TheGeckomancer

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy. All things can be broken down to their simplest state. So it is safe to say even without knowing what dark matter is that it can be broken down to energy. I DO NOT KNOW if this implies that it can be constructed though. That is a LOT more complex of a question ironically. Again, this is only assuming dark matter IS matter. There are some theories that state the gravitational effect we see that we assume is caused by dark matter may be gravity from other universes bleeding into ours. There are a ton of other possibilities too.

That does not a species make. The female liger cannot breed with a male liger. Really I don't think you will find anyone on here who is qualified enough to tell you if hypothetically you can mix those 2. And I would rather not know if someone here has that kind of first hand experience. I would say the odds are slim at best. Being in same family doesn't mean that much. You need a VERY VERY similar genetic structure. Like I don't think scientists are sure if humans can cross breed with chimps and we are like 98.8% same DNA.

Most species of monkeys have better innate number sense than we do, can can memorize large strings of numbers better than we can. Also. Humans do not make math exist. It is a real nonphysical constant of the universe. If all humanity died, but we created an AI that would sit there and just assemble things to mathematical algorithms it would continue without ANY humans even existing. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if Math shouldn't be a fundamental force lol.

That's because we only have speculation on how quantum entanglement works. It requires you to understand super positions. Particles can exist in multiple states at a time, maybe you know about the dual particle wave functionality. Quantum entanglement is a process by which you cannot describe an individual particle because they are literally sharing super positional states. It's not that they communicate faster than light speed. It's that for all intents in purposes that is ONE particle that can split and take 2 different paths. So what happens to one IS happening to the other at the same time, because it's the same partcle, it's just occupying 2 points in space instead of 1. If it helps any you have to remember that ALL of the rules and common sense things about the physical world need to be forgotten when talking about quantum. Compared to classical science quantum is straight up magic and breaks all the rules.

Hacking is not inherently mean, or cruel. It just is. Firstly. MOST hackers are called White Hackers which test security systems, find vulnerabilities and patch them up. SOME People hack for personal gain, stealing credit card information and what have you (this is actually the least common). Then there are the Social Justice hackers, which are the second largest group after white hackers. They break into security systems to leak information to people they feel need that information. You can debate all day whether they are right or wrong but 99% of the info we get from them we would never have gotten at all to even have the debate about whether or not that information should be secret.

Filtering FOR things is not as simple as that. Usually you pull a lot of other stuff in the process. Sometimes the act of filtering can actually break down or alter some chemical structures. In addition as MandySwift pointed out, increased risk of contamination.

Being in the same family does not always guarantee breeding capabilities. And usually the offspring even when possible will not actually be a species as they are unable to mate. Looking at you ligers.

Not exactly. Sometimes you can discern if something is true or not by assuming it is or isn't then looking at the what if repurcussions. I may not be able to discern anything with those assumptions, but that doesn't mean it was wasted.

So wouldn't the minimum definitions be 1 or 2 depending on how you look at it? I can't think or any other definitions that can be applied to that set besides exists and shares no properties.

I don't have to be able to explicitly list a set do I? So long as I can adequately describe it. How about a set who's defining property is having no members with properties in common? This makes a 1 definition set. I mean theoretically it could even have 0 members couldn't it? Or if you wanted to be technical. You could say a minimum of 2. Because you have to say that this set exists and that it's members have no properties in common, but to me it makes sense to ignore the exists definition as that's implied in every single set you state.

This is a question I think about a lot but I am by no means an expert at anything related to any subject. I think numbers are real abstract entities. We did not invent them, we discovered them, through observing the world. It's all been indirect observation and indirect testing. I can't think of a way to ever test these things directly. I think this is something we can only conclude through indirect observation. Every time we apply a mathematical forecast to the world, and watch it come true we are confirming indirectly the existence of numbers and math.

This made me think of a branching question for the smallest space. To me it would seem that if space continued infinitely downward AND upward in scale, than our perspective is inherently limited in such a way to where we can't know the universe. I mean theoretically couldn't there be another set of particles, infinitely smaller than the ones we interact with that make up microcosms we could never observe? Similarly going upward? Actually to add a point to that. We know that nature abhors a vacuum, even in empty space virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Wouldn't that same rule have to apply on the infinitely decreasing scales of the universe? I know we don't know the answer to any of these questions. I am more asking if there is any logical reason why this wouldn't be true.

Hello all, I spend a LOT of time learning random bits of science, math, etc. But this is my form of entertainment, not a hobby or profession. But that leaves tons of gaps. So I decided to finally start asking some of the weird questions I have in my head. I am sure some will be dumb or have obvious answers but whatever. So the main 2 that compelling me right now. First one is: If (and I know this is entirely impossible) I was able to pick a direction and start traveling BILLIONS of time the speed of light WITHOUT traveling backwards in time, (maybe through a warp funnel or something), and I was able to continue forever, at a rate of movement faster than the expansion of the universe. Again, I know it's not possible. Basically I am asking whats at the edge of the universe. Or does it fold on itself like a crazy klein bottle? My second question... I am not sure if this goes here or not. If you draw 4 boxes next to each other, 2 side by side and 2 just below also side by side (so they make one bigger box), all of the inner edges will be touching with no gaps. If you draw 4 hypothetical circles (they are not real and the lines that make up the circles have no dimensions), the edges of the circles will touch but they will leave diamond shaped gaps in between them. If you then draw a circle in that gap, it will create more smaller gaps around it. Continue this forever. Is there a moment when these hypothetical circles become points? I guess another way of asking, is there a smallest quantifiable amount of space?