Jump to content
Science Forums

Omnifarious

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    68

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Omnifarious

  1. Omnifarious
    Because everything I've ever read about nerve impulses tells me that they function as on or off pluses and not like the constant current you get in a machine. And logic tells me that our movement is limited by they way our nerves and muscles work. I want to know if this theory of muscle movement is true. The only way I have to do that is by Googling these things to find out what the scientists have said. But sometimes I get no results so I come to places like this. And I can't work these things out for myself because I am no expert. So are our movements limited in this way, yes or no? And either way, why?
  2. Omnifarious
    I have no objection to speculation, what I object to is people presenting theories to the general public without telling them that they are theories. Otherwise the air they have when they convey them is the same as a school teacher reading from a textbook. And weather you realize it or not, you trust them implicitly. Trust they know what they are talking about and assume they are telling you about a perfectly true thing, that they are speaking from a position of proof. There is so much that is fact, so much is theory. Yet the people who take it upon themselves to tell us don't tell us which is which. How are people without scientific backgrounds supposed to figure it out for themselves? You don't make dvds without putting an age rating on every box. Why should you talk about theories without telling people that's just what they are? It's like when the media makes biased stories or imply a natural death was a covered up murder. Legally, they can do it but they have an obligation to tell the people the full story because people assume they do. Indeed they have to assume because they won't get any news if they diddn't.
  3. Omnifarious
    Well why don't they say that when they write articles and make documentaries? If someone sates something without saying it's speculation, it implies that it's a known and proven fact.
  4. Omnifarious
    I just saw a documentary that mentioned the Andromeda galaxy colliding with ours. It said that it would lead to the creation of a lot of new stars. But when they all go supernova it will lead to a massive increase cosmic radiation in our galaxy. Implying this would be a threat to any life. I also read an article that said, assuming our species survives, we would have to find a way to leave the Milky Way before that happens. Though it didn't quite mention why. And yes I know that this won't happen for billions of years but I still want to know if our galaxy will become some kind of galactic radioactive wasteland.
  5. Omnifarious
    I think you mean given. Are you saying the info given to me here is true? I was just talking to my therapist about this earlier. When I receive data I don't decide weather to accept it or not. I accept all of it. I am aware that there are things that scientists disagree on and things they all agree on. But I can't tell which category things like the ones I've been talking about fall into. I always assume it's the latter. Not that I'm gullible but when scientific information is given to me in any media, I can't help but assume it's already been proven beyond all doubt. Especially because I assume the people who do it are far more qualified then me. And it's not just science, I have difficulty arguing with most people. When they say this is the way thing are, I assume they know more then me. When my opinion clashes with theirs's, I think there might be something wrong with mine. I have very black and white thinking, I don't think my brain can process the idea of a partial truth, something being between true and false.
  6. Omnifarious
    So all the people that I've been talking to here are just armatures, enthusiasts and hobbyists? I wanted to know if thing things I'm worried about are true. I assume that science already has the answers and the people here have access to that information. That all the stuff I've asked about is a matter of public record. Is that not the case?
  7. Omnifarious
    But as I understand it, robotics use constant currents. Muscles use quantized pulses right? Doesn't that make them different?
  8. Omnifarious
    I assumed the people here are experts. Or at least far more knowledgeable about scientific matters then me. In my experience you can't just find a scientist. You can't find them in the yellow pages. And you can't google "Scientists in my area." I know because I just tried it. And you can't just call them up to ask them something out of the blue. I know because I did that too. I found a professor of quantum mechanics teaching at a university. I left a message for her and to my surprise she called back. But it was still really awkward and she hadn't even heard of the thing I was asking about.
  9. Omnifarious
    Actually if we were talking about metal bones it wouldn't be quantised positions. If we were talking about some kind of robot, it's joints would be on a hinge moved by a motor that moves continuously while fed power. Assuming time and space are not quantized, you could stop them at any position. But I don't know if that's how organics work. I don't want to think so and I don't want to. That's why I used the word "if". How does this say "I think it's true"? Are you criticizing me for asking people this question? If so, what is the point of this website? I tried googling this question but got nothing.
  10. Omnifarious
    That is perhaps the WORST thing you could have said to me! It was this theory that started all this obsession for me, all these different questions that I've been asking stem from that! Years ago my father told me about it because he thought it was interesting. But it was the most horrific, soul crushing, life destroying thing I'd ever heard. It sent me into a spiralling depression I've yet to recover from. And 90% of the people I've asked have said it was true. And that number now includes you. I thought you were different from the others, that you were that rare combination of being scientifically minded and against this theory. And now you tell me it's mathematically true?! I was hoping you'd give me a reason to doubt it, you were a source of comfort to me because I believed what you said. But now that you are confirming it, I can't help but feel that makes it true.
  11. Omnifarious
    Actually I thought science is absolutely about absolutes, they are exactly what it deals in. Saying that things are this way or because of this and that's the end of it. That scientists are supposed to be sceptical and reject any kind of paranormal or supernatural explanation without even considering it. That's why I can't imagine how scientists can be religious. I remember when I was a child, I saw a cartoon where a scientist says "I don't believe in fairy tales, only in scientific facts. That's what being a scientist is all about." I think that played a part in shaping my understanding of science. I've long supposed that somewhere out there, there's a panel of scientific minds that decide what is true or false and stamp them accordingly... Phrenology-false, evolution-true, and then they are the ones who authorize putting those truths in books and teaching them in school. I wanted to know what they had stamped this and other things that worry me. In my experience scientists, or at least scientifically minded people, are anything but open minded. My father was a scientist, he worked in a chemical co's lab, helped to set up laboratories across the country and in his spare time he had a hobby in astronomy and read any of the 4 science magazines he subscribed to. And he is completely inflexible in his beliefs, particularly when it came to science. Some theories he treats as gospel. I have talked to people about science here and on other sites about all the ideas and theories that bother me. Most, if not all of of them say they are true right away. that these are truths so self evident that they aren't even up for discussion. And then there are the people who make science documentaries who are always talking about things as if they are proven. On the tv show Nova, in the episode about multiverses, the presenter (I think it was Brian Greene) said... "Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..." He doesn't start by saying "Theoretically there is.." "Hypothetically..." or "If it's true that..." No he just geos straight to "Since" like it's proven. And when people talk like that I can't help but assume they know it for a fact.
  12. Omnifarious
    Ok but how complete is our knowledge of photoreceptors?
  13. Omnifarious
    I haven't actually seen write4u's latest post because I blocked him/her. Not for upsetting me but for being so unscientific. But my mind is not made up, I am not determined to believe it. If anything I want to dis-believe it. Actually believe is not the right word, I want to know if it's true or not. I wondered if photoreceptors work like pixels and I found someone, the creator of that image, who said yes. I just want to know if that person is speaking scientific truth or personal opinion. And I strongly resent Evolute's claim that I am mentally ill. I admit I can be obsessional and struggle with depression. But that doesn't mean I should not be engaged with or my words ignored as the meaningless rantings of a lunatic. I'm having a discussion on a forum, not telling people on the street about how my tinfoil hat keeps the Illuminati from reading my mind. There is a difference between talking to a therapist for an hour a week and being consigned to a padded room in a straitjacket. And exactly what qualifies Evolute to diagnose anyone as mentally ill anyway? Even my therapist said she wasn't qualified to do that. Furthermore, so what if I've asked this before? What harm is it doing? Any why come here and tell everyone about it and that I'm mad? Who are you, the Forum Police? Why are question forums so strict, are web pages rationed?
  14. Omnifarious
    I'm not sure if I ever thought about science like that. I suppose I thought it was like a compendium of absolute truths. A directory of true of false.
  15. Omnifarious
    I'll have you know your post came in while I was talking to my therapist about this very issue and I told here what you just said. She said I was not mentally ill and that you a rude and abusive bully.
  16. Omnifarious
    It matters because it's connected to my issues regarding the possible infinitude of art from my other discussions. If our movement is limited like this then so is our ability to create in the physical world. You mentioned the movements of our eyes compensate for our photoreceptors. I also thought of that but if muscle movement is quantised then so is eye movement right? And how is putting forth my hypothesis and then asking what people think of it unacceptable?
  17. Omnifarious
    You're no an expert? Are you at least someone who knows about these things?
  18. Omnifarious
    I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying that it's true and common knowledge? I'm thinking of any image that can fit in our field of vision. I understand the answers you gave me, I just don't think they fix my problem. I don't think I "move the goal posts." If anything I think I've only made the question clearer. Through my research I found that eyes do constantly move and at first I thought that solved the problem but then I wasn't so sure.
  19. Omnifarious
    With all due respect I don't think VictorMedvil or Write4u should be considered reliable sources or have their writings taken too seriously. Write4u has shown he/she cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and personal opinion. And has no trouble passing one off as the other. VictorMedvil not only makes erroneous and extreme claims about science but uses sources to to back him/her up. Sources which ironically state that these matters are still theoretical.
  20. Omnifarious
    Based on my knowledge, my chain of reasoning works like this... When you want to move a muscle your brain sends an electrical nervous impulse along the chain of nerve cells to the muscle you want to move. A nervous impulse is nothing other then a jolt of electricity, the voltage is uniform and the only difference is the rate the jolts are sent, resulting in faster movement. When a muscle is hit by electricity it's reaction is to contract, this is what creates movement. Given all this, is our movement continuous or quantized? Let's say one jolt moves my finger 1 degree, another jolt would move it another degree. Would that not make it impossible to move my finger 1.5 degrees? To me it stands to reason that while you could shut off the power to your finger at any time, making it theoretically continuous, there must be a minimum amount of frequency by the impulses needed to cause any movement. If this is true then the movement of our bodies is the microscopic snapping through possible positions. And therefore there must be a finite number of possible positions our bodies can take. Like a knob that can only click it's way through the pre-determined positions on a dial. Is all this true? Do nervous impulses work like I think they do? Are there things about nervous impulses or muscles we don't know? Are we capable of only positioning ourselves in this quantized way? Has anyone proven any of the things I have said? Please consider you answer carefully.
  21. Omnifarious
    I understand what the last 2 members said but it doesn't change anything for me. I must insist that you give yes or no answers to the following questions. Do photo receptors work like they do in the picture at the start of this forum? Yes or no? If yes, is this something proven beyond all doubt? Yes or no? Can humans see any one of an infinite number of images? Yes or no? I don't see how I can make it any simpler to answer.
  22. Omnifarious
    I have considered before what you've said about eye movement. But it occurred to me that if muscles move when stimulated by electric signals, is there a minimum amount a muscle can move? Thus still making our perception finite?
  23. Omnifarious
    I see how you are trying to help me but frankly it's only making it worse. I know that photo-receptors are tiny and the signals coming of them would be tiny. If human perception does work like that, the number of possible images our eyes could see would be immense. But to me, that does not make even the slightest bit of difference. Because it still means there are a finite number of images we can possibly see. I can see the way you think, it's a finite number but such a large number it's not worth bothering about because you'll never exhaust it in your lifetime. But I don't think like that and I don't want to think like that. The infinite possibilities of art is one of the reasons I love it and if it's not infinite then I won't feel good about it. Simple as that. I didn't start this thread to change my way of thinking or look at it another way. I wanted to know if photoreceptors does work like the diagram I found and put at the start of this thread. Do they? And if so, I also want to know if we know this for sure and how we know it. Have scientists ever observed the signals coming through the optic nerve? Or what those signals contain? Or is this vision of vision just an educated guess? Is it something that is considered bad science? Are photo receptors and their workings something of a mystery? I ones ran this same concern through someone else I know and he said that "No one really understand the signals going along the optic nerve, because no one's been able to plug an eye into a computer." But for all I know, someone has. Or has done something similar.
  24. Omnifarious
    Years ago I sought to get an understanding of quantum mechanics and I found this documentary: Nova, quantum mechanics And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes. This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized. Is this the case? I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy? Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.
  25. Omnifarious
    I appreciate what you tried to do here. But everything you wrote only strengthens my fears. To, me your basically saying it's true because you are saying the eye does work like I fear it does.
×
×
  • Create New...