I don't know why people have to complicate the answer to this for you. The answer is *yes* from your reference from, the two photons would be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to one another. But... from one photon's reference frame the other photon is only going at the speed of light. Simple.
"Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.
actually, this is based on a report that was posted in an internation medical journal that showed the results of 13 countries. I remember reading the whole report a while ago so I googled for it and found this article that referenced it. Sadly, the link back to the report is missing.
Here is another article that references this year 2000 report, which may have more complete data:
The message of this original report that I found surprising is that this was measuring the success rate of only people who DID receive medical attention in the hostpital and DID pay their medical bill. So poor people could not have been a cause of the US stats. This article was only compairing people who went to the hospital with illness, so the life expectancy of the whole US public doesn't play into it. The fact is, if you have the cash to pay for the medical treatment, you are less likely to be cured in a US hospital than one in another country. You'd be much better off to go to Cuba, for instance, which has one the best medical systems in the world. Japan is rated number 1.
I wouldn't rely on multivitamins or nutritional science as a means of determining whether your body is getting all that it needs. Scientists haven't come close to isolating all the vitamins, enzymes, minerals, glyconutrients, amino acids, fatty acids, and an abundance of other chemicals that your body uses as building material and in its internal processes. I would say that the most dangerous part of a vegetarian diet is not B12 deficiency, but a deficiency in saturated fatty acids. The body requires these saturated fats to build cellular structures and without them, it must use up precious cholestoral to reinforce the cell walls. You can get saturated fatty acids from tropical fruits, like coconuts, but most vegetarians probably don't eat enough foods like this. B12 can be obtained by eating vegetables without washing them, because organic fetilizer in the soil produces this B12.
On another note. The #1 cause of cancer in industrialized nations is an excess of trans-fatty acids and weak immune systems due to a lack of essential glyconutrients and enzymes that your body uses to convert essential sugars.
The excess of rancid unsatured fatty acids is also a major problem. On no natural diet can a person consume this much unsaturated fat! And on a natural diet, the unsaturated fats do not go rancid like they do when they are processed and extracted.
The only way to ensure that your body is getting everything it needs is to eat a wide variety of natural foods from the forest and from your own organic garden. Wild mushrooms are very important for the immune system. There are many very important foods in nature that are not practical to mass produce and sell in grocery stores. If you want to be healthy in this life, you have to go back to the land.
Overtime, people grow accustomed to their environment (and all other animals on this planet). This is called evolution (surprise!). So the suffering that our current population has to endure is due to a rapidly changing environment. As long as this new environment remains constant over a number of generations, the human body will adapt and the problems will go away.
Health and diet are much more closely related than people would like to believe. Science is only beginning to realize this. Most people would rather believe that diseases like 'cancer' and 'asthma' are completely genetic or by chance. Science is discovering that this is not the case. A healthy immune system will not allow these diseases to occur and your immune system's health is dependent on diet alone.
As far as meat is concerned. There is nothing wrong with meat in moderation. But people tend to overconsume it, which leads to an unbalanced PH of the body, can cause digestion problems, and can lead to a lack of nutrition if this meat is displacing your consumption of healthy plant foods. Like I say, the saturated fatty acids in the meat is probably one of the healthies parts, along with the organ meats. Many people stick to the meats that really don't have the best nutrition and only lead to the problems mentioned. Also, raw meat is much, much healthier because the cholestoral and fatty acids can become rancid if cooked too well. This is also a problem in 'civilized' diets. Meats in cities are dangerous to eat uncooked, and even if a city person did get fresh meat, it would probably make them sick, because their digestive system is not used to it. Sushi is healthy and can be digested well, because the cellular structure of fish meat is easier to break down by the human digestive system. All red meats are well rotted before packed and sent to the grocery store for consumption. People would have a hard time digesting them otherwise. Read meat should be very lightly cooked.
