Your video, How Many States Of Matter Are There?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

BOSE? Bose-Einstein condensate

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/7/27/they-really-do-exist-nasas-ghostbusters/

In a team of professional ghost busters, Anita Sengupta would most certainly be the enthusiastic and multi-talented leader. She’s already taken on roles developing launch vehicles, the parachute that famously helped land the Mars rover Curiosity, and deep-space propulsion systems for missions to comets and asteroids.


Sengupta and other members of the entry, descent and landing team for NASA's Mars rover Curiosity discuss the nail-biting details of the August 2012 landing.

Most recently, she’s carved out a niche as the project manager for an atomic physics mission, called the Cold Atom Laboratory, or CAL.

Since the mission was proposed in 2012, Sengupta has been leading a team of engineers and atomic physicists in developing an instrument that can see the unseen. Their mission is to create an ultra-cold quantum gas called a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is a state of matter that forms only at just above absolute zero. At such low temperatures, matter takes on unique properties that seemingly defy the laws of thermodynamics.

HA.
For me, it wasn't about a person, it's about a political mindset, and hers doesn't match mine...but I'm not a Democrat. Yes, she's WAY closer than Trump, but there are other options....if you don't feel the need to vote for the winner, that is. I prefer voting for someone I could accept as president, even though I know they have no chance to win....but who is that now?
Lucky for me, I know she'll win my state no matter how I vote, so I can vote my conscience without worry that my vote "helped Trump" somehow. Not everyone has that option.

Well, I'll certainly grant you obesity as being the fault of GMOs, but only in that they've made foods cheaper and more abundant and thus obesity is easier to attain.

I thought the links beginning to surface for all the other conditions were the fault of human CO2 emissions, or vaccinations, or the NWO...

Back to being serious though, my big, big trouble with 'linking' or blaming GMO for health problems or, well, anything, is a complete absence of any scientific evidence and studies supporting said statements and claims. The glaring absence of such evidence really, really sets of my skepticism meter when bold claims against GMO products are stated as matter of course. It sounds to me much more like new things scare me talk than reasoned factual argument.

Are any of the cattle, chickens and pigs raised today 'natural', or are they so far removed from their original species by centuries of human directed selective breeding to be deemed man-made? Truth is there arguably never was such a thing as non-GMO Canola. It was invented as a derivative of Rapeseed by a university about 2 hours from me in the seventies. Talking about GMO products as though, oh no, we've never done anything like this ever before in human history so be very cautious just seems ignorant to me.

>> ^VoodooV:
WTF? Did Obama visit Yogi and do a Sandusky on him or something? Talk about taking it personal.
I agree both parties are shitty, but it's demonstrable that one is worse than the other. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of drone strikes and dead civillians. But you honestly think the other guy is any better? Or hey, you want to go back to Bush the lesser and not only have a bunch of dead civillians, but have a bunch of dead Americans too because of wars of deception? Romney's beating the war drums for Iran. Yeah...SO MUCH BETTER!! lets have MORE dead people wooo!! I'm sorry, but cherry picking drone strikes is pretty bad tunnel vision, when in reality, it's actually drastically reduced the death toll because they are strikes instead of another occupation where even more people would be killed.
I'm sorry, but we are never going to live in a world where our politicians are squeaky clean. Even in a utopia, our politicians are going to have to, by necessity, do shitty things. In the real world, people have to get their hands dirty.
It's great that you're idealistic, really, I applaud it. But here in the real world, we really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Take your pick or stfu.
Edit: sorry, I always mix up Kofi and Yogi for some reason.


Here's the thing, I can't even argue this with you because you don't know fucking anything.

1. We're not going to War with Iran...never will we go to war with Iran. They don't meet the fundamental requirement for being a helpless nation. We might bomb their nuclear facilities but that won't do shit.

2. Both parties aren't shitty they're different wings of the SAME PARTY.

3. Cherry picking Drones strikes isn't about tunnel vision it's a War Crime. It's also destabilizing Pakistan, which has Nukes and people in it who are a serious threat. That might actually happen, Iran never will.

4. It's got nothing to do with me being Idealistic (I'm far from it) it's got everything to do with me taking it upon myself to become educated in this shit. I KNOW MORE BECAUSE I WORK FOR IT.

5. I'm not gonna pick the lesser of Two Evils again. I did it once for Obama when it was a serious historical event, something that hopefully would've moved us forward. I'm not in a state that matters so I'm not gonna vote for him again.

6. He's Black.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bcglorf
why i'd be happy to. scroll up! and i'll quote:
"Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?"
you might find that your ideas and opinions have a better impact when not accompanied by an insult. but hey, that's just me.
and when our government is murdering people, in our name, I tend to have somewhat high standards
...or maybe the word of our government is good enough? a quick glance at history reveals that our government has absolutely no problem saying whatever need to say in order to create a certain perception and keep business dealings draped in the american flag.
But if you haven't noticed, our government is largely run by corporate special interests, and they act according to those interests, not ours.


