TheGeckomancer

I am a global warming skeptic. Because we know it to be global climate change not warming. And there is nothing to be skeptical about, if you take an earth science class in highschool you learn about atmospheric c02 levels and some of the things they do.

No. I looked through this. I hate to say it this way but you have wasted your time. I can take literally any of hundreds of images and do that same thing. You still never got to the what is the message part. Just how you can manipulate symbols to get what you want out of it. Lets assume, like I said there is a hidden message, you may eventually decode it only to conclude it was a hidden joke from some mathematicians. Again, assuming you DO find a message, you have to assume there are other hidden messages, and hence a lifes work of reading more into things and hoping something comes of it. Or, even assuming you do decode it what then? What if the message is not for you and you just legitimately don't understand, or it required context?

There is no way to be SURE of this without scanning every inch of the universe.

Thats a misunderstanding of a law a of thermodynamics. ENERGY can neither be created or destroyed. Matter is created and destroyed all the time in the hearts of stars and here on earth.

The OP was. His question was "I wanted to know if enough concetration of light could cause an explosion ?" The answer is no. Or an INSANE amount of light.

Yes but these are both examples of matter absorbing the energy of the light and reacting violently. Not LIGHT ITSELF EXPLODING. I am not saying it's not possible, but I imagine any device that does that would have to be a basically omnidirectional laser, which is like I said an insane amount of energy.

Science rarely deals with WHY, for the most part that question is left to philosophy. Science likes Who, Where, When, What, and How.

For Faster than Light travel, our only real contender right now is the Alcubierre Drive. We have some promising sub C speeds that are still impressive. Antimatter rockets can supposedly get up to .8c and solar sails can theoretically get to .9c.

The amount of light concentrated to small spaces would be insane. Explosions primarily work on the idea of gas atoms traveling at very high speeds as they massively expand, breaking apart nearby solid matter in their quest to find space. Generally, explosions need massive (scientific not literal term) particles to carry force and impart it to other nearby objects.

ALL of those substances you listed, are exotic and difficult to get a hold of, except metal to make guns. And my point is, trending says humans have the power to do what they want. Regardless of laws. It's like humanity is growing up as a species. We can either take proper steps to ensure a mature humanity that can responsibly handle powerful weapons, or we ignore the fact that humans have violence issues and that society is not dealing with that and keep trying to "keep a lid on it" as it were. Again I ask, guns have been more common in the unites states than cars for over 100 years, either mass shootings were simply something we didn't care about or they weren't happening. Whats changed and why? And why are we trying to deal with an outlet for violence instead of the unhappiness causing it? And no. Survival of the species is NOT positively impacted by removing guns. It's lessened. Guns are not a species threatening weapon. Something down the line may be. If we do not allow darwinian processes to remove people with bad impulse control from society we will be in a MUCH worse situation in a decade or 2 from now. Like I said, the most you can kill with a gun is a couple dozen people before being stopped, definitely bad, but nowhere near species threatening.

Time is a very real thing. It's not abstract, and it's not a concept people made up. Well, technically it is. Time is actually much more specific scientifically. We refer to the ARROW OF TIME or causality. The fact that causes always precede effects and so on. The reason why it's better to think of space and time as one thing is because we do not actually distinguish the two of them. Even you don't much as you don't realize it. Imagine any set of coordinates, say you are going to go meet your friend for a burger or something. You know the X,Y,Z (Z almost never matters because on earth we interact with the surfaces of things primarily), but the unspoken agreement is that you will met your friend at T which is a specified time. There is no describing space without describing time, we just assume time in most of the cases. If you wanted to describe an event in lithuania happening NOW you normally disregard time (now is assumed), but if you were talking about 200 years ago you specify that. For all intents and purposes space and time are the same thing. You cannot move through one without the other. I guess another way of saying it is Time is just a coordinate of space. It's not even really good to think of them as Space-Time IMO. I personally find it better to think of it as just SPACE with time being an inherent property of space.

Actually I have a pretty good grasp of 4 dimensional objects and even some kind of a grasp on 4 dimensional physics. There are papers on it. I know less about 5 dimensions and so forth moving up. But of course thats the case. You BUILD on knowledge, you don't start off knowing everything. You are using irreducible complexity arguments mixed with God of the Gaps. The lack of knowledge today says NOTHING about what you will know tomorrow. Unless you stop looking for answers and just assume it's god. And not at all for your math example. Thats YOUR WORLD crumbling without god. Math is objective, and powerful. And we can argue all day about the existence and even effectiveness of god. But math is completely inviolable in that regard (surpassing god) because we have CONTINUOUS reaffirmed proof of it's near perfect functionality. You can claim thats god if you want but you make the claim without any proof.

