Raider5678

I heard about wormholes, I get they are shortcuts through spacetime, they are generally too unstable to use, and that they may be able to travel through time. What I don't understand is why they randomly punch holes in space time and how they do it. Is it simply a large amount of energy that creates them or some kind of gravitational anomaly? Another question is what happens if you're inside the wormhole when it collapse? Since matter can't be destroyed do you enter some kind of dimension we never thought of or do you just instantly get shot out the way you came? And how would someone make it stable or hasn't that been figured out yet? Thanks in advance

Can I simply state that cows are dumb? I work on a small farm that has 3 cows, and they repeatedly walk into an electric fence trying to get through it. We had to make it electric because the cows would go out. If cows can't even learn the most primal of instincts, which is don't do something that hurts, then it can't survive in the wild. Additionally not using animals as livestock would require us to increase farming, which takes away the land they need for food, starving them to death. To prove you are able to understand the simplistic logic, explain how we wouldn't kill more animals that way. And finally let's pretend the wrinkles in your plan don't magically work themselves out, and that everyone in the world doesn't bow down to your idea of ethical living. People would work harder to stop world hunger before they worked to get rid of a huge portion of food. In your mind: Animals > Humans

Yes this helps a lot, thanks! I had to read it a few times, and work out the logic behind the meaning, but I eventually understood most of it. I learned what the degrees of freedom is, what generalized dimensions are, what constraints are, and that I have been forgetting to divided the mass in half before multiplying the speed when calculating kinetic energy. The only thing I didn't understand fully is what properties are, can you explain that a little bit better? Not that you didn't explain it very well the first time, but I'm sadly not scientifically minded enough to understand it. Or smart enough to understand it if it doesn't have to do with science. Thanks! P.S. I removed most of his post if you can't figure out what the quote means.

Thank you! Thank You! This helps a lot!

Wow, that's cool.

I am currently in 7th grade(in the United States) and I am tackling Algebra 1, if you guys can just post some tips I should keep in my head while I am doing it so I don't go off track and teach myself the wrong way. I did that once and had to relearn a large portion of science when we got to it in school because I learned it wrong. In a note I am teaching it to myself, that's how I learned it wrong. Although I don't personally have much hope for common core math. Thanks!

My Bad, I understand that now, in fact I understood that before this post. Thanks for the input!

I probably don't understand exactly what he said to the depth that he understands it, but I understand enough of it that I can apply it to what I'm thinking. Kind of like drawing a stick figure to represent a human. Not exactly the same, but gives you the basic concept of what we look like. By basic I mean really basic. So the 4th dimension is seeing in 3D, which makes me think of every part of my body put into a pixel "cube" and then all the cubes spread out, allowing the person seeing in 3D to see what is inside me. That's the way I visualise a 4D person would be seeing, although I'm fairly certain nobody does. Additionally, a machine that could see in 3D would be a huge impact for many things. Imagine a medical machine that could see if the heart's pumping or not, where theres internal bleeding, see a collapsed lung. That would be a huge scientific improvement too.

Phenomenologically. That's a word that would impress people if you casually dropped it into a conversation. But it's about the study of conscious structures from the first person point of view so that might be a little difficult. As for string theory, that is probably the most complicated theory I have ever read about. But it makes sense once you know what it is, but either way if we could find a way to "cut" one of the strings, what do you think would happen? Not that they are a physical thing that could be cut though.

I was reading a wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth) that said that gravity at the equator is weaker then gravity at the poles for a few reasons. First off the poles are flatter than the rest of the planet, meaning you're closer to the center of the earth, hence more gravity. The reason that they are flatter is because the earth is spinning, and the centrifugal force (if your into puzzle boxes: http://www.yot.com/ it involves centrifugal force) is making the equator bulge out. This bulge leads to our next reason the gravity is weaker. SInce you are farther from the center of gravity the gravity is weaker there, and since the planet is spinning the centrifugal force also decreases the gravitational pull on you. Now my question is how fast would the earth have to be spinning to cancel out gravity at the equator, or would it simple turn into a flat disk before the gravity canceled out. And if so, are there any known cases of a planet spinning so fast it's a flat disk without it flying apart?

I'm thinking this is the reason your title above your name is Genius. Anyway, thanks for the reply! The hypercube is something I don't understand how moving 90 degrees will get to, it looks more like a 135 degree angle to me. But then its also related to time because its moving, placing it into the 4th dimension. Nice explanation! Hence a new theory that works like the old one and doesn't break down when you reach the anomaly is wanted. To anyone working on a new theory make sure it tackles this!

