If we vented the hot air from the condenser coils into space, it just...might...work...

@enoch

I think what you are doing with the argument about consciousness is rather confusing to me. It seems to me that you are applying our own consciousness to the universe as a whole, in the same way I look at my dog as a human ie: applying human reasoning to an animal that I really know isnt capable of it. (such as predicting or planning future events, like "My dog feels a sense of abandonment when I'm on vacation" etc.) My dog, and even more probable, the universe, doesnt give a shit that I'm in the next room or 4000 miles away, it doesnt know that I'm in a different country and it has no idea how long I might be gone. But its in our human nature to treat the things around us, and even the environment itself, as if it was socially connected with us, the way a fellow human might be.

Now, dogs may be more perseptive than one would think, and us dog-owners may be more right about our relationship with these animals than our research has been able to establish at this point, and there is even some mounting evidence that they understand us better than we could imagine. But again, we are talking about complex animals with very sophisticated brains that have undergone domesticating selection for thousands of generations. In other words, the human and conscious qualities that I unwittingly apply to dogs may not be entirely fictional.

But to apply this (consciousness,awareness,prediction or social behaviour of some kind)to the universe itself, is another matter entirely. Unlike the case with dogs, for example, there really is no evidence for this, there is no known mechanism, or even a credible potential mechanism, to give the universe an intelligence capable of conscious thought. In fact, all the evidence and knowledge we DO have, suggests that the universe is overwhelmingly indifferent, unintelligent, unconscious, and contains nothing but physical energy condensed into matter.

If the universe was conscious in some way, why would it, for instance spend 4 billion years evolving life, and eventually creating conscious creatures like ourselves around a burning fireball thats destined to explode and destroy it all within a few additional billion years, rendering the entire excercise completely pointless in the grand scheme of things. The universe will go on existing for at least a hundred billion years after that, and there will be no, absolutely NO sign that life ever existed in this part of that insignificant little galaxy (one out of a hundred billion) In fact that galaxy itself would be nothing but a supermassive black hole with fading stars(literally) around it. All our books and all our efforts, all our suffering and all our triumphs will be gone. forever.


Allright too gloomy, I know, but its the truth. we live here.. now, and we should appreciate our tiny visit to the spotlight. We are the universe understanding parts of itself, in a few short decade I will be no more, and in a few million years, mankind will be no more. We are conscious, now, and we are as far as we can tell, the only things that are.

We are the universe's consciousness.
As far as we can tell.
I say enjoy it while it lasts.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.
Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.
I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?
As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...


That is why I hate talking via forums, if you try and condense what you want to say so it isn't so verbose, you get misunderstood. Not all systems are the same. The US system is NOT like the Ethiopian system in that government comes second, and people come first when rights are concerned. Or more to say, individuals are first, and groups second. I thought this would be clear, it apparently isn't. The Indians are all dead, that is how the story goes, can't change it. They weren't citizens anyway, nor were their property claims recognized. I didn't mean states "don't" own property, I was saying the idea when it comes down to a system that puts the individual first, it doesn't make since. SO it wasn't a case of redistribution in the since that is always meant, the relocation of citizens to citizens, but distribution of booty.

I think the least conflicting way of property rights, that also avails itself to massive wealth creations, and by consequence, hording, is that of initial claim. Just as one makes a claim to the first position in line at the post office. It is the most clearly understood universally that first come, first served. It results in unfairnesses at times, but dealing with those as they come seems like a better solution than having to make a moral derision on every land redistribution. First rights is the only means of rights language that seems to make since with property in the long term that I have been exposed to. I have tried several other models, but they all seem to break or be to arbitrary.

While rape exists everywhere there are men, and singling out Arabs as being naturally inclined towards rape is wrong, there is no other culture on earth that, upon telling the police that she has been raped by her brother-in-law, a woman then is charged with adultery and stoned to death by her own community... or at the very least has her nose and lips cut off.

