forufes

one thing i know for sure, if i understood evolution more than an average person who asked me to explain it to him in a simplified manner, i wouldn't mind. and i did not imply intention, i'm just trying to have the story be told from an inner prospective, not from an observer's, and if it did imply intention, then please change it so it doesn't, my start is a suggested one, to get things going, nothing more. i don't know why people are getting all offended and hostile here:confused:

wow, you're right. can a mod transfer the OP to general discussion or any other sub forum he sees suitable. or we can just start with "life exists" and trace off humans, especially Mr.Ted..if it's possible. although combining it with abiogenesis and cosmology would be more comprehensive and fun...

i know that, inject the blood with radioactive substance, tell the person his mother has died, take some x-ray picture of the most lit parts in his brain...ta da, explained grief. ha ha. oddly, it has not, have you read more than the title of the link you gave? you can make a million study on smoking, but none will tell me how can people intentionally harm themselves...when they have evolved so much, with most developed brains and logic..even animals run from smoke.. and i thought it ws because of their free will. i'm familiar with that theory, although the article was interesting. but the theory means crap to non scientists, go tell a cook that he has no free will and tell me if he doesnt smack you with a pan. some scientists can't see life out of science, in the same way some artists can't see life without art, and how some religious people explain everything by their religion, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME..but this is a science forum, so of course science is best, go to a religion forum, you'll have the same answer for sure:rolleyes: so, can you tall me hoe science explains art? what is the mona lisa? a scientific answer please. lol that's the point; man keeps inventing. that was everything oneday. people ages from now will say:"if you take away X, you'd be stuck with science.. good luck with that";)

well, not only dummies, but kids, simple minded people, guys with ADHD, those who are lazy to research, and the sheer dumb. so i'd like to have a story in this thread, a story of Ted, ted was flung away as something or another in the big bang, and now after billions of years he's a human, we would like to have his biography here, Ted didn't mind, i hope you will be as generous to supply us with the details, in a manner a 10 year old can read and understand. also if the story can go on a fictional ground, but based on actual science, so it'll be easier to relate to it. and it would be better if the story was told small bit by bit, easier for you to tell, easier for us to read without getting lost; less possibility of getting lost for both of us, and more opportunities to interact and ask questions.. --------------------------------------- so, once upon a time ted was a clump of matter, something out of the periodic table, something that is unknown and didn't have a name, along with other similar clumps huddled together. one day they got bored and blew up in all directions...creating solar systems and planets....(?) am i correct so far? if yes, then what?

yup, makes the image clearer, though i still have a lot of missing parts, i mean you've answered the "how can we and monkeys coexist in the same age" but i still can't get to the "why"..why would they be different, why didn't they all become humans? i would understand if they were monkeys out of the movie "planet of apes", i.e reasonably as complex as we are..so once upon a time we went a way and they went one, and so we became different,but the problem is that evolution is a function of time,it's always happening,, verity is understandable, but this huge gap in complexity is not...it's like either all animals stop evolving at a certain point(which explains one celled creatures living till today), or they started late to humans,meaning they don't all have the same origin.. i'm real lost here, any clarifications? EXCELLENT example,i see your point, but my point is: north Americans are as different from their European origin as modern Europeans are, and even if they are not, the difference is way much closer than that between humans,monkeys, and their shared ancestor. so even though north Americans evolved from old Europeans, so did new Europeans. but relatively speaking,; even though humans evolved from their common ancestor.monkeys did not, again,relatively speaking.

is god a product of our evolution? a step in it? yes or no?

and that hasn't been decided yet? mmm.. we ARE more complex than them, you can't deny that..we are capable of tasks they can't even dream of.. WOW, take it easy, i'm not a bio student.. i'm taking it easy here, if you can't take it simple than leave me alone, if you all wanna talk in your half a line words i'll leave you alone too. i don't mind learning, you know.. it is a bliss:D

uh, o~kay... so...(uncomfortable silence)

lol, enlighten me.. we were monkeys A monkeys A evolved into humans. there were our buddies monkeys B.. they liked it how it was...(?) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedooooooops:embarass: so, that ansastor would be? neanderthals? why are they (monkeys) not as complex as we?

