Mandingo Right Size For Cytherea

travel to nothing



Oh, if only it were that simple! Easy to put into the car, time and type losdüsen. 88 miles per hour - whoosh! - We have reached in the distant future - or in a dark past. But as easy as in the science-fiction classic "Back to the Future" time travel is not. Despite the lack of prospects, for example, the stock prices of today in the luggage did yesterday go public, would certainly not lacking. Or repeat the botched dream date with the woman this time and make sure that we not drill all too apparent in the nose. What is the travel time that is in the way? Time but, like space, just another dimension, right?

The brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking has joked times, if time travel were possible, we would have long since overrun by hordes of tourists from the future. But now seriously: One must first differentiate between the travel times in the future and such in the past. First, the simpler: the future. There are actually a relatively clear principle that allows us to look after 3 minutes of our grandchildren. You either climb into a rocket, with the darkest lichtgeschwindikeitsnahen speed through space, or to park the rocket on the edge of a gravity-dripping black hole (hineinzurutschen without, of course). For according to the special and general relativity time passes slower the more the faster you move, or the stronger the gravitational force acting on one. While passing on the earth for your remaining contemporaries a century, shows your own Clock only five minutes. Or even less. The cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev traveled during his 800 days in space in a whole Fünzigstelsekunde the future - but only because we can not produce higher speeds.

looks much more difficult it out when it comes to traveling back in time. There is one small and two large stumbling blocks. The small one is the logic. They argued that if past trips were possible, there would be an irreconcilable paradox:

You could kill his own grandfather,
would that even born never
so would have no one there who could kill the grandfather,
so that born but now would
and would go back in time to kill the grandfather ...

It turns always in a circle, and the universe does not like such contradictions. On this issue there is a surprisingly simple answer - the self-compliance principle . It states that only such course of events are possible, the not contain self-contradictions. When I was thus born, then I can indeed go back in time to kill my grandfather, but I will not make it in some way - either I meet him on or not someone else confused with him (and now know who the mysterious unsolved committed murder, has told the grandfather of the time). And when I travel back in time to find out what you have seen for a mighty unusual flash my neighbors two days ago, then the only explanation for the flash of light that I have caused him to travel through time itself. The causality loop is closed in this way, the world is again consistent.

But the first big stumbling block: how us insignificant patent officer from Bern informed, has each object has its own time (otherwise it would not provide this journey into the future, which relates so well to only one object, possible ). So climb into the time machine to travel so only in the own past - that is, one is younger. The rest of the world, this does not matter, he remains, as it is. To travel into the past "within the meaning of the science-fiction stories, one would have reversed the whole rest of the world put in the time machine (and themselves remain outside), which obviously technically impossible (for more complications resulting from past trips here ).

The biggest problem to travel to the past is this: You can not go into something that does not exist. And time does not exist. Of course, we all have a clock, but time there are not as such. It is a mere construct of our consciousness, a calculating aid, a measure of changes in the world. The physicist Ernst Mach said again: "The time is ... an abstraction to which we go through the change of things", and he is right . , so it is also absurd to ask what it was before the Big Bang - da nothing existed, there was no time, no amount of change or movement of something. "Before the Big Bang" is thus an equally nonsensical sentence like: "North of the North Pole." Since time exists only in perception, one can moreover also measure how fast it goes by a particular sector. Happen in the brain computational processes 100 in 1 second elapses more slowly for this being the time than if the same processes take 10 seconds ("oops, only a short 10 seconds and already enjoys over !..."). Why is the time in old age, with decreasing speed of thought processes demonstrably slower . But if the only time a think of our minds and nothing more, you can not stay in it. One can only slow down the speed or sequence of events (so future trips), but never turn back.

Theoretishe Although physicists speculate about time travel by means of rotating universes or stable worm holes in the curved space-time, but all these are highly controversial and thought-structures, in reality, impossible. We are so caught up in the now. The very fast tomorrow, or "ten-years-later" is. And then the time for us because we think more slowly, too quickly passes. Gather therefore the day!

Sinus Infection From The Dominican Republic

I see something I tambien not see

Today there is a little trip into a magical world in which we perceive things visually, without seeing her, and vice versa, can stare directly at something, without realizing it. Where is this world, you ask? - In your head.



First, the horse they know: The fact that people perceive something without it "see" aware for some time is certain. People with a disorder of the visual area in the brain are de facto can blind, but because the eye still works perfectly, guess pretty good, coming from the direction that the light flash. Whether a can unconsciously influence for fractions of a second on a screen faded image a person is in dispute, which has the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000 but not discouraged, in a campaign spot in this way, the Democrats no longer visually perceptible as " Council (rats) to call (shot so).

is much more interesting the last until the years the focus of research shifted property of the people not to see things that are in front of him. Great things. In good light. Without hassle. Welcome to the magic cabinet of visual perception!

It starts with the fact that no one who is staring at himself in the mirror in the eyes, the notice to any other obvious movement of their own eyes. Yes, they are always in motion and never stand still. Man, this tremor the eyes do not notice (try it out:), because the eye can see in the movement itself is nothing, because the image is blurred as in a camera. So there a picture at the end of the movement . And then the eyes are closed, yes. The movement is rationalized away from the visual impression also. It's kind of eerie to know that you do not see anything in the mirror, what everyone else who has your eyes look at it is obvious.

