would be equal*.  So what happened to all the energy?  The chemical potential energy of the wood was converted in to radiation (probably in the IR spectrum) and heat (it warmed the air around it using convection).  The mass (not counting energy) of the wood was conserved even though you burned it.  The energy (not counting mass) was conserved by turning the chemical potential energy in to other forms of energy.  At no point was mass converted to energy or vice versa.

*In theory, there would be a small mass difference from the lost chemical energy.  But from any practical standpoint this is 0.  It's something on the order of like 10^-30 grams.  Which is about the mass of an electron (give or take a few orders of magnitude).  Tiny.  Quite literally insignificant.

Quote
Anyways if no one here is willing to think of energy and neural nets as one in the same, theres no way I can convince any of you, but the laws of thermodynamics are clear cut, the amount for work put out is always equal to the total available energy in a system, including its energy as light, heat, mass and other.

No, not all energy in a system is usable for "work".  "Work" has some very specific meanings in physics.  But you can say that the amount of energy in a system remains constant, where energy is sum of its light, kinetic motion (heat), (rest) mass, etc.  This is always true.  For the vast majority of systems, however, you can go even further and say that the amount of energy in a closed system, not counting its mass as energy, will remain constant under any conceivable circumstance.  And likewise the amount of mass in the system, not counting energy as mass will remain constant under any conceivable sitation.  This conservation of mass is even more useful since it holds even if you're inputing energy in to the system.  Just so long as you don't input too much energy, (like in an atomic blast).  Then you'ld have to take that whole mass-energy equivelance in to account (I think an atom bomb converts a little less than a gram of matter in to energy, IIRC).

Quote
hile things may be very small in scale, doesnt mean the same laws do not apply, gravity does paly a role in chemistry, or the Earth would be barren of oxygen and hydrogen...

You mean from the ligh gases floating off in to the void of space?  That's not what I'm talking about.  That's clearly phenomena on a planetary scale.  I mean chemical reactions, like one O2 molecule and two H2 molecules reacting to give off energy and produce two water molecules.  At no point in that reaction does mass-energy equivelance or gravitational attraction between the molecules come in to play.  The only gravity that does come in to play is the effectively uniform gravitational field of the Earth during the reaction (some reactions occur differently in 0 g).

Maybe if you had a DNA strand the size of a small moon, you would have to take graviational attraction in to account.  But otherwise you just don't.

Quote
And yes, just remember no matter what the work is, conservation of energy applies constant, its a Universal law in Physics with absolutely no exception.. SO the battery powering the laser runs on the exact same prinicples, ever notice how batteris get hot, its wasting some of its availble energy of electricity in the form of heat...

I'm not arguing against the conservation of energy.  That the electrical energy turns in to heat is exactly my point.  It doesn't turn in to hydrogen atoms or something like that.  It goes from one form of energy to another.

Quote
Im not explaining lift vs mass, its energy and mass equivelancy on an atomic level resulting in a singularity of the definition of energy (I.e String Theory).

Huh?

Quote
Thermodynamics can be measured witht eh first law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The Photons emmit light, the photons hit objects and excite the object's photons, and in intense sources like the sun, the photons can give energy/heat to living organisms.

Photons don't emit light.  Photons are light.  Or rather they're an abstraction of the rather annoying wave-particle duality of light.  When a photon hits an object, it does not "excite the object's photons".  Objects don't have photons.  Photons are stuck going at the speed of light (since they are light) and traveling in a straight* line.  When a photon hits an object's electrons, it can excite that electron.  How can you even expect me to take you seriously when you confuse photons, electrons, and protons?  That's like middle school science class.  It would be like confusing mammals and fish.

*Gravitational lensing not withstanding.

Also, the light source does not need to be intense.  In fact, it's the frequency of light that determines if it can give energy to an atom.  See the photoelectric effect.  You could have an extremely intense light source, but if it's the wrong color, you won't get any photoelectric effect, and thus no energy.

Quote
OF coarse the more this happens (energy use) the more entropy occurs, meaning that the next time you try to create the energy, its so widely spraed thin that its more difficult to light the ash remains of paper.

