 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.66.39.142
Can anyone explain why Good And Plenty candies form into custers of the same color when poured out of the box into a shallow bowl? One would think they would be randomly distributed.Part 2 - Does this have anything to do with why the universe is not homogeneous?
Edits: 05/02/11 05/02/11Follow Ups:
The colors only appear to be "clustered" due to the scale at which you're viewing the distribution.
When one adds iterations of the pattern, it looks more homogenous.
SF
Just like the universe....
There you go again... Equating a nominal observation with the absolute.
SF
It's speculation, a hypothesis. Disprove it, Mr. Smarty Pants.
I guess I can hang on to see the real answer to the Cosmos here.
Wait, it's been 10 days already? Sheesh.
Will this make music sound any sweeter or more like black licorice?
nt
Are the acoustics better with the GnPs clustered or unclustered? Does the ratio of pink:white GnPs affect this? Do the actual GnPs have to be in the listening room or will a picture of them produce the same effect?
Inquiring minds want to know!
rlindsa
Think pink noise and white noise. YRMV
Being different colors, they are coming out of two separate dispensers at the factory. The two colors probably end up in a common dispenser for packaging, but if that dispenser is not mixing prior to dispense, you would end up with clusters of each color in a box. Shipping/handling could generate some extra distribution within the box, depending on how full (tightly or loosely packed) the box is. So the answer lies within the manufacturing process and how much attention they pay to equal distribution of each color within each box, and how freely the candies are able to move around within the box.
And no, it has nothing to do with the universe. It's just candy-coated licorice.
...
Crikey, geoffie.
Get thee to a Learning Annex and take a stats class.
You have shown nothing.
Maybe you should start a thread about how Mike and Ike discriminate against pink candy and how it is mprhically underrepresented in the Mike and Ike pantheon.
Do you even check stuff out or do you just take marching orderes via a fax, or something?
Think, geoffie, THINK!
No clustering in your picture.
Do the math.
Damn.
How are those cold showers working out for you? Not too good.
You zealots are so lazy.
I bet you checked out nothing of what you have been told to believe.
Did they have math at that online fake university you say you attended, rocketman?
As I already explained to Mr. Know-it-All, your explanation can't be right, since you can remove the Good and Plenties from the box, shake them up so they are randomly distributed, then place them back in the box so they will be randomly distributed *in the box.* Then, spill the Good and Plenties into the bowl - Voila! the Good and Plenties will form pink and white clusters. So, the explanation cannot be that the clusters are already formed in the box, at the factory. Furthermore, even if they were, the physics of spilling the Good and Plenties out into the bowl - they bounce around a lot upon impact - should overcome any clustering that might exist in the box. The Good and Plenties should be poured out slowly from the box with the box about 3 inches above the bowl.It's almost as if the pink ones are "magnetically attracted" to other pink ones but not to the white ones. But magnetism is not the right answer either. If it were magnetism, *clustering* would not occur, instead there would tend to be only two groups - a pink group and a white group, not clusters.
Edits: 05/07/11 05/07/11
I did not read the entire thread. Just offering some insight as the kids and I enjoy watching "Good Eats" on the Food Network, where they go behind the scenes and show how foods are made.
As far as an attractive force playing a part, how about pouring them onto a flat plate with enough surface area to accommodate a single layer of candies? Or, pouring them from one bowl to another several times, adding to the mixing? Also, are they forming clusters IN the bowl, or are they forming clusters in the box and remaining so as they exit the box? Slo-mo replay, please! And with all that being said, you would have to determine what constitutes a cluster before conducting experiments.
A really cool experiment would be to fill an ultrasonic jewelry bath with candies, let it run for several minutes, then see how they end up.
Pouring into a plate is OK, but the bowl will "contain the bouncing around better than a plate. You can pour the Good and Plenties back into back into box, shake them up and and pour again out into the plate or bowl.
The "clustering" into bunches might not be perfect because the (standard) physical forces of the Good and Plenties jumping around interferes with the other (mysterious) force that causes the Good and Plenties to cluster in bunches (see photo in my OP). Thus, the clustering might not be absolutely perfect every time. Amaze your friends.