Humans can be pretty horrible to each other, but modern Islam is pretty much the front-runner for atrocities against women.
>> ^tsquire1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
To look at this situation and say, "see! The Arabs are naturally inclined towards rape or violent treatment of women is ludicrous. You are attributing a social phenomenon with a half-assed biological determinant analysis. Such an analysis lends itself readily to racism, as you are saying that this particular 'type' of human being has a natural inclination towards a specific behavior. Condensed, you are saying, "Arabs are all X". You get where this logic leads to?
We have to see this in the context of history, economics, class, gender, etc. We have to see the way that men treat women as a result of continued struggle to equate Woman with Human, i.e. on par with Man. We have to understand the series of transformations Egypt, as well as the entire world have gone through, i.e. the progression of class struggle to reach this current moment. To ignore all of this an simply say it is because they are Arab is, emphasized, half-assed and racist.
What about the treatment of women in Western society? http://www.childrensmediaproject.org/photos/woman-in-cage.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_
disparity_in_the_United_States
"in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages"
There comes a point where you are presented with such consistent and abhorrent disregard for human life that we are left to say that this entire system and world we have inherited is wrong on a fundamental level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

To look at this situation and say, "see! The Arabs are naturally inclined towards rape or violent treatment of women is ludicrous. You are attributing a social phenomenon with a half-assed biological determinant analysis. Such an analysis lends itself readily to racism, as you are saying that this particular 'type' of human being has a natural inclination towards a specific behavior. Condensed, you are saying, "Arabs are all X". You get where this logic leads to?

We have to see this in the context of history, economics, class, gender, etc. We have to see the way that men treat women as a result of continued struggle to equate Woman with Human, i.e. on par with Man. We have to understand the series of transformations Egypt, as well as the entire world have gone through, i.e. the progression of class struggle to reach this current moment. To ignore all of this an simply say it is because they are Arab is, emphasized, half-assed and racist.

What about the treatment of women in Western society? http://www.childrensmediaproject.org/photos/woman-in-cage.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
"in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages"

There comes a point where you are presented with such consistent and abhorrent disregard for human life that we are left to say that this entire system and world we have inherited is wrong on a fundamental level.

I was high on Ecxtacy when I wrote this very last message on my facebook. hahhahahahaha

you reminded me I have to go and delete all my pictures etc.

Remove Post
Brent *****
when I wake, it dies , yet I go on hrm, the telecomunicated body evaporates into the physical mentality or the physical mentality condenses into the telecomunicated body....

Who cares YOU dont
05 January at 05:55 · Privacy:Friends only · LikeUnlike ·

I learned most of this in school, but it's cool to see it all condensed into a short clip -- Now go watch all of the movies that Star Wars was stitched out of! (They're all classics that you should have seen by now.)

I have not heard so many condensed clichés in a while...

What a bunch of baloney.. no borders eh? Free movement of population sounds great on paper, but there seems to be a disparity in how well different populations manage their respective landscapes. Seems to me the migration would be pretty one sided.

This unidirectional movement of people causes considerable global societal problems. Namely, how can a handful of nations possible accommodate the gargantuan number of failed populations worldwide? And what is to be done once those ineptly populated lands have been vacated?

How, for instance, would the municipal government of Madrid react were it to discover that one fine Tuesday 2,000,000 Algerians had decided to set up camp. I wonder how well primary schools would be equipped to handle such an influx.

For argument's sake, say these Algerians are magically net benefit taxpayers and there were enough money to go around after the next population census to determine in which parts of the city they need to build more schools. How about if in the months subsequent to the census 3,000,000 Nigerians decide to make Madrid their home? Back to square one with a social machine completely unprepared to deal with artificial and anachronistic population surges.

As a side note, you understand why population surveys are taken right?

But the root of this problem is far more important: Do the landmasses we call Europe and North America endow its inhabitants with magical properties? Is the air we breathe and the soil we toil any different from elsewhere?

Obviously not. There's something we're doing right and they're doing wrong. The best we can do is share our knowledge with the world, not poach their populations.