But that was only the prelude, the fugue's coming. The brain is in fact always confronted with a problem: it should be from the flood of signals, which it can filter out the most important and constantly create space for new sensations. And so it is often fatal - the visual perception is ridiculous trifles brought completely confused. One shows a man a picture and immediately afterwards the same photo with a significant change, he acknowledges that most immediately. But not when comes between the images for 100 milliseconds, a bare gray area instead of the photo. Here is an example. I bet you did not notice the difference between the photos. Although he - Indian word of honor! - pretty is striking. The reason: If the first image disappears and the gray spot is, the brain thinks: "Aha, the picture is gone, so I delete the appropriate memory, so a bit of room free will. "And if it reappears in modified form, the brain has forgotten the details of the first image long ago and has nothing to compare.

And if you, dear reader, look at something, you have indeed a field of about . 180 degrees, but believe not know that you are all that is there, really see. As I said, filter the brain, otherwise there is a data deluge. Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois, who has a flair for the absurd showed subjects a video , in which several people threw a ball. Subjects were asked to count the number of throws. suddenly appeared among the players right in the picture a gorilla, pounded his chest and disappeared. 50% of the subjects have not noticed the gorilla. Too busy they were counting. Imagine the times can melt in your mouth: You have something not directly staring and seen.

Daniel Simons, however, had more sense of humor, and went on: In an experiment shown here noticed two thirds of the passers, was that the person with whom they spoke, was replaced in the course of conversation with another. The person they had originally asked for directions, after a brief distraction that did not last longer than a second and suddenly someone was completely different from the passers-by. This other person was dressed differently, had a different voice and was also different in size. Nevertheless, the passers-by the "new" party declared on the way to draw without the slightest suspicion.

So you can actually look directly at something without seeing it - and that just because something more important three inches right or left for the brain with its limited processing capacity ( here is another good example). And if you think you could thus pass a nonsense, then I highly recommend the following card trick-follow - to the end! Meanwhile, I go back to my magic world in which one occasionally sees a gorilla standing in front of you.

Rikers Island Inmate Visiting Hours Schedule

The vintage car which I am

leave today I feel. And not as a woman, a good friend or good of all spirits. Much worse. I feel abandoned by most of evolution itself, now that I am 30 years old, I am of the primal forces of natural selection that have produced this amazing diversity of living things become really care. As of now, my health and my physical well-being as it were put on automatic pilot - and when I die in five or fifty years, Nature is the same. It was 5 years ago, very different.

The aging of an organism is not so obvious. There are creatures who - really - are immortal. Easy it is for individual learning, sharing only yes, but never die . Thus, if environmental conditions are favorable, it is conceivable that a specific microbe has survived the last Ice Age to the present day. Also interesting is the life of this colleagues here - the polyp undergoing regularly just built a makeover and will return to teenagers. We humans are built but a bit more complicated - and therefore mortal (although recently known cases be, in which the aging does not seem to progress).

If we ask ourselves why we age, the question is wrongly put. It would be correct to ask why the body created by evolution should make the effort to prevent aging. Genes, which not only blind separation as the single-genes, so basically two ways to survive a long time - by forcing their bodies to live forever, or by the body to produce offspring with these same genes. You can use the body that is the one to a survival machine with protective mechanisms against harmful external factors (predators, starvation, disease, weather changes) and provide a perfect metabolism without toxic side effects. So quite a few investments. Or they can replace quality with quantity and focus on the motto "If my body just in time produce enough viable offspring that in turn pass on the genes, I do not care his future survival." Exactly for this second possibility have the genes "decided" in the higher organisms. Our body is thus used as quickly as possible to produce offspring and to make them viable. After that, he is our genes do not care. The biological theory is appropriate for even less flattering "disposable soma theory " (to German as: theory of expendable body). However, as is observed in the natural environment among primitive tribes average life span due to external factors in about 30 years ago, the human body has probably been shot this out - sexual maturity at 14-15 years, then possible get fast kids, feed them, so the transfer back of the genes, and then your body is just a classic car: The successor generation is there, it goes even still, but how far and how long he creates is his thing. He has a nostalgic value nurmehr, repaired it is a makeshift, there are better things to do.

The sexual drive is hence the stronger than about the impulse to eat a healthy diet. Not for nothing men cause traffic accidents when they see a mini-skirt , but not when they drive past a poster with organic food. Old age is to reach, the genes simply do not care. And since I am now come to this age of genetic importance, I am overcome by the forces of natural selection that bring a living being, so a proper fitness for survival left. Sadly, a vintage to be.

What to do? I want to grow old or die at least not immediately, so you look around for solution strategies. So far the only proven approach to calorie restriction To extend the life proven. For a small portion of extra years, it is also sufficient, happily married to his or (or both, what should happen occasionally), or self younger present. The micro-cellular and biological causes of aging are, moreover, now also known . It is mainly wear (intra-and extra-cellular waste, mutations in the mitochondria, shorter telomeres with each cell division) - so basically nothing Irreversible, a rather technical problem. Some serious scientists, including futurist Ray Kurzweil and biogerontologists Aubrey de Grey have announced the aging why the fight. De Grey believes that with proper effort, you can stop in a few decades, aging and eventually will turn around. For him, the aging of a disease, an evil, which leaves die every day about 100,000 people. Another question is whether immortality is a good thing. But de Grey is right when he says that we do research first and then if we have the technologies, people should have to decide whether to take it to complete. Healthier and more vital, this research would make the people in any case. Perhaps it is enough so, if, as Luis Bunuel once joked, once in ten years just waking up, reading the paper and be amazed.

Too good to be true? In the journal "Technology Review" a competition was created in order to refute de Grey's arguments. Until now no one has done. On the other hand, was assigned by his "Methuselah Foundation" a award to a research group from Illionis , who had managed to make mice live longer than half as long as usual In humans, this would have been 180 years old.