Mike and Ikes is even more interesting than Good and Plenty in the sense that the various colors form bunches AND patterns.
synchronicity and seriality. Might want to read Paul Kammerer, too./
Stu
Briefly summarize how those terms apply to the clustering of Good and Plenty candies.
I couldn't find a review of the book that wrote about them.
Stu
Check out Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. Paulis exclusion principle may be at work here.
Stu
You might just as well have said that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not at work here.
Carl Yung? Only in your dreams.
Many books written about synchronicity also review your idol, Sheldrake, and his morphic theory.Of course it takes a little research, but that should be nothing for a rocket scientist. After all, I'm only a lowly blue collar worker, and I found the references ( long before you even posed the question, BTW.
LOL!
Stu
Edits: 05/09/11
At least I have some vaugue idea about what Sheldrake is talking about, unlike yourself. I have not mentioned Sheldrake in this thread, only you and Eno. You sure make alot of assumptions for someone who wishes to be seen as some sort of a self-taught scientist. LOL Always looking for the easy way out. LOL
Who is looking for the easy way out here: Mr summarize the works and apply them to the candy issue?
LOL!
Stu
The code to decipher what you just said.
You'll never find anything specifically explaining the distribution of Good and Plenties. You have to read various theories and then make the specific applications
Stu
I haven't heard anyone offer a coherent theory yet. Not only that but as far as I know noone has even tried to corroborate or disprove my rather preposterous claim that Good and Plenties actually do distrubute themselves non-randomly in clusters.
Edits: 05/11/11
Lets see now: who asked for a summary a of synchronicity and seriality?
Seems to me you are looking for the easy way out: in addition to reading a book review over the original writings.
LOL! Your true colors show clearly in your very actions.
Stu
Not only were you unable to provide support for your claims regarding synchronicity and seriality, claiming you couldn't find any, but were unable to provide support for your equally wild claims regarding Pauli and Jung. You get an A for name-dropping and an F for substance.
would be the grade you deserve. I clearly stated that the book I read which discussed the two terms did not garner any major reviews, although it went through three printings from Bantam books.I made no claims for synchronicity or for seriality, either. I just made the suggestion that you should research the two terms a bit more.
A simple wikipedia search for Paul Messener and synchronicity will brings mention of both Jung and Pauli, and, as a matter of fact, so will a wikipedia search for the two men bring up synchronicity.
LOL! Some scientist. You don't want to reveal any information on your own, but are begging for scraps from others who frequent this and other forums.
Stu
Edits: 05/09/11 05/09/11
I can certainly understand your frustration, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Dropping names and terms as if they are supposed to mean something in solving the mystery does no service to anyone. It would be nice, for example, if you could show how either synchronicity or seriality has anything even remotely to do with why the Good and Plenties organize into clusters. For example, I could say that "action at a distance" is the answer or "causative formation," or somesuch thing, but that would not really explain it, either, if you see what I mean. I could even say birds of a feather flock together.Regarding your continuing snide personal attacks, I suspect you have some sort of inferiority complex regarding your level of education, but that's just a guess.
Edits: 05/09/11 05/09/11
It was you, Mr Kait, who wrote to say that YOU were a rocket scientist and therefore knew more than anyone else. I am not ashamed of my background, nor of my education, which includes a BA in history although I basically finished my premed prerequisites (just needed inorganic chem), as well as a minor in sociology, and some 35 credits in applied music. But since you insinuated that you knew more than anyone else because you were a "rocket scientist", I enjoy watching you desperately searching for any explanation and apparently not even bothering to do even the most basic of research from the clues I left you.
Paul Kammerer defined seriality as " a recurrence of the same or similar things or events in time..." (Wikipedia). Jung was deeply interested in the same and actually kept a diary of events which which had relatively "amazing" coincidences. When Wolfgang Pauli was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and sought help from Jung, they both discovered their mutual interest in these coincidental events. Both wrote about it, as did Paul Kammerer. A simple google search would have turned all all of this. A similar google search on literature written about the terms would have also turned up quite a few articles written about it.
The "coincidental" groupings have a place in Pauli's quantum theory of exclusion, where he actually explains certain groupings on the quantum level for certain subatomic particles. But why the hell should I have to point this out to a "rocket" scientist?