I have heard alot about the different dimensions, I understand 1D, 2D, 3D, but 4D and 5D are a little confusing to me. Time is supposedly a dimension because you CAN travel through it given the right conditions(I.e gravity anomaly) But the 5th dimension is completely out of my understanding. I have read that there are 10 dimensions (http://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/) but I think that may be just a little bit leaning towards a theory rather then fact. If someone can explain what the dimensions are and how they work that would be nice. Thanks! P.S. I know I am going to take some heat about the gravity anomaly but if I do take heat for it at least I'll learn what the proper reference to it is.

A clever joke? Biggest prank ever. Well, thanks for the comments!

The voynich manuscript nobody can decipher. It's a completely new language that nobody can figure out because it has no known base, making it next to impossible to "decode." If somebody made one that they knew how to read, and taught a few key people to read it, then it would be the world's most effective code for sending messages. Now I know that if people are involved it's bound to fail sooner or later. As time goes on somebody will be bribed and create a key or something, but if you can make one, it's entirely possible to make another. A code like this would be extremely useful, but I don't think anyone could make one. Anybody can come up with random letters forming words, and simple grammar, but making a complex grammar system like english would be extremely complicated in my opinion.

Alright, first thing I'm going to say is that I got this from a book. The book is called Artemis Fowl: The Eternity Code. By Eoin Colfer I thought I should get that out of the way before someone says I got this from a book and it goes off topic. Now, inside the book a kid creates a code based off of no language. In other words, a completely new language that no one could decipher without a key of some kind. My question is if this code is entirely possible or if it's impossible to create. As far as I know if someone tried to make one their subconscious might make it too alike to a certain language, but that's just a guess. This is all speculation, and I'm just wondering if people think such a code is possible. Thanks

This would be an interesting theory, perhaps the "plug" is gone and that's where all the dark matter is going.... Either way, they are right about thinking outside the box. The only time to do that is in the hypothesis stage, and even then its not always the best idea. Once you pass that you start to look for evidence, and boom. It supports a few things, but it contradicts everything else, and it's clearly a wrong theory. Also, newtons basic laws have been standing for a long time, and no one has ever proved them wrong. I also know that this discussion was finished a while ago but I like reading old topics.

I would suggest typing out most of the words, and making computerized tables. They could hold all the information and it would be clearer and easier to understand. As for the computer I don't understand it, except your running off calculations off of irrational numbers that never end nor repeat, resulting in a computer. Good luck!

Ok I get it, the closer you are to the center of the mass the higher the gravity is, since the density of black holes is as dense as it can get, the object is really small, allowing things to get way closer to the center of the gravity. The event horizon is the distance from the center that the gravity is so high, any light that hits the event horizon enters a gravitational pull way too powerful to escape, hence the black hole is the distance from the center that light can't escape from, therefore making it black. Ok, this coupled with the other posts completely work together and answer my question. Thanks!

Ok, that makes sense. But why does light get caught in a black hole?

Ok thanks, that helps a lot. Right, hand waving argument. Not quite sure what it is but I'm guessing I did something wrong here. Either way the statement I made earlier was pretty slack, but the 1/4M equation I can't figure out. A black Holes mass, divided by 4, is a black hole's gravity if it's a non-rotating black hole. The mass would be measured in the appropriate units such as kilograms and grams? So a 1000 kilogram black hole, would have 250 gravity. I'm not sure what the appropriate unit for the 250 gravity would be, but if you could explain the equation a little better that would help. Thanks for the meters part though! Thanks, the universal gravitational constant is a lot easier if you know what the variables are. So the bigger something is, the less density is required to collapse in on itself if I am understanding this correctly. Is that correct? Ok now, why does a black hole have more gravity than its previous counter part that collapsed in on itself?

Ok, while reading about the curvature about space time, black holes, and gravity, I came across a formula that tells you how small something has to be to become a black hole. Since a black hole has a huge amount of gravity at the event horizon, I came to the conclusion that perhaps gravity changes as density increases. The formula is as follows: R=(2GM)/(c^2) This means that you can calculate how small something has to be to become a black hole by "doubling the object's mass, multiplying it by the universal gravitational constant, and dividing the entire thing by the speed of light squared" This is a quote from the website http://io9.gizmodo.com/5974372/at-what-point-would-the-earth-become-a-black-hole I don't know how reliable this website is but the formula seems pretty sound and other people go with it so I trust it enough. Unless it's not a trustworthy site. This formula may also seem pretty easy to figure out, but the universal gravitational constant is this: 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 10 to the -11 power is a really tiny number, negative 1 trillion if I did my math correct. But then again I might not have because I'm only in 7th grade. Either way m3 I have no idea what it stands for, nor kg, or s. Mass, kilograms, and something else is my best guess. If someone could please explain if density does modify gravity, and if you could explain the formula that would be great! Thanks.