You have to go to a doctor to know for sure. IF your oxygen levels are not TOO LOW this adaptation can be perfect and normal. People living at higher altitudes are famous for this, tibetans for example. However, they could also be fluxuating between an OKAY range and one your body can't deal with but not long enough to be super noticeable, this type of thing does happen, and the differences in energy level can be slight. As in like drowsy on a Wednesday at 4pm (meaning you wouldn't even know, for me anyway).

I haven't given up on this conversation. I just am taking a few days to gather my thoughts and solidify my arguments. You guys showed me I hadn't worked this out all the way, I am not done but it's coming along.

You seem very interested in ways to manipulate and control brain functions. This is a very unethical field of study so it's a good thing there is not much progress on any front to accomplish this kind of thing. Nanites do not exist. Nanotechnology is still hypothetical and there are a lot of scientists who have given solid reasons why it may never be possible. Even assuming it ever is it would not function the way you think. We will almost certainly never be able to make all purpose mini robots that move through the body doing whatever with programmable functions. They expect that most real nanotechnology will be microscopic injections of metamaterials or highly complex chemical structures that only interact with specific things. I read an article about 6 months ago about the air force experimenting with a gold nanoparticle they could inject into the eye that can increase light receptivity and magnification several fold, but I can't seem to find it right now. That's a good example of what nanotechnology will most probably be.

All of those questions have been answered. Well the ones that are proper questions to begin with.We know what light and fire are.

Money is good for fueling war. The real question is, what is war good for?

So. In any kind of cypher or hidden message. The goal is to encode the message so unwanted eyes can not read it but guarantee that the correct ones can. Which means only one proper way to decode the message and no get gibberish. If you want to claim there is a message there lay out the proper way to decode the message as well as what you think it means so that peers can review your work. If you want to crowdsource a speculation committee I can bring in 10,000 other equally odd looking visual logos. Also, logically, if we accept there is a hidden message then the likelihood is that there are more hidden messages. If you want to spend your life trying to read WAY more into things then is needed you will probably not get much accomplished. It is possible to find a hundred dollar bill under a rock but that is not a good 9 to 5 strategy in place of a job. See the fact that you even bring this up indicates that you search for these kinds of things. Which is why I say that.

Hence why I said the most rigorous and well defined area of philosophy. Philosophy does deal with chance. It just doesn't explicitly enumerate it, unless math is a division of philosophy. And math does touch on the nature of existence. Mathematicians all the time are trying to explore the nature of reality, nature of existence, what is real etc. If math is not a division of philosophy it's a separate discipline that is trying to supplant philosophy.

If one worked only on their weaknesses, after a time those weaknesses would become strengths, the strengths you used to have would become your current weaknesses by comparison, and you would start training those.

Why is math not a division of philosophy? That's what I have always felt. Distinguishing math from logic is a pointless exercise if they are both extensions of philosophy. In my opinion it is the most rigorous and well defined area of philosophy.

Also the Irreducible Complexity argument is just not compatible with the modern creator mythos. Either God is perfect and omniscient, in which case he can create a perfectly functional logically consistent universe, or you believe those are intentional clues, which the argument against solid evidence for god is that he wants faith. So either you are claiming there is objective evidence for god, which indicates a lack of omniscience, or you can only have faith. The argument doesn't work both ways. Irreducible Complexity works against creation arguments, not for. Generating more and more logical inconsistencies in your argument doesn't eventually make it more sound at some point. It just makes it harder to argue against the further you move away from rationality. I won't humor you like other people on here, I am not going to teach you science so you can argue it half assedly against me.

And I have lost all respect for the rationality you have shown in other arguments. Until you take the time to do research and give an educated response like I did there is no point in continuing this. The only point I will add, and I am actually denigrating myself by doing so because your arguments do not deserve a response is. Why would people even bother to buy guns if they can produce them at home cheaper? You can ban guns if you want but in under a decade no one will be buying them anyway.

Maybe I am missing the evidence but I can't find any studies done that shows this has any of the effects people say it does. And the "victims" would be the worst possible sources of information. I have found a bunch of studies showing that this is a mundane drug prescribed for a lot of different health issues, and in larger doses can have roofie effects. But thats it.

So you literally skipped over the mountain of evidence I presented to point at the weakest spots in my arguments again. Answer the god damn question. What does banning guns do if I can go home and print a drone with an ar15 attached? I am going to be honest with you. I find this really upsetting. You are arguing rationally on any other topic but this one in the forums that I see. Please address my whole arguments above instead of the parts you feel are easiest to attack. If you can't do that please excuse yourself from the conversation.