Stu
Sorry, but you are confused. I never referred to myself as a "rocket scientist," you did, and each time it's in the same smirky, conceited manner. Although my education is in theoretical propulsion and theoretical physics, I don't think it's necessarily relevant to most audio discussions, though sometimes it is. Furthermore, I have not suggested I knew more than anyone else although, truth be told, I suspect I do know more than you in quite a few areas and, as I said, I can certainly understand your frustration and inferiority complex.. You, on the other hand, seem determined to portray yourself as some sort of Know it All, even in areas you obviously lack the experience or the education. My recommendation -- stay in school.
But I digress. With all your yammering you have failed to show how your "Known Physics" references in any way solve the riddle of the Good and Plenty clustering. In fact, you can't even cite references.
You brought up the subject of my education, not I. You compared my previous vocation to that of yours: a "rocket scientist". As far as you never referring to yourself as a rocket scientist, you either have a very short memory or all the BS you spout is beginning to creep up on you, in that you can't remember the lies you have written.I told you, very early on, I am not going to give you any answers. You do the research, oh "mighty rocket scientist". You seem to simply want a distilled explanation so that you can harp on any explanation given. The truth may be far more complex. But that theoretical basis, considered by some to be the core of chaos theory, should be right up your alley as a "theoretical" physicist. Since you suspect that you know way more than I do, go and do some reading and research. Again even the most basic Google search will reveal a large number of sources.
You think I am afraid of your "all powerful intellect"? That's quite a laugh. I know many PHD's in various fields from astrophysics to molecular biology. None of them put on airs like you do.
In light of your statement that you know more than I do, I would suspect that is true, as no one can know everything. And you are right: I am constantly reading and trying to better my knowledge. There is a well known saying that they teach at McDonald's, of all places. The saying goes: "When you're green you're growing, when you're ripe you start rotting."
LOL!
Stu
PS: If you suspect you know more than I do on this subject, why pester me for the explanation?
PPS: Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel prize winner in chemistry had some interesting ideas too. I can't write about it because I haven't finished reading his book.
Edits: 05/10/11 05/10/11 05/10/11 05/10/11
It appears we won't be seeing that explanation I keep pestering you for after all, just more personal attacks.
Maybe one of your PhD buds can enlighten you as to why Good and Plenties cluster, although I doubt it.
You are the theoretical physicist, all mighty seer. If you don't know, how can any one else know?
Stu
Well, chances look pretty good your PhD buds don't know. Or you, from what I can gather. LOL
Guess it will remain a mystery. Everyone likes a mystery, right? LOL
YOU don't know.
Stu
Let's put it this way, Mr. Smarty Pants, if I did have a theory, and I'm not saying I do, I'd do more than simply throw out a couple of terms, expecting everyone to come to attention and salute.
Let's hear your theor(ies) then. Why should post ours if you hold back on yours?
Stu
But you haven't posted any theories. Only a couple of vague, "scientific sounding" terms for which you were unable to provide any references or even definitions. Oh, and you dropped the names of a couple of "Big Science Guys." I guess that was supposed to prove you know your science. LOL
Edits: 05/11/11
Seems to me if you were truly a theoretical physicist, you would be at least a bit more familiar with the works of those people. Apparently you are not, so therefore it would be impossible for me to give an explanation in the length of most posts on AA. For things like quantum theory or, at least facets of it, the explanations are rather long and involved.
I see no attempt on your part to do further investigation. Zero, nada.... In fact you rather ridiculed my suggestion that you investigate the works of Carl Jung. Wolfgang Pauli's exclusion principle, which is a fundamental part of the overall quantum theory, uses the energy states to explain certain subatomic groupings which have ramifications on a much larger scale. He uses a lot of math to show that. But then why am I having to state what should be obvious to a "theoretical physicist".
The definitions are readily available on Google as I have been saying. You want an explanation, but I haven't even ever eaten any Good and Plenties candy so I can not forward any explanation. Unlike you, who will state opinions of a book based on a second hand review, I will not really speculate unless I have personal experience. You, yourself, have stated no one has even verified your observation. You offer no statistical evidence, no verification of the observation, no clinical trials, so why should the casual Iso reader even bother to speculate?
LOL! and you claim to be a "rocket scientist"?
