Leaderboard

Thank you very much for your reply! I will take it all into consideration and reform my ideas. When I remember, Light was defined as the union of a particle and a wave moving at a constant speed... is this still accurate? Seems the definition has changed.

About 75%

To save it from a long, slow death by killing it instantly. Mercy fission.

That's not how numbers work.

Intelligence is in the mind of the being defining it. We think of ourselves being the most intelligent creature on Earth because intelligence tests are designed by us and compared to us. Elephants have huge brains and are quite intelligent and if they were designing an intelligence test we would probably come up short in their minds...

Accepted! In future communication I will choose my words more carefully. I gave these values in order for them to cancel each other out, as the zero-energy Universe hypothesis is suggesting as well. I could have chosen other values instead, for example 430 and -430 which also would cancel out each other into a zero sum, the same way in which a proton doesn’t actually have +1 charge. We could have given it a +3 charge (the up quark would be +2, and the down quark -1), but this would only entail that the charge of the electron should change from -1 into -3. Once again, numbers aren’t real, proportions are. Or what about D glucose and L amino acid, (the ones our body uses, instead of their enantiomers) to indicate handedness. There's no L-ness about L amino acids, we could have named them both D glucose and D amino acid, or L glucose and L amino acid, it's just that we have to make the distinction between two different mirror images of a chiral molecule. I thought I’ve already pointed this out by arguing: Since Noether’s theorem states that there is a conservation of charge, which is also related principle to Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism, I’m supporting the zero-energy Universe. What about you? If I’m understanding you correctly, you're not supporting this hypothesis. Could you share your main criticism against this hypothesis, and/or present a better one? Because I don’t want to support an hypothesis if there’s a more plausible alternative.

In a way, it is. There are interactions that aren't measurements and thus don't break the entanglement. They amount to a unitary transformation of the states. In some treatments there are four Bell state bases, and the classical communication tells you which one to use. If you've entangled photon polarizations, for example, sending the photon through a half-wave plate changes the polarization to the orthogonal state, but you haven't measured it, so it's still entangled.

What a refreshing attitude. +1 You should go far. Welcome indeed.

Immortality/Mortality are terms usually reserved for biological life. I don't think science suggests any form of life is immortal. Massive particles can't move at the speed of light. String theory isn't necessary here. We refer to particles because there is some behavior of quantum phenomenon that acts like a classical particle (like a billiard ball), such as being localized when there is an interaction, which is not consistent with a wave description. Light doesn't really have a physical form. It's not considered matter. Welcome aboard.

If you don't have anything relevant to say, maybe consider not saying anything?

Trouble shooting is one of the most important aspects of programming. I would recommend you go through your code line by line and check it does what you think it does. First instance what do you think rand(0,1) is doing? If you run just this line do you get a value of x you expect or something else? Type help rand into your command window to see why it might not be doing what you expect and some suggested alternatives.

There is a HUGE difference between lacking evidence and Tour's claim that we know pretty much nothing. As Moontanman says, we have lots of evidence for many of the possible processes involved from the very earliest pre-biotic stages right through to the symbiotic development of organelles in cells. Yes, there are gaps. But that doesn't mean we know nothing.

While that may apply in some cases (defenders of Creationism seem to have no problem with lying to support their case, for example) this is slightly broader. Rather like Apollo hoax believers using data from NASA in their arguments: if that data from NASA is OK, why not the rest. This is slightly more than just cherry-picking data because it relies on using a source to discredit the same source (on another forum, someone is using data from a single NASA document to "prove" that the conclusions of the same document must be wrong).

We are the natural processes in our brain. There is no indication that there is anything about us beyond these natural processes. This means there is no difference between us making a decision or the natural processes making a decision, because those are simply the same. There is also no conflict with free will. If we are determined (and there is no reason to assume we are not), we are determined to choose the things we want to choose. Our decision are the outcome of processes in our brain that take our preferences into account.

Iirc, nitrogen has less problems with condensation, and it leaks less than oxygen. Helium will have problems staying inside the tires, and won't do much to decrease weight.

It is rather lacking so trust your instincts on this paper lol

I would have to disagree that there is no evidence for how abiogenesis came about, there is considerable evidence just not absolute evidence. There are more than one possibility for many of the necessary processes the possibility exists that there are more than one valid route to life. Artificial life like forms have been developed in many definitions of life but the path to our particular life is still unknown and may indeed be a synergy of more than one path. It's quite certain that eucaryote life like us... is a synergy of several different life forms combining in a symbiosis. I may not be a biologist but i have reproduced biologically.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Once you get past the idea of a sudden appearance of a recognisable life form the idea becomes much more manageable. The process is thought to have been gradual not sudden and some would say inevitable under the correct circumstances. The one thing abiogenesis is not is chance, chance is not part of the process, chemicals react in ways governed by physics not chance... http://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics/

Many years ago my university room mate, A graduate student in Chemistry, did his own research and claimed that the principle cause of a hangover was (a) dehydration and (b) the ketones and aldehydes that were present as side products of fermentation. To test his theory, we drank beverages using pure lab grade alcohol. It seemed to work. I never did any other research, but usually just woke up feeling thirsty and tired, but not hung over. I'm now too old for this sort of serious research, but heartily recommend it to hardier souls.

