Recent content by Cane_Toad

Well, I think you know the answer to pyramid power by now. Have you found any controlled studies that show results? Do the claims follow from proven principles? Are the results measurable, and to what accuracy and precision, or are they open to the interpretation of the individual (i.e...

They do have the same behavior. However, what happens is that when you get a lot of them, you start to get averaged behavior. It's a little like what happens with air pressure. A single a molecule only has the ability to bounce around, but once you get a whole bunch of them, then suddenly...

Yeh, kinda. Macro matter sizes are dependent on electron/valence shell interations (binding/ repulsing) of their component atoms. Sub-atomic sizes are dependent on other things, like the Pauli exclusion principle, which says that no two particles can occupy the same state at the same time...

I'll have to take this as a friendly jocular way of saying that I'm way behind in my understand of QM. This is of course evident. If you would forgive this, you could help my learning process. Your original answer is cryptic for someone asking a basic question. It doesn't illuminate the...

Zeno makes it ambiguous as to which set of points we are supposed to be using in order to view his paradox. His paradox is based on this ambiguity, IMHO. He sets up the story focusing on the points behind the turtle (infinite bifurcation), but he then states the problem in a context that...

Heh. You said, 1) I want to prove to my friend that it is theoretically possible... 2) My friend agrees that it is theoretically possible, [with the proviso]... You then restate that you want to prove to your friend that is it theoretically possible, even though he agrees. Your request...

No, it was a statement left unfinished as an exercise for why that approach will lead nowhere. (Other approaches have been posted.) The idea is, as Hurkyl illustrates above, that you have to pick a useful set of points, and it doesn't matter if that set is big, just that its extent does you...

It's not just entanglement that suggests connectedness at the QM level, to me. It's also the way that everything exists and interacts through probability, superposition, etc. Everything is packaged into quanta, but at the same time flits about as amorphous waves that can ghost through walls...

Well...just as long as you recognize that we don't know that is true either. All we know is that we can't find any scientific evidence for any such deity. There might be a God. It's not disprovable. The universe may already have blown up, but we just haven't received the light from the...

Ball lightning and such were dismissed for good reason: they are extremely rare and difficult to produce. Science was correct in dismissing them until actual evidence was found. This is not a refutation of the scientific process. New and wonderous things are continually found. This doesn't...

You can make all sorts of statements like this. Sure everything is interconnected, we all exist in spacetime, therefore we are all interconnected. The point is whether there is any *meaningful* interconnections in the way that people are describing it. The answer is no. The...

By this argument, you'll never see Achilles move at all, since any movement will entail going through an infinite set of points.

I'm having trouble visualizing what's happening with the light cones. Do the light cones of the two photons ever see each other at all after creation? The start out in each other's cones, and then as each photon moves away, it's light cone is expanding at C also, so why wouldn't they always...

That it seems endless is irrelevant. Are you choosing a set of points which has the possibility of eventually seeing Achilles reach the turtle, or not. The snapshot doesn't bias the observation, you have already biased it by your choice of how Achilles is allowed to move, and therefore the...

Since you said it was "important": As ZapperZ responds, Sure enough everything *IS* energy. E=mc^2. So, I hope that's enough to explain why saying "everything is energy" is at once true, but is being used in a completely misleading way. The same with how the "observer creates events"...