Liberty and prosperity? Yes, for everyone. And every nation.

There's just so much blatant mind-numbing naïveté and grandiose sounding vacuum-filled ideas in this video I don't even know where to begin. I can't help but feel compassion (not pity) for the childish part of our minds this drivel appeals to.

The sad thing is most people feel like the man who made this clip. We deserve out fate.

It's time for Europeans and North-Americans to start thinking with logic once again. Using our bleeding hearts is a death wish.

Definitely worth watching... but if you don't have the time, it can be condensed pretty easily:

"The more you are educated, the more you discover what is wrong with the Bible and religion"



Which is really the thing that most atheists (who have thought about their atheism rather than just being 'born into it' like a religious person) have probably found. The more you read, the more you discuss, the more you look into it, the more you find how completely bizarre it is that anyone could actually believe in the Bible.

But... those that are only ever taught by fellow believers are never challenged, are never shown the other side, are never given pause for thought that there are some glaring problems with the text they so fervently believe in.

Also, from a purely video point of view, I found these to be well made, pleasant to watch and have nice background music, I found no deep emotional play going on with it, just nicely produced video.

Sheeeeeeeeeit.

>> ^Ornthoron:

So this is the roast? Sorry I'm late, but it doesn't seem like I missed much. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://wtf.videosift.com/member/thinker247" title="member since September 15th, 2007" class="profilelink">thinker247 tried to give us some material with that interview, but it seems he botched it thoroughly since nobody uses it. And MrFish didn't exactly help out with his uninspired answers. The only funny comment I've seen here was @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://troll.videosift.com" title="member since July 4th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">blankfist's (You have no idea how much it pains me to admit that), and he had to go back as far as a siftquisition almost 3 years back to find worthwhile material.
But I'm not one to shirk from responsibility, so I'll try to wring some lemming juice out of this brothel floor cleaning rag of an interview:
"4. What is your profession?
I’m a non-traditional student. Non-traditional means older (I put Van Wilder to shame). I will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln at the end of the year. I plan to write good stuff somewhere, although I may go into public relations first.
I’m also a bartender, although I was laid off last month. I’ve worked in a dance club and a nice hotel.
I used to be a cook."
I've seen MrFish's type at my university. There are basically two types who pursue bachelor degrees after they've turned 30. One type is the eternal slacker, who gets too distracted by alcohol, drugs or video games to pass any courses, and the other type is the men and women with a mid-life crisis. This latter group typically choose some useless subject that "expands their horizon", like art history or philosophy.
I'm torn as to what group MrFish might belong to. His history of being laid off from low-tier jobs suggests the former, but journalism is a field that reeks of pretentiousness, so I think I have to go with the latter category. I know of no other people that overvalue there own importance as much as journalists. You really think you can do a difference in the world from Nebraska? With merely a bachelor degree? You could at least have chosen something useful for the children of tomorrow, like molecular biology or condensed matter physics. But of course, achieving even a bachelor degree in those subjects requires both hard work and intelligence.
You'll likely now try to prove you have both these qualities by using unnecessary long time to write a long and poignant retort to all the half-insults in this roast. This, you tell yourself, will show everyone how good you are with words and why you were destined from the start to become a Daily Nebraskan contributor. What you don't realize is that nobody else really cares, and that what you will come to consider the epitome of your oevre will likely only be read by yourself.

So this is the roast? Sorry I'm late, but it doesn't seem like I missed much. @thinker247 tried to give us some material with that interview, but it seems he botched it thoroughly since nobody uses it. And MrFish didn't exactly help out with his uninspired answers. The only funny comment I've seen here was @blankfist's (You have no idea how much it pains me to admit that), and he had to go back as far as a siftquisition almost 3 years back to find worthwhile material.

But I'm not one to shirk from responsibility, so I'll try to wring some lemming juice out of this brothel floor cleaning rag of an interview:

"4. What is your profession?
I’m a non-traditional student. Non-traditional means older (I put Van Wilder to shame). I will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln at the end of the year. I plan to write good stuff somewhere, although I may go into public relations first.
I’m also a bartender, although I was laid off last month. I’ve worked in a dance club and a nice hotel.
I used to be a cook."

I've seen MrFish's type at my university. There are basically two types who pursue bachelor degrees after they've turned 30. One type is the eternal slacker, who gets too distracted by alcohol, drugs or video games to pass any courses, and the other type is the men and women with a mid-life crisis. This latter group typically choose some useless subject that "expands their horizon", like art history or philosophy.

I'm torn as to what group MrFish might belong to. His history of being laid off from low-tier jobs suggests the former, but journalism is a field that reeks of pretentiousness, so I think I have to go with the latter category. I know of no other people that overvalue there own importance as much as journalists. You really think you can do a difference in the world from Nebraska? With merely a bachelor degree? You could at least have chosen something useful for the children of tomorrow, like molecular biology or condensed matter physics. But of course, achieving even a bachelor degree in those subjects requires both hard work and intelligence.

You'll likely now try to prove you have both these qualities by using unnecessary long time to write a long and poignant retort to all the half-insults in this roast. This, you tell yourself, will show everyone how good you are with words and why you were destined from the start to become a Daily Nebraskan contributor. What you don't realize is that nobody else really cares, and that what you will come to consider the epitome of your oevre will likely only be read by yourself.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^deathcow:
You mean like Anti-Water?

Basically, or if it has different properties because of (anti)quarks resulting in different chemical compounds.


Another thing that might be interesting to look at is decay rate. We already know how normal mass does it's thing, but anti-matter seems to be for the most part "gone" from the Universe. The non-symmetry aspect of anti-matter will be a big thing in physics, in general, to understand.

So I may have answered my own question as I'm sure decay rates would certainly be an obvious thing to look at. If any of the fundamental forces are different, for example, you could have anti-matter out in space hiding from view in blackholes, etc...

Right now they're looking at dark matter being a sort of "condensed state" matter that "can't" react with anything but itself and weakly at that. Gravity as well (it looks like). Outside of this state we might find it a lot, but we do not understand the mechanism that created it or is creating it. Anti-matter was brought up in this argument. At some point after the big bang the anti-matter would have joined with particle "x" and became this condensed matter that basically has most of it's fundamental forces bound to itself. Therefore, unless this stuff breaks apart due to some process, we may never find it as it is essentially swept under the rug and we can't lift the rug.

A key indicator of the ignorance of the witnesses is the quote "It looks like he's spraying out of the top of his wings". It's hard to see in the video, yet if you look, indeed the condensation is forming above the wing, especially toward the root. The top of the wing is the lowest pressure, where vapour will condense most readily. Also, the wing root has the longest chord of the planform and in most aircraft (though I don't really know about commercial airliners) has a greater angle of attack than the more tipward chord sections. The indicated "Nozzles", which is not where the majority of the chemtrails emanate anyhow, are fairings of the flap hinge mechanism, readily visible if you've ever had a window seat behind the wing of a commercial airliner.

Did I waste my time explaining that? I suppose anyone who would consider this video "proof" is probably going to have a reality distortion field that will reject any rational explanations anyhow.

They passed into a region of lower humidity, duh.
Sudden changes in pressure can cause condensation.

Chemtrails are a retarded conspiracy theory.

Oh Jebus.

Look, they are clearly mixing up so many physics facts and ideas that they are confused. Let's not take them too seriously.

It is true that the energy density of the universe is thought to have been infinite at the time of the universe's conception. Meaning that all the energy was localized to single point in space and then burst out like a huge, well big, bang.

So that is what they are all mixed up about.

Is it impossible to condense all the energy in the universe to a single point? I don't know. It clearly happened, or approximately happened, according to all the experiments on microwave background radiation and a myriad of other experiments.

>> ^mxxcon:

ignoring the fact that it's physically impossible to do, it's also mathesomethingly impossible...