The best hangover sure i know of is drinking water, large amounts of water, before, during, and after your alcohol bing. Not drinking too much is a much wiser route to avoiding a hangover...

If we are expecting to see the equivalent of the UFP or the star ship Enterprise I think the expectations are totally unrealistic. The idea of colonising another Earth like planet is equally unrealistic as is terraforming another panet if for no other reason the time scales involved in terraforming if not the actual distances needed to be covered. I love to read science fiction and watch science fiction TV and movies but the more realistic ideas of slowly mining the galaxy for materials to build artificial habitats in the not so empty space between the stars doesn't really make for snappy episodes of tv or movies. Even small discrepancies in the parameters of another planet would make them uninhabitable to humans without some serious Genetic modification. Once you get past the idea of scouting the galaxy for habitable worlds and get down to building our own worlds the idea becomes much more realistic if more than a bit slow and boring. Colonising the galaxy in a few million years does not make for good drama but it does make sense. I have my doubts that any other civilization will want to do anything with alien worlds other than avoid them. The possibility of biological contamination in of itself is worrying if not the ethical issues of invasive species wiping out other ecosystems. Humans have done rather badly by doing this on Earth by allowing species to be spread outside their natural boundaries here in Earth and we share all our DNA with them. I can see the possibility of occasional visits by their equivalent of researchers but I would expect them to be few and far between and their presence would almost certainly mean they are already nearby and exploiting the raw materials of our own Oort cloud. I would expect such expeditions to only be sent out long after the Planetary system in question already has a long term colony of space habitats operating in the outer reaches of the worlds in question. While the revelation of this would probably not be as Earth shattering as some think it would be disturbing to our own future plans of expansion. IMHO even if UFOs do not represent an alien civilization visiting us they still have a potential tale to tell about how the human minds works and possibly even how mythology and religion originates. Another rather long shot is that UFOs themselves represent some sort of unknown natural phenomena that that has it's own value as furthering our knowledge of the universe... There are many reports with actual evidence that either represents something real or some sort of widespread natural tendency or conspiracy of human perception... There are reports that are either complete hoaxes or an actual extraordinary event, no third possibility exists... Firmenant? What exactly do you mean by firmenant? One possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that star travel is not reasonable unless the resources of the original planetary system has been turned into a Dyson Swarm. Even if controlled fusion never becomes possible we already have a fusion reactor nearby and we could break up the planets to make a dyson swarm consisting of the equivalent of a billion times the surface area of the Earth. How long would this take? would it ever really be over? Is there really any motivation to star travel?

My assertions are not my assertions. They are simply the theoretical application of overwhelming observational evidence. But as per usual, and as is evidenced in the vast amount of evidenced based cosmology that you reject and infest with your nonsensical remarks, it is obvious you are here, simply to preach and infer your mythical supernatural nonsense. The only misrepresentation being undertaken is by yourself, driven by what you see as some evangelistic crusade against the evils of science for extinguishing your mythical supernatural deity in explaining the universe. Your assumption as usual would be incorrect since it is not based on science nor the scientific methodology. Pot, kettle black....I'm really not sure about who you believe you are fooling, other then yourself and your baggage. You are the only one responsible for the stupidity you post. The only struggle I observe is your own inner struggle and angst in the fact that observational cosmology, astronomy and science in general has demoted the creationist myths that still plague you.

Chasing a hangover cure is like lacing a bullet with penicillin.

! Moderator Note But you went out of your way to provide an email for feedback, and mention that you are soliciting funding. Maybe don't do those things if you aren't advertising. I think what the scientifically-minded are going to want is some kind of evidence that this works, or evidence that the ingredients contribute to doing what is being advertised. Do you have any? Evidence for this would be good, too.

Dude... are you smoking the same weed as me... sweet... bloody good trip... my brother... hang on... did I just say that That's the internal dialog, here's the replies should it be an external dialog: Dude... Dude... Dude... DDDDUUUUDDDEEE... no, wait... what were we talking about

Cause and effect. The mass exists before the event horizon forms. The radius of the event horizon that forms is proportional to the mass. Entropy, not mass. "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle But this says nothing about your wacky "firmament" story. And, hang on a minute ... You are arguing for a fantasy cosmology using arguments from objects that cannot exist in that cosmology! (There must be a name for that fallacy, but I have no idea what it is!)