IMO it's either we evolved into believing in god, meaning it's better for us, or more exactly: it's important for our survival. or the big mac we evolved into liking is bad for us, bringing evolution's functionality into question; and hence it's inability to make us reach the complexity we have become OUT OF NOTHING.. which makes it fail..

but why are monkeys still alive then? how can they exist in the same time frame as us?

it saves them collecting the parts.. just in case... as for moloke's hypothesis, why make him disappear from sight if it's CGI? you can apply CGI even if the whole thing was continuous, would be a hard transition to pull off but possible.

a fresh philosophy graduate was having dinner with his father, and wanted to show off some of his "knowledge".. - "dad, you dare me i convince you this chicken in front of us is two, and not one?" . . . stares.. . - "well i'll take this and you have the other one"

what if you entered 9s in all slots and still found forms of life around? i don't know where i'll go, maybe go back to jesus and ask him if he was god..

love can't be explained by science, and so do emotions. smoking can't be explained by science, it is harmful, and people have brains to avoid it, yet they don't, which brings us to the third: free will, that's not explained by science. science is a field like any other, it's not superior in any way, except that this is its age, i wonder when it'll end..

i've bought one for about 20$, made in china of course. flies, but hard to control, the tiny thing is a spectacular knot of genius engineering, especially for being so affordable. and you've got the right idea with capacitors, so you have to charge it every 7 minutes or so.

simplify please. i wanna help but it seems i can't without at least 5 trips to wikipedia..

i hope somebody would clear this up..i visited both wolfram and wiki and got lost, but i'm interested in this mathematical field, it seems so complex and challenging. but soo unattainable.

aha, i see what you mean, like comparing a sword to a chain saw. so when penetrating the air, slenderness and spinning are the two factors to consider. designes with mixtures of different "shades" of each factor generates numerous possibilities. definitly worth of more research... the typical idea of "ahead" we have now is a cone head..i can't seem to find an innovative alternative which is also practical.. anyone else? how about a laser in the cone of the projectile? is hot air easier to penetrate or cold air? not to mention hot air will heat the cone, which is an already existing problem...idk how much more stabilized will they be? look at arrows fired from bows, are bullets considerably more straighter?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand hey, spinning DOES absorb some energy which would otherwise be used for propelling forward, right?

the vacuumed tube idea is marvelous, i wonder if it's applicable though and practical. how strong does the tube has to be to support itself? is the reduced drag worth the trouble of vacuuming the tube? but if it isn't too troublesome i think we will have what to win and nothing to lose. that went totally over my head, i'm only aware of the squelching at the end:D shaping it like a Frisbee is understandable, the shape will give better penetration and less friction. but why the spinning? don't mix the two,. when something spins while going achieving linear movement it will reach less further, because some of the energy is taken instead of propelling it further into spinning it. that is useful when you have excess energy which will be wasted if the projectile was not spun, bullets spin while flying, that what makes them destroy or penetrate their target, i think the kinetic energy transferred from the spinning of the bullet to the contacted surface is of a greater magnitude than that transferred by the bullet ramming the surface. of course i might be wrong, this is my personal analysis. also, i think the thing with hand thrown things is that when designed, they know the human hand will spin the thrown obgect no matter what, so they actually include it in their design in a way the thrower spins it by his will; hence controlling the spin and the thrown thing flies better, instead of designing the thrown object while neglecting the human hand's slight spin which will screw the whole flight path of the thrown object. frisbees, balls, boomerangs are thrown by hand, spinning is part fo their flight system. toy rockets and planes are usually launched from a rubber launcher which ensures linearity. wow, lol, you're brain certainly works in a strange way. yup you're right in what you said.. but i think the problem is that a rocket is the cannon and the projectile. a cannon should have tremendous power, and the projectile would be better light. usually tremendous power gains more weight,so having them together will mean you have to compromise one for the other, and that's usually achieved through a very complex balance, but when they're separated you can go to extremes more freely and be as clumsy as you want, i look at it like this; dig a big hole, fill it to the rim with dynamite, cover it and link it to a long tube welded well to the underground bunker, throw in a slug of titanium, light the fuse....and pray it doesn't blow YOU to outer space:D which is i think where your force field jumps in:-p

