toastywombel

Well since it is believed that black holes release radiation, because they separate anti-particle and particle pairs. When the black hole absorbs an anti-particle pair it is believed that it decreases its mass, like adding a negative 1 to a positive 10. I think they would annihilate each other. But another problem is how would they ever approach each other. It seems that you are assuming that an anti-matter black hole could even form, but how? they have negative mass don't they? Even if anti-matter was formed into a singularity it would be a collection of negative mass. Negative mass does not create gravity does it?

It does effect objects down to the molecular energy, it is minimal but it is still there. The other forces do overpower it, but the cosmological constants effect on the surface of the earth has been measured and it was 0.(with 29 zeros)1 percent the force of the gravitational pull of earth. It has an effect even though its minimal. Furthermore If the galaxies are fixed in space how come the earth is moving away from the sun, and the planets are moving away from the sun?

Wow, I see how I misunderstood the expansion of the Universe. However I still have a question. If the whole Universe was expanding down to the molecular level, because the cosmological constant does effect objects down to the molecular level, how would we know?

Haha have any of you guys played Deus Ex? the original one not the sequel, which was terrible compared to the original. It is an amazing video game with a great story line which involves social issues caused by human augmentation.

I see I see, but its seems like somewhat of a stretch. Good points though

How would it be possible to test for this disease accurately with fossils? I agree another ridiculous creationist claim.

-The moon is still moving away from the earth even if its minuscule. -You said all stars in our galaxy are gravitationally bound. Stars release energy, this energy released causes their mass to become less and less over time. Less mass causes weaker gravitational force. This makes your statement that all the stars in our galaxy being gravitationally bound false. The force of gravity is weakening as time progresses. Stephen Hawking explains this in his books Brief History of Time, and Universe in a Nutshell. Another note every year the Earth and the Sun move 15 centimeters apart! Check out this link. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html Furthermore, Gregory Laughlin of NASA, Fred Adams of the University of Michigan, and Don Korycansky of the University of Santa Cruz have recently released a paper in the journal, "Astrophysics and Space Science," in which they claim that modifying the Earth's orbit is not only "alarmingly feasible," but that it may eventually prove necessary in order to keep the life on our planet safe. They make this point based on the fact that the Earth is moving away from the Sun. Finally have you heard of Hubble's Law? This is from Wikipedia "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us.[1] The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[2] after nearly a decade of observations. The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[3] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model." Note: not a theory, but a law Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFinally one more point if the Universe was not expanding apart, the wavelength of the light from stars in the night sky would not be stretched. This would cause the stars to appear as bright to someone on earth, as they are on the surface of one of these stars. (Olbers' Paradox)

Yeah it is amazing that this technology is out and is possible. I totally agree there are many good applications of transhumanism, but I am glad we can agree that it opens the door for abuse, but then again all technology does to some degree. And immortality could be possible if certain technologies were achieved such as a computer that could simulate the brain, and expand upon it. One may be able to effectively copy their consciousness to this type of computing system. If a computer of such were designed it would most likely be based off of quantum computing. This would allow you to have thoughts traveling across your mind (now being a computer) at the speed of light or faster, as opposed to the normal human brain in which thoughts travel across one's mind as electrical signals at about 200 mph. In conclusion, time stops for an observer traveling at the speed of light according to the theory of relativity, thus making it possible for one to have an infinite amount of thoughts in any given time, thus making one immortal for all practical purposes because time would not be a limitation.

Actually Cu(OH)2 is mildly amphoteric! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_hydroxide. But not regular Cu. http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms/Chem_Cu.html Check out these this link too, if you scroll down to the section there is discussion about sodium curprate solutions which are more amphoteric than carbonate!

Interesting points, and you have a good case. There is a problem with your argument though. You are arguing that trans humanism is "right". What is right? You have left that undefined. So all the arguments you have made for trans humanism are not comparable to your moral standard but to the readers. This can weaken your argument. Furthermore, it is important to ask the question. What is the goal? Immortality? I don't know how I would feel about that, is the mind of a man meant to be immortal. Also how would these advancements or augmentations be implemented? Would they government subsidize certain upgrades to everyone which is fair? Or would it be privatized? If it were privatized, augmentations would be very expensive and most likely only attainable by the wealthy. There could be billionaire tycoons who make themselves "invincible" because they can afford it. Imagine the class warfare issues? How would you feel if the rich had an augmented brain and were smarter than us all. And no matter how hard we study we could not be smarter than them. Wealth would be super-intelligence. I think that is wrong. Interesting points, and this is an interesting debate of thought. I don't think most of the retaliation to this comes from religion. I am an agnostic and I disagree strongly with most all religious organizations/corporations, but even I am nervous about human upgrading. The upgrades offer great possibilities, but who would get the upgrades? Whoever had them would ultimately have the most power. Man is easily corrupted by power. It would be nice to believe our lives could be "perfect", but then we would be god. I don't know if our society is ready for that. "If there were no God it would be necessary to create him." -Voltaire

Yes everything is moving apart, the moon moves an average of 2 cm a year away from us. The planets are moving apart as well. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged A faster of light communications system is possible through "quantum twins". These are subatomic particles that have been created have strange properties, if you force one to go up, no matter how far away it is (as far as we can measure) its twin will mimic its path. This has been observed! It would provide a faster-than-light communication method. But like you said it would be impossible to get something there that could communicate back to us. And even if we were able to send something through a worm whole and its alive, its hard to believe it would be alive afterwards haha Good Points

Well the Universe is expanding and actually the objects farther away from us are moving away from us faster than objects more near to our planet. We know this because the light coming from nearly all the stars in the night sky tends to be in the red section of the light spectrum. This doesn't mean they are actually red it just means they travel in elongated waves. We can use this to determine the velocity of the distant bodies. Commenting on the initial question, mathematically space and time must be finite. Why? because if time has been going on for infinity then there would of been an infinite amount of time before we existed, thus making our existence impossible. And remember space and time are connected. New theories in quantum physics paint the universe as having eleven dimensions, The reason we live in the third dimension? There seems to be a direct client-server relationship between conciseness and reality. And at some level our minds seem to communicate with reality to change how it shows itself to us. Since we are limited to the 3 dimensions and linear time line the Universe may seem like its infinite, but its because were limited in our dimensions. It would be like being a two dimensional object moving around a sphere. The space you would be moving in is finite but it has no boundaries. That may be what our Universe is like, finite but without boundaries. Many of these theories are based in hard fact. Quantum Mechanics is very effective at determining the probabilities of particle movements and its what nearly all computer processing is based off of.