 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many people upon learning about our symbiotic partners go to great lengths
to get rid of them, which sometimes does more harm then good. It has been
proposed that the function of the appendix is/was to serve as a backup
supply of gut flora when illness flushes them from the rest of the
intestines.
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4980af6f$1@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> (OTOH, I saw an estimate somewhere that over 50% of the cells inside the
>>> human body aren't actually human...)
>>
>> I feel a mojo coming up...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No. But you could, in principle, construct some kind of meaninful
>> visual representation of them.
>
> No, actually, you can't. That's the whole point of "quantum
> uncertainty." It really is impossible to look close enough.
I don't see how "you can't measure where this really is" implies "you
can't draw a picture where you pretend it's at position X".
>> As far as I understand it, phycasists still don't really understand
>> exactly what these particles "are" yet. But they know many of their
>> properties and how they interact, which is probably the most useful
>> thing to know if you're trying to design coherant theories about them...
>
> It depends on the definition of "is", as our president once said. If you
> can predict the behavior of something in all ways that matter to 15
> decimal places, can you really say you don't know what it is?
One set of theories say that an electron is a wave. Another set of
theories say that it's a particle. And both sets of theories seem to be
completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> Many people upon learning about our symbiotic partners go to great lengths
> to get rid of them, which sometimes does more harm then good. It has been
> proposed that the function of the appendix is/was to serve as a backup
> supply of gut flora when illness flushes them from the rest of the
> intestines.
And then you get these fancy expensive yogurts that contain "bifidus
digestivum" or "L. casi immunitas" which is "clinically proven" to
"improve digestion" or "promote a healthy immune system".
Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law
against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Well, I see atoms today despite any light wavelength. IBM even wrote
> their initials by manipulating single atoms. Yes, they look solid, but
> that's just an artifact of statistical imaging.
Thats because light wasn't used to image that, I think they used a
scanning tunneling microscope.
> If a larger and much slower being was to look into our universe, perhaps
> he too wouldn't be able to distinguish stars and planets from their high
> frequency (to him) waveform orbits. He'd have to resort to statistcs
> too to measure positionings in space. See above my answer to Tim Cook.
But our solar system is disc shaped.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> But our solar system is disc shaped.
>
To elaborate:
Electrons have a spherical or lobed cloud of proability depending on
their valence energy.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> Well, I see atoms today despite any light wavelength. IBM even wrote
>> their initials by manipulating single atoms. Yes, they look solid,
>> but that's just an artifact of statistical imaging.
>
> Thats because light wasn't used to image that, I think they used a
> scanning tunneling microscope.
I know. That's why I said statistical imaging.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> But our solar system is disc shaped.
>
> To elaborate:
>
> Electrons have a spherical or lobed cloud of proability depending on
> their valence energy.
Wouldn't planets around stars and galaxies themselves have a spherical
or lobed cloud of probability too if we were to "see" them in high speed
frequencies? I'm talking here: if there was a being the size of
billions of billions of galaxies and looked into a subparticle
microscope to visualize "atoms", wouldn't our galaxies be spinning to
fast too that they would be nothing but a blur to the ultra big and slow
guy? And no, I'm not suggesting that guy is God anymore than I would
suggest a bacteria is God to the particles in its body.
Do galaxies spins always around the same plane of reference or it tilts
as we go? If it tilts, there is your cloud of probability in the long
run...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> No. But you could, in principle, construct some kind of meaninful
>>> visual representation of them.
>>
>> No, actually, you can't. That's the whole point of "quantum
>> uncertainty." It really is impossible to look close enough.
>
> I don't see how "you can't measure where this really is" implies "you
> can't draw a picture where you pretend it's at position X".
That would be the "meaningful" word up in that sentence, there.
You can construct a visual representation. It won't be very meaningful.
>> It depends on the definition of "is", as our president once said. If
>> you can predict the behavior of something in all ways that matter to
>> 15 decimal places, can you really say you don't know what it is?
>
> One set of theories say that an electron is a wave. Another set of
> theories say that it's a particle.
You're behind on your science about 40 years or so.
> And both sets of theories seem to be
> completely correct. AFAIK, nobody has figured out how that can be.
You're mistaken.
Complex probabilities have much of the same math as waves.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law
> against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a
>> law against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
>
> What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