That is the most bogus explanation of entropy I have ever seen.  The energy "spreads thin"?  Really?

What's really happening is that "energy" as we're used to thinking of it is actually a "flow" of energy (that is, the change in energy).  Energy always flows "downhill", from areas of high to areas of low, and it's this flowing that produces "work".  So if all of your energy is at the same level, you won't be able to extract any work from it, even if that energy is a relatively highly charged level.  That's what happens when a battery dies.  The energy level on the front half is equal to the energy level in the back half.  In a charged battery, the two halves have different energy levels, so you can extract useful work as the energy flows from the charged half to the uncharged half.

Quote
Yes crows know things, but they are no PArrot. So I fail to see the connection mentioned between Alex the parrot and the Crow unless the argument is that Crows are capable of Parrot behaviors, not sure if their vocal box can handle human sounds...

Parrots are birds though, and so clearly demonstrate that there are at least some birds with intelligence.  You were saying that all birds behave only instinctively.  That they're as dumb as bacteria.  But that is clearly not true, since there's at least one counter-example.  As for crows specifically, they're entire family is widely regarded as one of the smartest birds.  See Corvidae Intelligence.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 07:22:38 PM by Numsgil »

Peter

• Bot God
• Posts: 1177
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2008, 08:56:29 AM »
A few useless facts.

An high energy photon can change itself into a positron and a elektron(energy into mass), if those two collide with eachother you're getting two photons(mass to energy).

The sun losses something like 4 ton of mass during every second. That mass is converted into light(mass->energy).

gymsum, your gymsum-string- rive-theory is too difficult for me, somehow Numsgil seems to be understanding you.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

gymsum

• Bot Destroyer
• Posts: 215
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2008, 11:05:49 AM »
WHen you consider the first principle of thermodynamics (one of the major guding forces in the universe), all heat is, is movement of particles; the mroe movement/higher-frequency the more heat. So if we start with electricity (lightning to be exact), we see multiple results from one event; the lighting super heats the air instaneously, breaking donw the composition of the air to produce nitrogen, intense heat and light.

We also know that sound/light and heat act on the same principles of the inverse square law, and so the sound wave (if at high decibles) has the potential to cause air to heat or cool based on the work done by the sound wave impacting particles.

We know that the universe in a constant exspansion, so as the stars burn up and use the remaining gases, the energy content of the universe will continue to expand outward and as far as density is concerned, the energy can be said to be "spread thin". True some of the matter will collect from gravity, but as the matter changes states, percentages of the exsisting fuel/mass changes from entropy.

Chemical interactions are not my strong point

Not sure if the entropy quote was out of context or not... I was generalizing on a massive scale, but I think I clarified it.

Glad theres someone with some knowledge out there to discuss this. Have to agree with you on photons, I may not be very good with definitions and words, but I know the math behind the physics, that was my interest.

Peter

• Bot God
• Posts: 1177
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2008, 12:30:01 PM »
Quote from: gymsum
WHen you consider the first principle of thermodynamics (one of the major guding forces in the universe), all heat is, is movement of particles; the mroe movement/higher-frequency the more heat. So if we start with electricity (lightning to be exact), we see multiple results from one event; the lighting super heats the air instaneously, breaking donw the composition of the air to produce nitrogen, intense heat and light.
Do you mean the ionisation of air by lightning.

Quote
We also know that sound/light and heat act on the same principles of the inverse square law, and so the sound wave (if at high decibles) has the potential to cause air to heat or cool based on the work done by the sound wave impacting particles.
I can boil or freeze water by setting the radio high???
Eh.., think. Sound is more like a variation of pressure, no real energy.

Quote
We know that the universe in a constant exspansion, so as the stars burn up and use the remaining gases, the energy content of the universe will continue to expand outward and as far as density is concerned, the energy can be said to be "spread thin". True some of the matter will collect from gravity, but as the matter changes states, percentages of the exsisting fuel/mass changes from entropy.
1. No, we don't know the universe is constantly expanding.
2. Stars don't burn.

