MOTUnation.com

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Thanks man. In fact, playing for silent film is exactly like playing for modern dance.

Except that rather than playing it too fast or too slow, you can probably nail the tempos for films.
(one ballet orchestra conductor reportedly asked the diva, prior to a performance, whether she would prefer it too fast or too slow that night. Her icy reply reportedly gave him no clue as to her preference.)

bayswater wrote:

cuttime wrote:

FMiguelez wrote: Do you have a link for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/scien ... ss&emc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMHO, someone other than CERN needs to duplicate the experiment.

Does anyone else have the equipment?

FM, see

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... -light.ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

for the original experiment. The replication was reported widely in the news in the last couple of days. No one believes it, but no one has explained it yet either.

cuttime wrote:

FMiguelez wrote: Do you have a link for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/scien ... ss&emc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMHO, someone other than CERN needs to duplicate the experiment.

GUYS! Thank you for the links. I will read them shortly.

I had heard of that experiment. The science forums I visit were not particularly excited about it. Apparently there were some "problems" with it (which kind of reminds me of this very thread). Secrecy, was one of them, and no independent sources have confirmed it yet. It will be very hard to duplicate, but if it turns out that it's verified and duplicated, the implications will be HUUUUUUUGE!!!!!

Like it was mentioned upthread, we won't have to worry about latency anymore

Also, our projects will be finished before we begin them, we will get payed before we get hired, and many more things

Ok, now I'll start reading those links in detail.

Oh, BTW, what a thread this mess is! We are now talking about like 4 different things now, in a typical MOTUnation fashion

I'm not so sure the implications are all that huge - at least for the modern or post-modern man and woman.

The understanding of particles is certainly going to be advanced. Then again, it's nothing new to the universe, just our understanding of it.

Maybe in a few hundred or thousand years humans or whatever they call themselves by then - and assuming they survive the next few dozen asteroid/comet collisions - will benefit in ways Hollywood would have us believe are possible. But in our miserably short life spans I'm betting the most we might see out of it is theoretical at best. OMG how I want to be wrong about that!

cuttime wrote:

Ha!! Brilliant!

Then there is this:

http://starburstfound.org/neutrinos-bre ... cs-crisis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Believing in Einstein's energy equation for me is kinda like still thinking Pluto is a planet- I know it's been proven otherwise, but the original idea is so quaint I don't wanna believe differently.

Just like I personally suspect there's not a damn lick of difference between DAW summing, but I'm still comfortable with 20-30 professional Swedes proclaiming that DP sounds better.

I agree that an objective test could be run to compare overhead, processing resources used, stability etc.

I don't know who would win but I do know that Logic is a resource hog compared to DP. I own both and occasionally have to use Logic.

Those predicting the demise of the Mac Pro have to wonder: How would Logic users get anything done - or how many iMacs and Minis need to be slaved to do projects that I can do on my system in DP?

The few times I ever use PT it's in someone else's facility.

Even though all matter is made from energy and relativity is based on this, Einstein's energy equations are only part of relativity. Finding that a particle goes faster than light does not disprove the math and physics of relativity but adds to it. It is still up in the air as to what really went on, did time bend rather than the neuron going faster than light is the question being asked.
I thought I was clever at one time; I had taken a few physics classes, some calculus classes, read some books on quantum mechanics (sub-atomic particle behavior), read a number of books on Time and space, books on relativity with some math in them and gone to school for electronics engineering so I figured I would try to read a book that contained the formulas of relativity.
I learned a lot from that book; the biggest thing was that I am really ignorant of math and physics.

Dp7 bends time and space.

twistedtom wrote:Even though all matter is made from energy and relativity is based on this, Einstein's energy equations are only part of relativity. Finding that a particle goes faster than light does not disprove the math and physics of relativity but adds to it. It is still up in the air as to what really went on, did time bend rather than the neuron going faster than light is the question being asked.
I thought I was clever at one time; I had taken a few physics classes, some calculus classes, read some books on quantum mechanics (sub-atomic particle behavior), read a number of books on Time and space, books on relativity with some math in them and gone to school for electronics engineering so I figured I would try to read a book that contained the formulas of relativity.
I learned a lot from that book; the biggest thing was that I am really ignorant of math and physics.

Dp7 bends time and space.

Without getting "Religious", I would day that it is all spiritual.
Quantum physics has elluded to this in that in certain experiements, rudimentary particles change when OBSERVED.

This lends credence to the fact that when a man, spiritual being, etc, looks at a particle , it is influenced.