Stu
Hey, you're the one that dropped their names, not me. If I thought that any of the terms you cited or any of the Big science names you dropped were of any relevance to the discussion I would have said so. Alas, you weere just hoping that some sort of established science would come to your rescue and you wouldn;t have to face the prospect of some sort of mysterious, hard to understand explanation, as usual. LOL
simply ignore my posts instead of begging for enlightenment.
LOL!Stu
PS: Probably reading just the condensed summaries in Wikipedia wasn't enough, enh? It's probably way to much trouble to read the original writings, but that's what we expect from your mentality anyway.
Edits: 05/11/11 05/11/11
nt
You claimed you never made any comments about my education and YOU blow it in front of the whole asylum. If anything, you are the ultimate hypocrite.
LOL!
Stu
PS For a theoretical physicist, you still can't make any connections. Double LOL!
Well, let's get real here. I am the theoretical physicist of the group and you are, well, some sort of steel worker. Do you think I should keep my education a secret? Do you think you should hide your lack of education in physics? LOL
Edits: 05/12/11
I seem to know quite a bit more than you do on certain subjects. The groupings you noted do not bother me in any way as I can draw parallels from the writings of the work of the people I mentioned. The explanation, thus, becomes a bit evident, at least to me.
LOL!
And you, a theoretical physicist! Hypocrite would be a better term. Sheldrake would be turning over in his grave.
Or, a flash, since you claim to harness the fourth dimension with your clock: maybe the candies go into the fourth dimension and rearrange themselves before being transported back to our reality....
LOL!
Stu
I never claimed to know everything. You, on the other hand, apparently wish to be the Know it All of the group. But dropping names and a couple of terms here and there doesn't quite qualify for Know it All status. Alas, everyone has to be good at something; I'm quite confident you know much more than I do about rebars. LOL
The boy is getting jealous that being a theoretical physicist and a rocket scientist doesn't necessarily provide answers.
When you don't want to do the research and exploration on your own and expect to be spoon fed answers, well, then, in my book you are no scientist.
As far as being a theoretical physicist, the names you claim I dropped have a lot to do with the issues of randomness and probability. If you are unfamiliar with even the slightest ideas they have written about, then you are no theoretical physicist. Or, if you are you are basing your theories on events well before the last century and have yet to catch up with modern theories and ideas.
You claimed that I had an inferiority complex. LOL! Most of us can certainly see that in your actions. Even Sheldrake would have had an explanation and you are supposed to be the "expert" on his ideas!
LOL!
It is utterly ludicrous that you invoke Sheldrake as an explanation for certain of your tweaks and yet you ignore him here.
LOL!
Stu
Your arguments make no sense. Are you suggesting that Sheldrake should be invoked for all mysterious phenomenon? LOL Besides, I don't invoke Sheldrake arbitrarily, only when there is an apparent connection to morphic resonance, such as in the case of the clock and the Belt products such as the foil and the Red X Pen.
Morphic resonance appears to be a subject you're quite ignorant of or afraid of, or both. That's actually quite understandable since morphic resonance doesn't fall under the pat, "well-understood" scientific categories that you continue to think solves all of of life's mysteries.
If you want to call me an expert, that's your call, not mine. I just posted suggestions for you to investigate. Apparently that's too much for you to follow up.
As for Sheldrake's Morphic resonances, I would submit that you are the one that shows a lack of understanding. Ooooohhh, but wait, they don't teach that in college physics do they?
Stu
Well, I'd say you're a name dropper and wannabe but drop a few more names and fancy terms and I'll get back to you. LOLBy the way, just for your information, you're behind on points. LOL
Edits: 05/13/11
Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait, Geoff Kait. Is that enough names to drop?
How about morphic resonances, and time shifts with a digital clock. Oh yeah, that all relates to you, doesn't it?
LOL!
As much as I like seeing my name in print (and even spelled correctly, thank you) I get the sense we are nearing the useful end of this discussion. LOL
no, heres the usefull part of this thread:
YOU ALL ARE OUT OF YOUR EVER LOVIN MINDS
On the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away,,,
More like one tin man runs away. Better luck next time.
The guru has been found out!
nt
Moderator! Halp! Halp me!
nt
The L on your forehead is actually pulsing!
nt
Ask your mom for some money for a Slurpee and hop on your Schwinn and go to 7-11 for a break.
Maybe she'll give you some extra and you can do some Good N Plenty clustering studies for science fair.
Or, head on over to the morphic resonance forums and lament your tail kicking.
Night night, geaoffie.
nt
Maybe you can turn it around by explaining the M&m color distribution conspiracy.
:P
Here's another one you can take the Magic Morphic Circle Jerk Forums:
The tops of candy corn cluster, too!
LOL.
"Heh heh he....clustering."
Edits: 05/08/11
nt
*
At the Good and Plenty factory, the Good and Plenty fairies make each color seperately, then various colors of Good and Plenties are added in portions to each box. They are pre-clustered by the nature of how they are grouped as they are put into the box.
;D
The Good and Plenty physicists have studied this extensively.
You can try it yourself at home to verify.
Works with Captain Crunch "All Berries" and Froot Loops, too.
There aren't assembly lines that make every color at the same time, they have to be "blended" from different lines.
Even if they were "pre-clustered" in the box it would not explain it since the Good and Plenties bounce around quite a bit when they are poured into the bowl before they settle into their distinctive pattern. Thus, they have to overcome the force of the bouncing, so whatever "force" produces the clustering is greater than the force of the bouncing. Furthermore, placing the Good and Plenties back in the box in random order, then repeating the experiment, also produces the clustering.
Plus, you are wont to overlook that randomness can also produce clustering.
Or are you about to spew Sheldrake bullshit?
If so, be straight up!
Yes, but only in the bizarro world.
Good luck on that.
nt
Sorry if your Shedrakian religion forbids thought.
You was robbed.
Nice use of irony.
nt
Although geoffie + accurate don't belong in the same sentence.
nt
Should be bliss for you....the religion of Red Hot distribution.
nt
Ask YOUR mommy to allow you spend some extra time on the computer tonight and try an experiment with your picture:There are two colors, so you'd expect a relatively equal number of red or white GNP's touching a given GNP.
So, go through your pic (you supplied it, so it can't have been manipulated, right? Plus, this seems important to you) and count how many total pink and how many total white, and for each GNP count how many red and how many white GNP's are touching it.
Do this for every GNP and see what your stats show.
I think you are assuming clustering beyond random fluctuation. I bet you'll see a plot that ends up looking like a normal distribution curve.
Ask your mommy to help you with it if it seems too hard or conflicts with your Sheldrake religion.
Once you become a more discerning person, you can then do the same trick with the pic of the Red Hots and check the groupings of the subtypes of Red Hots in that pic. (Hint, there are more than two subtypes, see if you can figure it out.)
Edits: 05/05/11
nt
There are free online random grid programs you can play with to test you flawed hypothesis, as well.
Good old math trumps Sheldrake's religion once again.
Tell Shelie to give it a go with: "when flipping coins, the results rarely turn out heads, tails, heads, tails.....there are many groupings! It's an inexplicable magical thing no one could conceive of! There must be some mystical morphic resonance at work!"
Why not come right out and declare that Sheldrake is the Antichrist? How do you like being the poster boy for trolls who cannot be educated? BTW don't worry about answering the questions, they're rhetorical.
Dude, you lost.I bet you are so certain in your faith, you refused to do the experiment that proves you wrong with your own picture.
Now that's some closed mindedness.
Give it go, spend a few minutes thinking instead of worshipping.
I'll bet anyone here geoffie is incapable of doing it. No intellectrual curiosity in his marrow.
Time to start trolling your phone book or pen in the freezer tripe, this one of yours has been busted.
Run along now, start saving up for an actual Hi Fi rig. Did you get one yet?
Can't even tell the Red Hots apart, can ya?
Added: I do understand that your faith may forbid actually investigating what you are told. Wouldn't want any hypothesis testing ruining the "magic."
LOL!
Edits: 05/06/11 05/06/11 05/06/11
My condolences to your besotted liver.
Call us back when you decide to actually get a Hi Fi.Speaking of uneven distribution, why is so many unblinking unthinking idiots cluster around morphic resonance?
:D
Well, so much for Good N' Plenty, your myth was busted.
geoffie, maybe go read about the art of debunkery and go after the statistics proving your clumping fallacy incorrect! You skeptics never have to leave mom's apartment!
Edits: 05/06/11
nt
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