I would say the problems with the modern diet are of the following:
- Too much meat - Trans-fatty acids (illegal in some countries now!) - Rancid unsatured fatty acids - Refined grains (white flour) - Too much sucrose and complex carbohydrates! (people need to eat a wider variety of si
Ha. Calling it a democracy, doesn't make it one. Every slave in american capitalism, is just as much a slave as every slave in Rome was. The difference is that the slaves in Rome were treated much better. I don't consider a choice between two of the same political ideologies, a democratic election. The difference between the USA and a facist nation that sensors its people is that the USA brain washes its people rather than sensoring them. It's a much more intellegent way to run a facist nation like the USA. If the USA encounters a massive uprising of protests, such as the student protests in China, rather than shoot people, the government just dumps free drugs on them, like they did during Vietnam. I'm not sure which is better. Personally, I'd rather be shot, than watch my whole community turn into useless, mindless, drones. Honestly, I don't know what the american public would do with their time if they didn't have the music industry, television, and the internet to plug into. They might all just have to grow community gardens and build houses for the poor to keep themselves entertained.... "Oh my gosh! What a concept!". People move to the USA because they have dreams of becoming rich and free to do as they please, but these dreams are only they ways capitalism keeps society in its repitious cycle of slavery, and every citizen eventually dies from lost hopes and depression. Their own damn stupidity I suppose. The whole US economy is fueled by consumer stupidity. It's people digging themselves into a depressing hole.
I will believe that the USA is democratic, when it becomes easy for anyone to start any kind of political party and run for presidency, when every political party is bared from using funds donated to them and forced to only publicize themselves during publicly moderated and scheduled debates, and when it becomes illegal for the government to promote its decisions to the public, using public funds!
I don't know how anyone from the USA could call down a foreign government, when the US government is clearly the most corrupt government in the world. And I'm an american citizen!
"I believe that someday we may build machines that are aware. What I do not understand is where awareness comes from. If human beings are nothing more than complex chemical machines, well, how do interactions between electron shells equal consciousness?"
See, again, you need to clarify your definition of consciousness before your arguement has any meaning; otherwise you are just throwing around make belief words, like people tend to do an aweful lot and confuse themselves. I understand that you perceve consciousness as some magical unexplainable feeling, but if you dig a little bit deeper you will probably find that you are trying to explain something that isn't even there.
Put it this way. If you created a biological duplicate of yourself, void of this magic you call conciousness, this duplicate would undoubtably feel the same magical conscious feeling that you feel. I believe that this feeling is more easily explained using physcology than physics, only because physics has not fully mapped out the patterns of the brain.
This is just my explanation for a possible source of your feeling. Do you think that there could not be a phycological explanation for the way you feel? It is possible isn't it? Physcology is somewhat a science in that it tries to link your actions and feelings with your environment under the assumption that your brain follows logical algorithms, that react and change to your environment in specific ways.
Whatever the case, I think that if you met a robot with an advanced emotional system, and an advanced awareness of its own relation to its environment, you would be hard pressed to convince it that it wasn't conscious. Simply refusing that it could not possibly have conciousness equivalent to your own would not make it so.
I think that if we did have conscious robots among us, a lot of people would refuse to believe that they have the capacity to be conscious, out of suborness and because of a superiority complex many people hold. For this reason, concious robots would be abused and not respected.
Here is my belief:
Everything in the universe is conscious to varying extents. It is the universe that holds the capacity to be concious, not our bodies, so any mechanism within the universe will inherit consciousness equivilent to how well connected and in tune it is with the rest of the universe.
Even different people have different levels of consciousness, depending on how thoroughly they interact and discover their environment.
Here is a thought experiment for you:
How conscious do you think you would be if you were never released from your mother's whom? You could only learn a limited amount from your limited environment and would probably never reach a comparable level of consciousness to that which you have at the moment.