I class what I said as categorizing your comments and not your person. I believe you finished with "it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg". I class that incoherent and childish whining.

Meanwhile, immediately after complaining about how insulting my own language is, you state as matter of fact that the government is murdering people...

Sorry, I am responding to comments likening Obama to Hitler, Americans to nazis, and at the same time insisting that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt be the standard applied to self admitted terrorists. You aught not be surprised by the vehemence with I reject this ludicrous and disgusting double standard.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.
Do you really want someone you just described as an idiot running your country? I would rather see someone who's political ideology I disagree with, but I still consider smart (i.e. Ron Paul, if he wasn't an idiot creationist).


The point I was trying to make is that believing creationism or not, what they will be influencing has little to do with it. They are super focused on a topic that in the grand scheme of things is important, but the likelihood of that topic being something they would ever have to make a decision on while in office is nil. Now if their beliefs keep them from making decision objectively, that's a different situation.

I mean hell, from what I can gather Stephen Hawking believes in God in some form, but he doesn't let his belief stop him from studying objectively.

I just can't imagine a situation where they would have to make a decision based on creationism versus evolution argument that wouldn't be directly related to school teachings. And anything to do with creationism has religious connotations and I think it should all fall under the separation of church and state no matter what decisions they think they are making.

Or to put it another way: If they believe creationism unconditionally, then they probably believe a lot of other fucked up things that could cause a lot more problems if they got into office. So why are they so focused on a inconsequential part of their belief system and looking for more dangerous areas? There's more than just one belief that makes a person irrational, and being super focused on one that has almost no practical impact on your life is stupid.

IE Bachmann, she's anti-gay...we've seen her cover it. If she were to get any real power she could cause all kinds of issues for gays and their families. That's a real issue. And the even bigger issue is that she has completely avoided speaking about it....which means she's trying to hide a real big portion of her belief system going forward. She hasn't even claimed to have "seen the light" and changed her opinion, she just simply won't talk about it. It shows she can't look at an issue objectively and decide what's best for everyone long term.....she can only look at it subjectively and apply her own beliefs to it or not speak on it at all.

we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

Wow... Just fucking wow...


A few points:

The video's description incorrectly notes the date. An extremely minor point, but a factual one nonetheless.

I fully believe that this sentence is, as the defense attorney alluded to, a complete miscarriage of justice. I fully believe that the defendant should have been offered a plea deal. Like the judge, I can not understand why plea deals are offered to some but not others. In this case, it certainly seems warranted.

Someone mentioned that the judge doesn't give a shit, but I wouldn't expect the judge to give a shit. The judge is on the bench to act as an impartial mediator between the prosecution, defense and presumably impartial jury. The judge may very well feel for this defendant, as well as others he has had to impose similar sentences upon. It would not surprise me if this judge (as well as others in the state of Nevada) undergo some form of therapy, be it expensive psychiatry or heavy drinking or primal screaming. I feel for the judge who imposes such an unwarranted sentence and is not left with a scar upon their psyche.

For those America-bashers that are going to use this as another example of how fucked-up the United States of America is (and have attempted already), I say this:
Nevada is just one state out of fifty that comprise this nation.
The United States Constitution grants rights and powers to the individual states in matters where the values and moral compass differs from region to region due to differences in background, ethnicity and national origin.
Nevada was originally settled by Mormons, which are a somewhat extreme sect of Christianity. Some believe the Mormon church to be a cult. It is widely known that the church was founded by a person with a criminal background and that the church as a whole engages in some suspect practices.
That said, Mormons chose to impose their morality upon others within the states they helped found, specifically Utah and Nevada, but also other states to a lesser extent.

The moral standards of Mormons are not considered by sensible-thinking people as reasonable. However, it is also the basis for the laws of the state of Nevada, like it or not. The law and its associated sentences has been challenged for constitutionality and the challenge has failed. I suspect the failure of previous challenges is running up against the same old Mormon guard that still pervades the state legislature, but I have no evidence of this.
Regardless, the draconian punishment that is set in law in the state of Nevada is one glaring (and pretty fucked-up) example of how one group's morality is imposed on those around them through legislative process.
Good or bad, it is how our system of government works.

Welcome to the Republic.



Yes, I wholly get the irony of Mormons imposing a life sentence for this sort of sexual misconduct while they turn a blind eye to polygamy and incestual relations.
However, that is not the subject of this debate, however poignant that irony may be.

I can has understanding of states of matter?

Wiki on fusion. "In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple like-charged atomic nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy, which allows matter to enter a plasma state."

Plasma is also known to some as the 4th state of matter. It is ever present in fusion, though not limited to. Most discussions about plasma though involve stars by and large.

Energy Density, Wave Function Densities, The Fractal Nature of groups exploring their harmonics.

There is the SpaceTime Continuum, but its only inhabitant is Energy ! It's all Energy !
(tell me, what in this world is not reducible down to its most basic level as being just energy ?)