oohhh:eek: i seeee.. so simply, explosives burn air too quickly for the heat to expand it, so, it has to produce it's own gas to expand.. fuels on the other side don't swallow up air so quickly, which has time to absorb the heat and expand on its leisure, giving off thrust. but in reality as you said both expanding of existing gasses and production of new ones is present, the speed or rate of the chemical reaction is what determines which to be neglected. have i gotten it right? (um, what if the surrounding gasses were not ones needed for the chemical reacton i.e not burnable, but expandable?) but why did gun powder stay used in explosives? if the new liquid fuels were better? i mean, if one method was discovered to be better than the old one and replaced it as a fuel, why not as an explosive too? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged i guess that was kinda answered before.. but still

escape velocity? you mean to orbit the earth or go straight up? and the length, can't you make up for that with a bigger force or more efficient firing system? is that length fixed? so the shockwave disrupt the ground which disrupts the cannon which disrupts the projectile, right? so we should scratch anything going near mach? any absorbing or dampening systems or something? like a rollocoaster with an eject seat? iNteResTInG please elaborate why is that a problem? no humans on board. or are you referring to the immense length required for the cannon, the mach limit, or some other easons? the spinning method is definitly an excellent alternative, avoiding the problems mentioned earlier, but i think it'll be more complex to build. but why shape it like a frisbee? what do you gain from it spinning? wow, you made the calculations seem very easy.. now how to administer the acceleration? 1-magnetic(rail gun) 2-chemical(explosives-traditional cannon) 3-electrical(for the revolving mechanical arm?) 4-??? as for the "track": 1-erected shaft;) 2-underground tunnel. 3-mechanical arm. 4-??? i want to know the difference between those two...one is vertical the other is a bit tilted, otherwise they're identical, right?

exactly. so which would generate more thrust (buoyancy). it seems as you mention afterwards: and yes, it needs a lot of calculations to determine which is better, filling it with gas is easy to evaluate, but vacuum would depend on the exact method you use to support it. so maybe gas is just better so, what would the pressure of the hydrogen inside the balloon be? or are you saying to hae the balloon expand so the hydrogen inside changes with the one outside? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT!! i thought, then the balloon filled with vacuum should have a thrust infinite times that of a hydrogen balloon.. then you said true vacuum isn't attainable, then the fact of density.. so i'm wrong, it won't work? aaaagh, you're a geniuse, i literally felt tha being absorbed by my brain.. i'm talking about the relation of surface area to mass density, and i just relized that this is what seemed useless and impractical when we studied it..: A LAMINA! i'll take note of this relation, thanks a lot. WOW, i was thinking of that too.. the answer IMO is: QUICKLY! i was looking for ways to liquidize the hydrogen before the balloon starts gaining relevant speed downwards.. if not liquidize, then any other chemical reaction, or chain of reactions, with chemicals of small size taken overboard, which result in the hydrogen usable as fuel..it doesn't have to be pure, it an be a compound with something else, as long as it burns or expands or can be used to go UP. that's why i was thinking of using the hydrogen as fuel when the balloon floats in the atmosphere. the balloon will keep going up because of the lower density inside compared to outside. the atmosphere density decreases as we go up, so the balloon will reach a point where the two densities are equal, and reach a stop. there i propose we start the mechanism of using the hydrogen for fuel. um people, an important question: how high will that be? and how far is it from "space"? AND blow up the balloon in a HUGE fireball to give the rocket a head start..what do you say?