Quote
Chemical interactions are not my strong point
Hmm...
A simple chemical formula.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O and energy
Burning of methane, forms energy, no mass is gone.

Sun.
Simple question, in my small post before yours. I stated that the sun loses 4 tons every second. Can you explain where that mass have left, and how, and why, and anything particulair about it, I'd like to know how much your rabling or that you really have a idea what you're talking about.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Trafalgar

• Bot Destroyer
• Posts: 122
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2008, 01:08:00 PM »
Quote from: gymsum
Anyways this is becoming a debate of words more than fact
Yes. Wait, becoming?

Quote from: gymsum
The Photons emmit light
I think you have no clue what you're talking about.

abyaly

• Bot Destroyer
• Posts: 363
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2008, 08:27:07 PM »
Are rsucoop and gymsum the same person?
Lancre operated on the feudal system, which was to say, everyone feuded all
the time and handed on the fight to their descendants.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)

Numsgil

• Bot God
• Posts: 7742
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2008, 09:55:48 PM »
Yes, he changed his s/n to try and boost the google page rank for the RSU co-operation run for cancer (or something similar to that).

Peter

• Bot God
• Posts: 1177
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2008, 02:33:39 AM »
Quote from: abyaly
Are rsucoop and gymsum the same person?
That was pretty obvious, in a few topics rsucoop begins a topic, and at the replys gymsum anwsers.
Hmm, but why.

Well, like this one.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

abyaly

• Bot Destroyer
• Posts: 363
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2008, 09:02:25 AM »
Quote from: Peter
That was pretty obvious, in a few topics rsucoop begins a topic, and at the replys gymsum anwsers.
Hmm, but why.

Well, like this one.
Maybe for people who are searching for content in his posts, it is
Lancre operated on the feudal system, which was to say, everyone feuded all
the time and handed on the fight to their descendants.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)

Peter

• Bot God
• Posts: 1177
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2008, 04:01:39 PM »
Quote from: abyaly
Quote from: Peter
That was pretty obvious, in a few topics rsucoop begins a topic, and at the replys gymsum anwsers.
Hmm, but why.

Well, like this one.
Maybe for people who are searching for content in his posts, it is
Well, I am not really looking for content in the posts, somehow at every post in that topic I stop reading after the second or third line. If the other he is suddenly beginning about another 'slim evo', the obvious is clear.

If you just see a bunch of letters and the one who made it is rsucoop/gymsum, I understand that you don't start reading, that way you can't see the obviouos, that is for sure .

Still, why did he have two usernames. Maybe nobody was listening to the first one, and therefor a second one.
.
..
...
Maybe it is time for a new username for me, then everyone will take me serious.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Numsgil

• Bot God
• Posts: 7742
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2008, 04:05:48 PM »
You probably missed my post, Peter, (it was right before yours), but he changed is s/n to boost the google rank for a "run for cancer" charity event.

Peter

• Bot God
• Posts: 1177
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2008, 04:41:51 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
You probably missed my post, Peter, (it was right before yours), but he changed is s/n to boost the google rank for a "run for cancer" charity event.
I fact I didn't.

I thought 'RSU co-operation run for cancer' that you mentioned had to do with the name rsucoop.
I haven't got a clue what gymsum has to mean.

And as gymsum was the second account, why did he take gymsum, his second account.
So why did he take a second account?
Or did I confuse myself and was it gymsum that had to do with a charity event?
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Numsgil

• Bot God
• Posts: 7742
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2008, 07:39:12 PM »
He was originally rsucoop.  The top google hit for rsucoop was his user profile here, so he made a second screen name (gymsum) to try and lower the ranking of his rsucoop's profile on google, and thus raise the google rank of the charity run.  That's why he changed accounts, he wanted to boost the page ranking for the charity run, so he had to ditch his rsucoop account.

gymsum

• Bot Destroyer
• Posts: 215
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2008, 03:27:16 PM »
Quote from: Peter
Quote from: gymsum
WHen you consider the first principle of thermodynamics (one of the major guding forces in the universe), all heat is, is movement of particles; the mroe movement/higher-frequency the more heat. So if we start with electricity (lightning to be exact), we see multiple results from one event; the lighting super heats the air instaneously, breaking donw the composition of the air to produce nitrogen, intense heat and light.
Do you mean the ionisation of air by lightning.