The holographic principle has nothing to do with the spectra and lifecycles of stars. The area is determined by the mass. And, again, nothing to do with the holographic principle. This seems like a complete non sequitur; unless you think we are on the inside of a black hole and the event horizon is like a IMAX screen. You could, no doubt, come up with all sorts of contrived explanations as to why, for example, we see objects at different distances even though they are projected on a surface. But that would be just as ludicrous as the contortions that the Flat-Earthers go through to sustain their delusions. (Trying to make the data fit alternative models is, however, quite a good way of showing why the generally accepted model is generally accepted.)

The evidence is overwhelming and concrete thus far that stars are simply distant Suns at various stages of their life and of various sizes, and your usual baseless doubts on this scientific issue among the many others you have, actually mean nothing. http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html

I think he should have dropped the word "that"...

I did. It suggests to me that you need to learn a lot more science. Ordinarily, I would say that text needs a couple of commas. I tend to think that, without evidence, ... But in this case I think it's accidentally correct. That's true; we can't assume that. However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. They are not, for example, camp-fires. They certainly are not all the same thing (reflected in a bodged celestial sphere). We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds. Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description

Thankfully the world is full of people much brighter and smarter then yourself, who are able to accept the scientific evidence and methodology, and reject the interjections of nonsense you chose to inject into various threads. Liar liar pants on fire. Agreed...It does one good to have a hearty laugh on occasions: A shame though that you are the butt of that laughter.

Indeed the evidence supports the view that most are not like our own. Have you ever sought out any evidence?

Here's the problem with this. Anyone who has honestly delved into the scientific theory behind evolution would NOT be a "lifelong doubter". Also, the reasons those questions "keep nagging at" you is because you keep rejecting the best supported explanations for them, and for some reason refuse to honestly study the theory. You've come to prefer your imagined role as a skeptic, not realizing that true skeptics don't spend their whole lives on the fence.

Consensus of what a Rose is doesn't change what it is. Consensus all impacts the perspective of those looking at the Rose. The process of mutation exists with or with a consensus you accept. What is or is not "Rare" is purely relative. The is no requirement to the process be something common as opposed to rare by human intellectual standards. It is more important to analyse the process than ones feels towards the process if the goal is to understand. I don't understand why there is an "s" in the word island but that doesn't cause me to question language.

Umm, no. The tides are simply a result of the gravitational attractions of the Moon and Sun. The actual effect is called tidal gravitation, and also explains why the Moon is very slowly [a couple of centimetres a year] moving away from Earth, and why the earth's rotational period is gradually slowing down and seeing the length of a day increasing very slightly.

I am just going to copy the answer to this from another forum: All of those examples are due to the shape of the bays and seabed. Something that is obvious if you look at locations near those measuring points:- Edgartown, near the Bay of Fundy (tidal range about 1m)- Cherbourg (5m) near Mont St Michael- Swansea further out on the Bristol Channel (8m)- Bukhta Podkagernaya (7m) in the Sea of Okhotsk- Arkhangel'sk (1m) near Mezensky Bay.NOAA address your claim about tidal ranges in their FAQ with a couple of counter-examples - https://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#27

I wish I wish I wish I could impress this on Physicists. +1

Do you know the exam system when the number of exam ticket is written on paper and it is flipped over? You choose the one from the table and give the answers for the questions written on it. My friend was passing the exam session with me. For the first time she took the ticket with 13 number. By the way, in my country 13 is unlucky number. Next day she took the ticket with 13 number again. For the third day she said she read the answers for 13 so she was no nervous at all. And yes, that happened! 13 number one more time.. All the exams,days,subjects,rooms and teachers were different. She could not see the number through a paper. It was just a beautiful moment of seeing the smile of universe in action.

I am always appraising new evidence. I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.

Well when i say good scientist i am merely projecting, if i can come to the conclusion that dark matter is merely a consequence of space surely others have as well. No one disagrees with the statement "dark matter exists" but as time goes on i would like to believe that many would agree with "dark matter is incalculable". I of course read the article, but to me the most important part of the LHC from its founding moment was to either find or produce dark matter. LHC still has a purpose but i feel the importance of whats left has taken my interest down quite a few notches.

Sure, why not? I don't think what i stated in this thread is far away from what many scientists believe. I should have stated that in a different way, its a consequence of space only when looked at from the wrong angle. Dark matter is likely more easily explained with a different theory. I have been trying to keep up with news from the LHC since its inception, as far as i understand finding/producing dark matter has been at the forefront that entire time. I would not have had as much interest in the project otherwise.

Well, a different theory Relativity is absolute genius but its goal is not to describe reality, merely possibilities. I think the theory that explains reality also takes cares of dark matter.

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is. And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?' I'm sorry but you are wasting my time.

If you do not have the capacity to understand what I write why don't you just let it?

I think what we are seeing through the hubble telescope are not in fact galaxies or stars. I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own. The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.

0% Nothing can exist alone. Life evolved as more and more information is involved. At the first moment there were space and time. They can not exist separated.