Energy manifests itself in 4 States:

1. The Radiative State - the EM spectrum of radiations: which move at the Ratio of Space to Time; otherwise known as the Speed of Light, but as Dobson says, "It isn't a speed of anything at all, it's the Ratio of Space to Time." Things are set-up that way from the outset. Light doesn't move at a 'speed' it moves at the Ratio of the Space-field to the Time-field when they overlap each other in forming the SpaceTime Continuum thru which it moves as we observe it.

2. The Special State called Matter - that Energy has the ability to assume. How Energy can assume the special state we call matter isn't understood yet, but it does. Protons and Electrons, and their still mysterious combination, the Neutron. For a neutron will spontaneously devolve into a proton and an electron in about 15 minutes if left unattended and not in an atomic nucleus.

3. The Electrical State - usually a flow of electrons, but sometimes protons. Electricity behaves in different ways than matter does, even tho it is made of the same 'particles'.

4. The Field State - the Electric Field and the Magnetic Field. Magnetic fields can permeate solid matter as if it wasn't there !, suggesting to my mind that it is perhaps partially in another 'dimension' simultaneously with this one. (not the best way to say it, but it's a start)

And another thing ! "Consciousness has an adjacency with the physical world, not an overlap."
I'm not fully able to explain or yet understand the implications of this statement, I need to ask Paul Dirac about it.

Your belief clearly predicts that it must be possible, in a universe like ours, for thinking to take place without form. Information processing is a counter-entropic process, it requires energy, and stateful energy(matter) to consolidate referable information. These energetic events would be completely detectable by normal physical means. Theism,spiritualism, or any supernatural claims about disembodied entities contradict conservation of energy, and so can not be accurately described as "more likely than not" or "consistent with the observable universe".

I didn't say thinking. I said consciousness. For a living I model the human visual system with information theoretic models. So yes, I agree, "thinking" whatever the hell that means, is a counter-entropic process (at least in some squishy Gibbs sense, as there is no such thing as a "counter-entropic process"). In fact, it is exactly this which I believe imbues our consciousness with access to such an intricate experiential stream. The ability of our nervous system to transmit information about quantum phenomena at a distance with so little lost to noise is absolutely astonishing, and shouldn't be diminished. This doesn't give me any more reason to presume I should have this "experience", or "stream of consciousness", or whatever you want to call it. I just gives a reason for that particular pattern of stimulus-response.

The consciousness I presume to exist in a rock, for instance, would be deprived of this sort of access. It is likely more fragmented, and is only able to respond to very basic stimuli, such as proximal forces, temperature, etc. It would be a boring consciousness, but I presume it to be conscious all the same.

The ability to respond to stimuli is an observable trait, consciousness is the attribute of possessing this trait to a greater or lesser extent. Some would, of course, refer to internal narrative, but we should be clear that internal narrative is, almost certainly, untrue and constructed after the fact. Based on what we know from studies about the reliability of internal narrative,I would be disinclined to trust it in addressing this question.

So the billiard ball responding to the applied force is conscious? I agree!

You can't elevate the level of a debate that is not taking place. Theists make assertions, some people point out how they are contradicted by the available evidence, theists move goal posts, lather, rinse, repeat. We have not had a real debate for a very long time, and as long as the goal post is still on the move, don't expect one.

What available evidence am I contradicting?

>> ^bmacs27: I do believe in some sort of "universal consciousness".

So you are a theist, you don't lack a belief in a god, you simply don't have an english definition of what you claim to believe in.

Such a belief, as with string theory, is completely consistent with the observable universe. Granted, it makes no unique predictions, but neither does string theory.

Your belief clearly predicts that it must be possible, in a universe like ours, for thinking to take place without form. Information processing is a counter-entropic process, it requires energy, and stateful energy(matter) to consolidate referable information. These energetic events would be completely detectable by normal physical means. Theism,spiritualism, or any supernatural claims about disembodied entities contradict conservation of energy, and so can not be accurately described as "more likely than not" or "consistent with the observable universe".

How about consciousness? Do you guys believe that exists?

Only to the extent that red exists, things can be red, but there is no red, things can be conscious, but there is on consciousness.

What's your evidence? Is it voices in your head? Better yet, do you believe that anyone else has consciousness? Why isn't that like believing in unicorns?

The ability to respond to stimuli is an observable trait, consciousness is the attribute of possessing this trait to a greater or lesser extent. Some would, of course, refer to internal narrative, but we should be clear that internal narrative is, almost certainly, untrue and constructed after the fact. Based on what we know from studies about the reliability of internal narrative,I would be disinclined to trust it in addressing this question.

As a scientist, I'd like to see the level of debate elevated on the side claiming to represent science.

You can't elevate the level of a debate that is not taking place. Theists make assertions, some people point out how they are contradicted by the available evidence, theists move goal posts, lather, rinse, repeat. We have not had a real debate for a very long time, and as long as the goal post is still on the move, don't expect one.

Thanks for the link!

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
*dead

Possible replacement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqAwtorUTE