--- adjective: Tender, Conscious, Subconscious, etc.---

---subjective: Tenderness, Consciousness, Subconsciousness, etc.

(would've been clear, had you taken PSY101 -- intro to Psychology)

Hey, Biohazard, if you wanna talk, you better remove the age restriction from your profile!!!!

Although I stated that


yet, I did some research and consulting, and respectfully concede my defeat... Because
Bombs were not what Einstein had in mind when he published this equation. Indeed, he considered himself to be a pacifist. In 1929, he publicly declared that if a war broke out he would "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged." (Ronald Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Times", pg. 428).

******> His position would change in 1933, as the result of Adolf Hitler's ascent to power in Germany. While still promoting peace, Einstein no longer fit his previous self-description of being an "absolute pacifist".
--- Einstein's greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt (in October 1939 ) urging that the bomb be built. * * *

However, a primary search in science has always been the application of usefulness of discoveries. Madam Curie found that radium could be used to produce x-rays ... and the search went on.

The work on atomic energy went on long before WWII. Several of the events in WWII had to do with Hitler acquiring "heavy water" in an effort to produce an atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project was simply a huge mass rush to produce one before the Germans or Japanese produced one.

*****>>> Nevertheless, Abra, your correct in stating the discovery of the equation hasn't been influenced by WWII!!! -- I stand corrected and concede... ***

Well I very much appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge this. I was starting to worry that maybe I'm getting Alzheimer’s disease and losing my mind.

So I thank you.

Oh, James, please, dear, I should be greatful to you for setting me straight!!! (I hate being confused about philosophycal issues!)

So I thank you.

P.S. As far as getting Alzheimer’s disease and losing your mind, you don't seem to exhibit any symptoms, yet -- contrary to some of the members of this thread...

well lol i didn't mean that in an attack or anything i dont assume anything. not yet at lease i don't know you well. but in any case. i am sorry if u got that from the phrasing. well



i had no idea it has been changed if anyone wants to chat u know how

as far as the whole holodeck thing maybe once u see an object and hear it you brain can belive that object is real. just like in dreams.

once i was being choked in a dream and could not breath. same thing in the theory of death in dreams. same problem y we cant yet perfect computerized reality. they have had problems with the mind thinking that the events where real so if somone was choking in there their mind would kill them off. same with pain as well. kinda like if u cut your self and dont feel it till you see it.

I haven't read every post in this thread... but the entire E = mc(2) (doesn't know how to make the squared sign) is based around the idea that energy is moving inside a vacuum. At least, that's my understanding of the principle.

In which case... it's not really applicable to modern living. It's like absolute zero... hypothetical... theoretical physics.

That's what makes it so pretty.

---->"it's not really applicable to modern living."

Neither is truth.

I didn't feel you were attacking - I thought you were saying that wikipedia would be inadequate for 'proving' something, and I would agree!. Rarely am I trying to prove anything, but frequently I am trying to get people to question their beliefs. I do think the claims made by that wikipedia article should be enough for a rational person to question the 10% claim - and go from there.




Thats really interesting - we were just discussing sleep paralysis a bit ago. Were you completely dreaming, or were you partly awake? Or trying to wake?

The first thing that comes to my mind, as far as "E=mc^2" being relevant to our lives, is nuclear power. Many places, when you turn on the lights - some of that power came from the conversion of mass to energy in a nuclear reactor.


I've heard it argued that *all* of our power comes from the sun, which is power primarily by the conversion of mass to energy. (Gravitational collapse also contributes a bit). I don't remember how geothermal fits into that picture. Certainly wind power, wave power, solar power, and (if its truly from anceint biomass) petroleum derive their power from the sun.

That "all power comes from the sun" is not really accurate. You mentioned geothermal, which doesn't come from the sun, nor does nuclear power.

It does seem though that all power could be said to derive untimately from the conversion of matter into energy. But then I'm not an expert on the Big Bang theory so that may not actually be true.

I'm trying to play devil's advocate here... nuclear power may not come from our sun, but it came from a sun. Does that count?

Might the heat trapped in the earth be the result of our sun in its infancy? Warming the protoplanets as they coalesced? I'm really reaching, here.

Okay, I just googled... I had no idea that geothermal (maybe) arises from the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes!

I always thought that the mantle just provided such good insulation, that the heat of planet formation was still trapped in there.

And I do think I was stretching things in my above statement.

You damn sure stretched things quite a bit -- my penties fell down!!!

As I understand it, all the heavier elements (e.g. the one's with unstable isotopes) were produced by novae or super novae. So technically, all radioactive energy could be said to "come from stars", yes.

...and if its true that geothermal comes from isotope decay, then all of our power comes from a sun (not specifically sol) at some point...

(but its still wrong to say it all comes from sol)

Mechanisms for heat:
1. Accretion – material pulled to the surface – kinetic energy
of incoming debries – converted to thermal energy

2. Differentiation – heavy (more dense) material flowing towards the
core creates friction – thermal heat energy.

3. Radioactive decay (radioactive isotopes of uranium, potassium &
thorium) undergoes nuclear decay providing thermal energy.

I got the above information from Astronomy class – just took my final exam yesterday 98% I’m happy. But since it was previously noted that information should include a source – I found one. Not a totally thorough explanation but it supports what I’ve provided.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=000B2C71-BCF0-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

i was completely asleep. i rember most of my dreams that was a wierd one at that. i was at a farm i suppose but i went into the pig pen and there was a wild boar it rammed me i was pinned to the fence by the the boar. it was pressing so hard i could not breath in. i had awoke and could not breath for a sec i felt like fighting for my life.

i also have many bouts with sleep paralysis. for the longest i thought i was possessed but that is a story for another time i suppose.

@OP truth is theoretical 'real' information --> truth is the real/factual/accurate versian of information.ITs theoretical in the scientific sense because truth is subjective,which is WHY we have words like FACT


as for energy being thought and VV,energy itself is made of still smaller particles.Those particles work together to build forms/shapes and eventually take the patterns that then become thought


the smaller you go the more intricate things become,as each level down adds more to the level above it..more variables,more 'forces'.At the same time things become simpler as there are less forces intereacting with each other on each level.But as i am sure you have see in LIFE,you can add simple things together to get some extremely interesting AND varied results *drama*


all things are energy of some sort or another,and all things are constantly in motion whether seemingly stationary or 'solid'.Energy is then made of yet smaller particles,and then smaller down to the current point of our human ability to view them with our current technology


the blueprint for ALL things will be found on the BASE level of that which forms all particles.The first floor as it were,in a place so tiny we have not yet the terminology to describe it.That is where the power of assembly/creation lay.

I disagree. If you want to insist that "truth" (meaning all actuality) is only real or factual or accurate information, then you have to appoint a panel of judges to decide what is real or factual or accurate. This amounts to opinions and what people have labeled "facts." It requires the human element.

Now step outside of the human element (imagine an outside observer of the universe) and imagine the actuality of the entire universe.

It (truth) has to begin with ALL information. At this point we have not even gotten to the stage of taking that information and classifying it as accurate, false, real, fact etc.

So the truth I am referring to is a universal all encompassing truth.

You have to consider all information, independent of what others have sorted and decided is true or accurate. You have to always look at both sides of a situation and consider all information before you personally can determine what you will call truth.

Therefore, truth, in its raw form is all information.