Quote
We also know that sound/light and heat act on the same principles of the inverse square law, and so the sound wave (if at high decibles) has the potential to cause air to heat or cool based on the work done by the sound wave impacting particles.
I can boil or freeze water by setting the radio high???
Eh.., think. Sound is more like a variation of pressure, no real energy.

Quote
We know that the universe in a constant exspansion, so as the stars burn up and use the remaining gases, the energy content of the universe will continue to expand outward and as far as density is concerned, the energy can be said to be "spread thin". True some of the matter will collect from gravity, but as the matter changes states, percentages of the exsisting fuel/mass changes from entropy.
1. No, we don't know the universe is constantly expanding.
2. Stars don't burn.

Quote
Chemical interactions are not my strong point
Hmm...
A simple chemical formula.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O and energy
Burning of methane, forms energy, no mass is gone.

Sun.
Simple question, in my small post before yours. I stated that the sun loses 4 tons every second. Can you explain where that mass have left, and how, and why, and anything particulair about it, I'd like to know how much your rabling or that you really have a idea what you're talking about.

If you lower pressure like in a vacum, you can boil water which releases its energy and thus freezes. If you increase the pressure the water's temp will drop and then increase. So even with Boil's principles of pressure, sound should produce a result at very low frequencies.

Also, Times magazine did an article on the exspansion of the Universe, it hasn't slowed and most scientists assume so, and like a flat Earth, what we presume is only a theory. Sorry for the misspeak.

The loss of the mass of the sun has to do with energy consumption during light emission. Recall E=mc^2; well say 4 million metric tons is lost a second. We haev calculated the amount of energy produced by the sun in ergs, about 4 x 10^33 ergs/sec. We know the mass loss is equal to 4 x 10^33 ergs/sec, and we have our original equation so divide the energy out by the speed of light squared, or (3 x 10^10 cm/sec)^2 and you now have an equation to calculate the loss of mass due to energy-light crap. (sorry for lack of jargon). Taken from the suns total mass and radious, at this rate evry 160 billion years the sun will lose 1% of its current mass. So to produce 4000000000000000000000000000000000ergs/sec it must consume/alter the state of 4 million metric tons of (fuel I guess) per second, or 1 onehundred-sixty billionth of its entire mass a year. I think thats correct, if my notes are still acurate.

Numsgil

• Bot God
• Posts: 7742
Crows are pretty damn smart
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2008, 04:29:23 PM »
Quote from: gymsum
If you lower pressure like in a vacum, you can boil water which releases its energy and thus freezes. If you increase the pressure the water's temp will drop and then increase. So even with Boil's principles of pressure, sound should produce a result at very low frequencies.

It's Boyle's law.  Not Boil's law.  Although I think it would be funny if his name was boil.  Would make remembering it that much easier.

Quote
Also, Times magazine did an article on the exspansion of the Universe, it hasn't slowed and most scientists assume so, and like a flat Earth, what we presume is only a theory. Sorry for the misspeak.

That the universe is expanding has been known since at least Hubble (the scientist, not the telescope).  If you had two objects in space, and neither object is accelerated, after billions of years they would end up further apart, because the actual space between them is expanding.  See wiki.  This makes sense when you consider the fact that the universe literally exploded out from a single point.  The more interesting bit is that this expansion is accelerating.  This is where the whole idea of dark/vacuum energy comes from.

Quote
...it must consume/alter the state of 4 million metric tons of (fuel I guess) per second, or 1 onehundred-sixty billionth of its entire mass a year. I think thats correct, if my notes are still acurate.

Didn't check out your math (math is boring).  But this part you glossed over is the interesting bit, IMO.  What fuel is used (what was that mass before it was converted to radiant energy), what reaction takes place, etc.