most dense object?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:Compromise?

Originally posted by ProCop
Because the human brain will get the second place, I recognise losing the argument.
Click to expand...
No. As I said, iridium has a density of 22,650 kg/m^3. The human brain probably has a density around 1,000 kg/m^3, so it's not nearly as dense as iridium. It's also way behind platinum, gold, uranium, lead, and many others that are too numerous to list. The brain isn't even close to the densest material on earth. Sorry.
 
Re:Compromise II

In the sciforum density contest between the human brain and iridium one can conclude:

Human brain wins the first place in the contest (number of objects in an object) because the brain contains more mental images than iridium does.

In the contest of mass/volume density the brain gets the honorable second place, while iridium comes in as last but one.
 
Human brain wins the first place in the contest (number of objects in an object) because the brain contains more mental images than iridium does.
Click to expand...

Iridium contains more iridium electron configurations than a brain. Your statement proves nothing, other than brain information density is a mind blowing subject for you.
 
RE:On Radioactive Waves

I do not really care about the density (of any object) (any table on the google will oversuply the info...) I just hate rereading and rewriting the obvious. Herman Hesse proposed the folowing idea:
(paraphrased)

<i> If I see only a knee of a girl, I can easily paint her face, the curves of her knee, rightly applied can be translated into the whole of her...</i>

Since it is not possible to know everything I try to built the picture of the "whole" from its knee. Many do the same though they would not readily admit it. Many "painters" try to collect as much info as posible and put it on the canvas hoping that the picture will then appear in the collection they gathered - maybe. The science ignores hardly to prove concepts. I like them. The concept of information density (in the sense of number of objects in an object) is hard to prove. Though, it doesn't stop me from looking at it with an open mind. As Chroot suggested earlier, an open mind contains more mental images than a closed one (the less structure the more info)...

I hope this explains my attitude a bit.
 
RE:pumpkinsaren'torange

how do you figure? those "mental images" are merely memories? does that count?
Click to expand...

In order to store memories (as I explained earlier, it is lot of data) a brain must contain a mechanism capable of containing (on a very small place) an emormous quantity of data. I believe it is the densiest piece of matter (in the terms of being able to hold so many data on RAM basis). Even though these memories have no mass to contain them you would need a lot of matter (celuloid, paper, silicon) trucksful of it....and still get back low quality pictures.
 
How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.
 
Originally posted by Nasor
How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.
Click to expand...
Quite correct -- the brain is not exceptional for the amount of information it stores -- it's exceptional for the many things it can do with so little information.

- Warren
 
Regarding most dense objects...

Now, keep in mind my complete lack of education in relativity and all, but if mass and energy are equivalent, would not a gamma ray burst be equivalent to a very massive object?
 
Originally posted by Adam
Regarding most dense objects...

Now, keep in mind my complete lack of education in relativity and all, but if mass and energy are equivalent, would not a gamma ray burst be equivalent to a very massive object?
Click to expand...
Massive, sure... but dense?

- Warren
 
Ah yes, of course. I've been awake more than 24 hours now. So another question. What volume does a gamma ray burst occupy initially? Unknown, I'm sure. But if a very small region? I doubt that, I'm just wondering.
 
RE: Nasor

How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.
Click to expand...

Brains is even more accurate then DvD. Consider recognising faces of people. Also in dreams the places and details are very accurate. That you cannot always recall the memories is due to the mechanisms which separate you from memories ( to be able to use the brains capacity for the present happenings). I have very clear dreams with vivid presentation of different events. Events which I consciously do not rerun. To have such spatial presentation of reality on DvD you would have to reckon on thousands of gigabytes per DvD-hour.

Re:Chroot:

Quite correct -- the brain is not exceptional for the amount of information it stores -- it's exceptional for the many things it can do with so little information
Click to expand...



You are relaying too much on the brain as you know it. I have full respect for your personal experience but please do not try to generalise it on all brains.


-------------------------------------------
It is quite obvious that ideas have the capacity to "move objects" eg. I can built a house. Therefore ideas can influence matter and have therefore mass. Were it not so I would not be able to build the house. The mass of ideas would then indeed be in some form of energy as was suggested by Adam
 
Re: RE: Nasor

Originally posted by ProCop
You are relaying too much on the brain as you know it. I have full respect for your personal experience but please do not try to generalise it on all brains.
Click to expand...
Neurologists would say the brain has only a moderate capacity for information storage, but an amazing ability to deal with partial bits and pieces of information. The fact that a person has a great deal of trouble memorizing a million-digit long string of numbers is but one piece of evidence that brains don't store information that way.

Last time I checked, you weren't a neurologist... or even one of high-school intelligence.
Therefore ideas can influence matter and have therefore mass.
Click to expand...
Mass is defined by the ability to curve space, and as the proportionality constant between forces and resulting accelerations. I fail to see how "ideas" have either of these properties.

- Warren
 
Re:chroot

Mass is defined by the ability to curve space, and as the proportionality constant between forces and resulting accelerations. I fail to see how "ideas" have either of these properties.
Click to expand...

Can the explanation of your failing to see how ideas can have mass be in the fact that you do not have ideas?
 
Damn! Procop is still at it!!!?

The concept of information density (in the sense of number of objects in an object) is hard to prove.
Click to expand...


thats why I asked you FOUR times to back it up. You keep mixing this biological memory with digital computer memory. I'm sorry to say, they dont work the same. Apples and oranges.
 
Re: Re:chroot

Originally posted by ProCop
Can the explanation of your failing to see how ideas can have mass be in the fact that you do not have ideas?
Click to expand...
No, you're an idiot. See? That explains it all nicely.

- Warren
 
RE:chroot,On Radioactive Waves

No, you're an idiot. See? That explains it all nicely
Click to expand...

Calling somebody names means loosing the argument due to the inability to contradict effectively the proposition....
 
RE:On Radioactive Waves

I see you're winning your own fantasy argument, by not providing any support for your theory. Nice.
Click to expand...


I really did my best to explain what my proposition was/is and I have backed up it with a sound reasoning using the comparison with the computer memory capacity and so on. If you cannot grasp the concept and you also cannot successfuly argue a contra proposal, then admit it and do not let yourself slip into namescalling.

But anyway, arguing a point is generally nicer if you are opposed, because oposition inhances thinking, you were of great help in that proces - I thank you for that. Good night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top