Thus, the speed of light and all such matters have to take into account such factors.

toodamnhip wrote: Without getting "Religious", I would day that it is all spiritual.
Quantum physics has elluded to this in that in certain experiements, rudimentary particles change when OBSERVED.

This lends credence to the fact that when a man, spiritual being, etc, looks at a particle , it is influenced.

Thus, the speed of light and all such matters have to take into account such factors.

Why do humans always think we are so important and can influence anything at all?
We do not influence those particles. We just realized what happens to them when measured, that's all (probably because of our rudimentary ways of measuring them in the first place).

Mankind? We are nothing more than an insignificant tiny amount of pollution in an otherwise "empty" space. All matter in the universe is just less than 8% of its contents. And we are nothing even within that small percent of matter. We are really inconsecuential on the grand scheme of things. All we can do is observe, try to understand, and marvel about it all...

toodamnhip wrote: Without getting "Religious", I would day that it is all spiritual.
Quantum physics has elluded to this in that in certain experiements, rudimentary particles change when OBSERVED.

This lends credence to the fact that when a man, spiritual being, etc, looks at a particle , it is influenced.

Thus, the speed of light and all such matters have to take into account such factors.

Let's suffice to say that I do not understand Quantum mechanics let alone physics, and I'm in good company. The problem is religious/spiritual types take a bit of information out of context and exploit it for their own belief systems, which aren't anywhere near science. They don't require an understanding of the science because they don't require evidence. Science and religion are still on polar opposite ends of the spectrum. A layman's observation about quantum physics being affected by our observation is a great example, it's out of context and exploited by the spiritually minded to back up their belief systems which have never required anything like solid facts.
So yes, you are getting religious. There is no scientific difference between religious and spiritual observations.

And so the slide begineth. LOL

Yeah... early warning on a penalty flag on this topic in regard to discussing religion.

FMiguelez wrote:

toodamnhip wrote: Without getting "Religious", I would day that it is all spiritual.
Quantum physics has elluded to this in that in certain experiements, rudimentary particles change when OBSERVED.

This lends credence to the fact that when a man, spiritual being, etc, looks at a particle , it is influenced.

Thus, the speed of light and all such matters have to take into account such factors.

Why do humans always think we are so important and can influence anything at all?
We do not influence those particles. We just realized what happens to them when measured, that's all (probably because of our rudimentary ways of measuring them in the first place).

Mankind? We are nothing more than an insignificant tiny amount of pollution in an otherwise "empty" space. All matter in the universe is just less than 8% of its contents. And we are nothing even within that small percent of matter. We are really inconsecuential on the grand scheme of things. All we can do is observe, try to understand, and marvel about it all...

That is indeed the "trick" of the physical universe. To invalidate the universe of spirit/soul/mankind, whatever you choose to call it....with sheer numbers...
I will not try to dissuade you from your opinion that you and all of us are but a grain of sand....

But I and many others surely do not share such an opinion.

There's a certain quantum physics experiment that scientifically proves the observer influences sub atomic particles. You can look it up on you tube I am sure.

This is not "why" I know I am a spiritual being and not a grain of sand or dirt, but it is the medium within which I try to communicate with you so that perhaps science can persuade you of the influence of observation on quantum physics. I have a feeling that the physical realm would be necessary to convince you of the spiritual realm.
I do not say this to make you wrong. It is just clear that you depend on the phyisical universe for your insights, which I totally understands..most do so.
But you are welcome to continue to think of yourself as inconsequential and without influence. But check out the Quntum physics experiment...
And James, this is not a discussion about religion, at least I am trying not to let it become so.

Michael Canavan wrote:

toodamnhip wrote: Without getting "Religious", I would day that it is all spiritual.
Quantum physics has elluded to this in that in certain experiements, rudimentary particles change when OBSERVED.

This lends credence to the fact that when a man, spiritual being, etc, looks at a particle , it is influenced.

Thus, the speed of light and all such matters have to take into account such factors.

Let's suffice to say that I do not understand Quantum mechanics let alone physics, and I'm in good company. The problem is religious/spiritual types take a bit of information out of context and exploit it for their own belief systems, which aren't anywhere near science. They don't require an understanding of the science because they don't require evidence. Science and religion are still on polar opposite ends of the spectrum. A layman's observation about quantum physics being affected by our observation is a great example, it's out of context and exploited by the spiritually minded to back up their belief systems which have never required anything like solid facts.
So yes, you are getting religious. There is no scientific difference between religious and spiritual observations.

I wonder what you think is moved by a gorgeous piece of music?
If every thing is just physical and matter, then what gets emotionally excited by music?...electrons?

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:And so the slide begineth. LOL

For sure bro...lol