Now, how conscious do you think you would be if you never developed any senses at all? No touch, sight, anything! How would you know that you existed??? You wouldn't be able to gain any perspective on your relation to your environment, therefore, you wouldn't be an more consious than a brick! Which I believe is conscious to a limited extent.
I agree. On one hand, pets that are hard to train, can be annoying, on the other hand, this trait can provoke other emotions that make the whole experience more stimulating. I'm sure it would be just as easy to program stupid/annoying robots though, if you wanted some emotional excitement, instead of programming pets that think like people. It just depends on your preference.
"You know, put another way: What if we were all just robots? Not actually aware of ourselves or our surroundings? What would be the point of the Universe with nothing around to experience it? Just a bunch of machines carrying out their preprogrammed destinies, and no one would ever know... Yuck, what a waste."
It's easy for you to simply state that you are aware of yourself, without actually understanding what you are saying. I would say that how aware you are of your existance is dependent on how deeply in tune you are with your environment. Some species out there in the universe who understand their environment 100 fold better than we do, may view us as just that (simple, unsophisticated machines.) I think it is very possible that a human could build a machine that would have the abilities to extend its awareness beyond our own, do you have any reason to doubt this? Please explain yourself and your definition of awareness in order to clarify your position.
This is great! Maybe there is hope for us yet. Maybe our new robot overloards will prefer biological pets. Maybe for the novelty. I always thought that my pets have it made. Now you've given me hope for myself.
I can see we are going to have a problem with people discriminating agianst robots, robot abuse, etc. I think that is the biggest issue we are going to have. Robots that can prefectly immitate or even improve on animals? That will happen, when it happens. All animals are programmed to have emotions. This programming was implemented by evolution. Conversely, animals can also be programmed by people through genetic motification.
I can visualize now, protests for 'rights for robots' and 'robot shelters', because of the violent, competitive nature of people who feel threatened by robots. People always want to feel superior, and they will immediately feel threatened and lash out at robots when they see their potential to out-do people. People will never be able to accept robots with advanced emotions and feelings for fear of being replaced!
Robots can be unique. A big part of what separates animals from one another and what can separate robots from one another is that their personality develops differently depending on their interactions with their environment. They learn to react differently to their environment by their experiences. The whole human body, everything reflective of a human being, stems from one hard-coded algorithm, 'the human gene'. Scientists have shown, that this algorithm varies only slightly from one species of animal to another, and even less so, of course, from human to human. So clearly, our interactions with our environment play a very significant role in defining our personalities, instead of the fact that our genes vary ever so slightly. We are pretty much all the same hard-coded algorithm at the beginning of our lives. If this wasn't the case, then how else could you explain reproduction? Passing a small, refined algorithm from generation to generation seems to be the only plausible explanation.
To extend on this, scientists are finding that they can manually alter genes to bring about quick improvements; although, this of course has implications do to our limited knowledge of the genetic algorithms. There is no reason why robots couldn't be built to evolve at an ever expidited rate if they were given the ability to analyze and refine their own algorithms over time. The improvement algorithm that would be used to improve the robots main functioning algorithm could be built for a specific goal independent of nature. Of course all of these algorithms would again be controlled by the algorithm of natural evolution if the robots began to compete.
hmmmm, it seems to me that where this all leads to is that the supremasy of one algorithm (or gene) is just the way of the universe and an impossible fate to escape. Natural evolution works this way. If somebody was to start an althorithm that was able to improve/refine some gene or other kind of algorithm for some other cause (knitting really well?), eventually, a species whose evolutionary path is supremasy would wipe out the knitters (or enslave them, which is what we would be doing from the beginning).
Also, it seems to me that if people where to try and suppress the use of a higher level of evolution (evolution by analyzing the environment and making changes to our genes directly, to give us advantages over the environment), eventually something like this would develop somewhere in the universe and humans would quickly become obsolete.
I don't know how I ever got to talking about this, but my conclusion is that humans can evolve much faster by understanding and altering their own genes. If they don't do it, something else eventually will.
Also, after all this rambling, I'm still not sure whether genes are supperior to electronic algorithms. Will life forms always be carbon based? Will the 'gene' always be the programming language of life? Or will another gene equivilent be developed and eventually replace the gene? ????
I've known a lot of stupid dogs that also think you are playing with it. Some dogs, you just simply can't punish, because no matter what you do, they think you are trying to play with it. It's absolutely hopeless. That's why I think something like this robotic seal is an advancement. It actually learns!!! A robotic pet would be much easier to train, because it would have a more intuitive learning system, that works the way a human would think that a pet should learn.
How does this prove the validity of the quantum theory? I'm talking about the statistical aspect of it. How does this show that the universe is a statistical phenomenon? There is no reason why quantum entanglement couldn't be described using a classical theory. How does the verification of an application of quantum entanglement prove anything? All it proves is that this natural phenomon can be useful to human applications. Just because a theory accounts for the existence of something, doesn't mean that the theory has been proven, when the existence is proven. Coming to such a short sighted conclusion is certainly not scientific method.
But are these tree batteries rechargable? That's all I care about. Tree battery disposal may be much more environmentally sound than lead acid battery disposal.
Yes, you can effectively decrease the time it takes light to travel from one point to another by applying various forces against it that cause it to rapidly alter its path (take the scenic route). All you are doing is lengthening the distance that light has to travel. For instance, you can freeze light within a given boundary by bouncing it back and forth between to forces. This is all scientists have been able to do. They haven't actually slowed down light as the journalists like to phrase it.
Gravity extends throughout the universe. Good luck finding a spot devoid of gravity. I don't know what you are talking about, but here is an article on freezing light if you wish to re-educate yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of microsoft software ... can somebody please dos this server for me?
s p
http://mlslink.mlxchange.com/Login/BrowserError.a
I don't know why people have to complicate the answer to this for you. The answer is *yes* from your reference from, the two photons would be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to one another. But ... from one photon's reference frame the other photon is only going at the speed of light. Simple.
From the article:
"Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.
actually, this is based on a report that was posted in an internation medical journal that showed the results of 13 countries. I remember reading the whole report a while ago so I googled for it and found this article that referenced it. Sadly, the link back to the report is missing.
- Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-the-US.htm
Here is another article that references this year 2000 report, which may have more complete data:
http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-The-Third
The message of this original report that I found surprising is that this was measuring the success rate of only people who DID receive medical attention in the hostpital and DID pay their medical bill. So poor people could not have been a cause of the US stats. This article was only compairing people who went to the hospital with illness, so the life expectancy of the whole US public doesn't play into it. The fact is, if you have the cash to pay for the medical treatment, you are less likely to be cured in a US hospital than one in another country. You'd be much better off to go to Cuba, for instance, which has one the best medical systems in the world. Japan is rated number 1.
Read this. Still think it is superior?
http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
I wouldn't rely on multivitamins or nutritional science as a means of determining whether your body is getting all that it needs. Scientists haven't come close to isolating all the vitamins, enzymes, minerals, glyconutrients, amino acids, fatty acids, and an abundance of other chemicals that your body uses as building material and in its internal processes. I would say that the most dangerous part of a vegetarian diet is not B12 deficiency, but a deficiency in saturated fatty acids. The body requires these saturated fats to build cellular structures and without them, it must use up precious cholestoral to reinforce the cell walls. You can get saturated fatty acids from tropical fruits, like coconuts, but most vegetarians probably don't eat enough foods like this. B12 can be obtained by eating vegetables without washing them, because organic fetilizer in the soil produces this B12.
On another note. The #1 cause of cancer in industrialized nations is an excess of trans-fatty acids and weak immune systems due to a lack of essential glyconutrients and enzymes that your body uses to convert essential sugars.
The excess of rancid unsatured fatty acids is also a major problem. On no natural diet can a person consume this much unsaturated fat! And on a natural diet, the unsaturated fats do not go rancid like they do when they are processed and extracted.
The only way to ensure that your body is getting everything it needs is to eat a wide variety of natural foods from the forest and from your own organic garden. Wild mushrooms are very important for the immune system. There are many very important foods in nature that are not practical to mass produce and sell in grocery stores. If you want to be healthy in this life, you have to go back to the land.
Overtime, people grow accustomed to their environment (and all other animals on this planet). This is called evolution (surprise!). So the suffering that our current population has to endure is due to a rapidly changing environment. As long as this new environment remains constant over a number of generations, the human body will adapt and the problems will go away.
Health and diet are much more closely related than people would like to believe. Science is only beginning to realize this. Most people would rather believe that diseases like 'cancer' and 'asthma' are completely genetic or by chance. Science is discovering that this is not the case. A healthy immune system will not allow these diseases to occur and your immune system's health is dependent on diet alone.
As far as meat is concerned. There is nothing wrong with meat in moderation. But people tend to overconsume it, which leads to an unbalanced PH of the body, can cause digestion problems, and can lead to a lack of nutrition if this meat is displacing your consumption of healthy plant foods. Like I say, the saturated fatty acids in the meat is probably one of the healthies parts, along with the organ meats. Many people stick to the meats that really don't have the best nutrition and only lead to the problems mentioned. Also, raw meat is much, much healthier because the cholestoral and fatty acids can become rancid if cooked too well. This is also a problem in 'civilized' diets. Meats in cities are dangerous to eat uncooked, and even if a city person did get fresh meat, it would probably make them sick, because their digestive system is not used to it. Sushi is healthy and can be digested well, because the cellular structure of fish meat is easier to break down by the human digestive system. All red meats are well rotted before packed and sent to the grocery store for consumption. People would have a hard time digesting them otherwise. Read meat should be very lightly cooked.
I would say the problems with the modern diet are of the following:
- Too much meat
- Trans-fatty acids (illegal in some countries now!)
- Rancid unsatured fatty acids
- Refined grains (white flour)
- Too much sucrose and complex carbohydrates! (people need to eat a wider variety of si
Ha. Calling it a democracy, doesn't make it one. Every slave in american capitalism, is just as much a slave as every slave in Rome was. The difference is that the slaves in Rome were treated much better. I don't consider a choice between two of the same political ideologies, a democratic election. The difference between the USA and a facist nation that sensors its people is that the USA brain washes its people rather than sensoring them. It's a much more intellegent way to run a facist nation like the USA. If the USA encounters a massive uprising of protests, such as the student protests in China, rather than shoot people, the government just dumps free drugs on them, like they did during Vietnam. I'm not sure which is better. Personally, I'd rather be shot, than watch my whole community turn into useless, mindless, drones. Honestly, I don't know what the american public would do with their time if they didn't have the music industry, television, and the internet to plug into. They might all just have to grow community gardens and build houses for the poor to keep themselves entertained .... "Oh my gosh! What a concept!". People move to the USA because they have dreams of becoming rich and free to do as they please, but these dreams are only they ways capitalism keeps society in its repitious cycle of slavery, and every citizen eventually dies from lost hopes and depression. Their own damn stupidity I suppose. The whole US economy is fueled by consumer stupidity. It's people digging themselves into a depressing hole.
I will believe that the USA is democratic, when it becomes easy for anyone to start any kind of political party and run for presidency, when every political party is bared from using funds donated to them and forced to only publicize themselves during publicly moderated and scheduled debates, and when it becomes illegal for the government to promote its decisions to the public, using public funds!
I don't know how anyone from the USA could call down a foreign government, when the US government is clearly the most corrupt government in the world. And I'm an american citizen!
"I believe that someday we may build machines that are aware. What I do not understand is where awareness comes from. If human beings are nothing more than complex chemical machines, well, how do interactions between electron shells equal consciousness?"
See, again, you need to clarify your definition of consciousness before your arguement has any meaning; otherwise you are just throwing around make belief words, like people tend to do an aweful lot and confuse themselves. I understand that you perceve consciousness as some magical unexplainable feeling, but if you dig a little bit deeper you will probably find that you are trying to explain something that isn't even there.
Put it this way. If you created a biological duplicate of yourself, void of this magic you call conciousness, this duplicate would undoubtably feel the same magical conscious feeling that you feel. I believe that this feeling is more easily explained using physcology than physics, only because physics has not fully mapped out the patterns of the brain.
This is just my explanation for a possible source of your feeling. Do you think that there could not be a phycological explanation for the way you feel? It is possible isn't it? Physcology is somewhat a science in that it tries to link your actions and feelings with your environment under the assumption that your brain follows logical algorithms, that react and change to your environment in specific ways.
Whatever the case, I think that if you met a robot with an advanced emotional system, and an advanced awareness of its own relation to its environment, you would be hard pressed to convince it that it wasn't conscious. Simply refusing that it could not possibly have conciousness equivalent to your own would not make it so.
I think that if we did have conscious robots among us, a lot of people would refuse to believe that they have the capacity to be conscious, out of suborness and because of a superiority complex many people hold. For this reason, concious robots would be abused and not respected.
Here is my belief:
Everything in the universe is conscious to varying extents. It is the universe that holds the capacity to be concious, not our bodies, so any mechanism within the universe will inherit consciousness equivilent to how well connected and in tune it is with the rest of the universe.
Even different people have different levels of consciousness, depending on how thoroughly they interact and discover their environment.
Here is a thought experiment for you:
How conscious do you think you would be if you were never released from your mother's whom? You could only learn a limited amount from your limited environment and would probably never reach a comparable level of consciousness to that which you have at the moment.
Now, how conscious do you think you would be if you never developed any senses at all? No touch, sight, anything! How would you know that you existed??? You wouldn't be able to gain any perspective on your relation to your environment, therefore, you wouldn't be an more consious than a brick! Which I believe is conscious to a limited extent.
I agree. On one hand, pets that are hard to train, can be annoying, on the other hand, this trait can provoke other emotions that make the whole experience more stimulating. I'm sure it would be just as easy to program stupid/annoying robots though, if you wanted some emotional excitement, instead of programming pets that think like people. It just depends on your preference.
"You know, put another way: What if we were all just robots? Not actually aware of ourselves or our surroundings? What would be the point of the Universe with nothing around to experience it? Just a bunch of machines carrying out their preprogrammed destinies, and no one would ever know... Yuck, what a waste."
It's easy for you to simply state that you are aware of yourself, without actually understanding what you are saying. I would say that how aware you are of your existance is dependent on how deeply in tune you are with your environment. Some species out there in the universe who understand their environment 100 fold better than we do, may view us as just that (simple, unsophisticated machines.) I think it is very possible that a human could build a machine that would have the abilities to extend its awareness beyond our own, do you have any reason to doubt this? Please explain yourself and your definition of awareness in order to clarify your position.
Thank you.
This is great! Maybe there is hope for us yet. Maybe our new robot overloards will prefer biological pets. Maybe for the novelty. I always thought that my pets have it made. Now you've given me hope for myself.
I can see we are going to have a problem with people discriminating agianst robots, robot abuse, etc. I think that is the biggest issue we are going to have. Robots that can prefectly immitate or even improve on animals? That will happen, when it happens. All animals are programmed to have emotions. This programming was implemented by evolution. Conversely, animals can also be programmed by people through genetic motification.
I can visualize now, protests for 'rights for robots' and 'robot shelters', because of the violent, competitive nature of people who feel threatened by robots. People always want to feel superior, and they will immediately feel threatened and lash out at robots when they see their potential to out-do people. People will never be able to accept robots with advanced emotions and feelings for fear of being replaced!
Robots can be unique. A big part of what separates animals from one another and what can separate robots from one another is that their personality develops differently depending on their interactions with their environment. They learn to react differently to their environment by their experiences. The whole human body, everything reflective of a human being, stems from one hard-coded algorithm, 'the human gene'. Scientists have shown, that this algorithm varies only slightly from one species of animal to another, and even less so, of course, from human to human. So clearly, our interactions with our environment play a very significant role in defining our personalities, instead of the fact that our genes vary ever so slightly. We are pretty much all the same hard-coded algorithm at the beginning of our lives. If this wasn't the case, then how else could you explain reproduction? Passing a small, refined algorithm from generation to generation seems to be the only plausible explanation.
To extend on this, scientists are finding that they can manually alter genes to bring about quick improvements; although, this of course has implications do to our limited knowledge of the genetic algorithms. There is no reason why robots couldn't be built to evolve at an ever expidited rate if they were given the ability to analyze and refine their own algorithms over time. The improvement algorithm that would be used to improve the robots main functioning algorithm could be built for a specific goal independent of nature. Of course all of these algorithms would again be controlled by the algorithm of natural evolution if the robots began to compete.
hmmmm, it seems to me that where this all leads to is that the supremasy of one algorithm (or gene) is just the way of the universe and an impossible fate to escape. Natural evolution works this way. If somebody was to start an althorithm that was able to improve/refine some gene or other kind of algorithm for some other cause (knitting really well?), eventually, a species whose evolutionary path is supremasy would wipe out the knitters (or enslave them, which is what we would be doing from the beginning).
Also, it seems to me that if people where to try and suppress the use of a higher level of evolution (evolution by analyzing the environment and making changes to our genes directly, to give us advantages over the environment), eventually something like this would develop somewhere in the universe and humans would quickly become obsolete.
I don't know how I ever got to talking about this, but my conclusion is that humans can evolve much faster by understanding and altering their own genes. If they don't do it, something else eventually will.
Also, after all this rambling, I'm still not sure whether genes are supperior to electronic algorithms. Will life forms always be carbon based? Will the 'gene' always be the programming language of life? Or will another gene equivilent be developed and eventually replace the gene? ????
I've known a lot of stupid dogs that also think you are playing with it. Some dogs, you just simply can't punish, because no matter what you do, they think you are trying to play with it. It's absolutely hopeless. That's why I think something like this robotic seal is an advancement. It actually learns!!! A robotic pet would be much easier to train, because it would have a more intuitive learning system, that works the way a human would think that a pet should learn.
How does this prove the validity of the quantum theory? I'm talking about the statistical aspect of it. How does this show that the universe is a statistical phenomenon? There is no reason why quantum entanglement couldn't be described using a classical theory. How does the verification of an application of quantum entanglement prove anything? All it proves is that this natural phenomon can be useful to human applications. Just because a theory accounts for the existence of something, doesn't mean that the theory has been proven, when the existence is proven. Coming to such a short sighted conclusion is certainly not scientific method.
But are these tree batteries rechargable? That's all I care about. Tree battery disposal may be much more environmentally sound than lead acid battery disposal.
Yes, you can effectively decrease the time it takes light to travel from one point to another by applying various forces against it that cause it to rapidly alter its path (take the scenic route). All you are doing is lengthening the distance that light has to travel. For instance, you can freeze light within a given boundary by bouncing it back and forth between to forces. This is all scientists have been able to do. They haven't actually slowed down light as the journalists like to phrase it.
Gravity extends throughout the universe. Good luck finding a spot devoid of gravity. I don't know what you are talking about, but here is an article on freezing light if you wish to re-educate yourself.
f reeze/lightfreeze.html
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/light
This optics expert can tell you. http://rmrc.org/lectures/bio.htm
He explains the meaning of all these quantum outcomes in his book. It was a great read. It really clears things up.
http://rmrc.org/rft/index.htm