Radical Edward

I don't think it's so much an opportunity, than no real driving force. a whale would only develop gills if each stage of quasi-gilled-whale had some sort of evolutionary advantage overa whale with lungs, and seeing as whales, dolphins (and humans- though I never knew this until very recently) have certain physiological responses which facilitate deep diving, I can't really see any quasi-gills having any significant advantage and driving a whale to evolve gills. incidentally, some people do have little structures on their nexks which some people think might be gill remnants. they aren't much cop though, except they are good at getting infected.

I'm not saying they can't be split, I'm saying that your logical deduction that they have mass and volume therefore can be split is incorrect. It does not nescessarily follow that something can be split, just because it has mass and volume.

no I can't, but then I would't say they can't be split.

sorry, but your conclusion does not nescessarily follow unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

uneducated people should jsut do what they are told, after all, educated people know best. being educated.

perhaps, in essence current QM will be a simplification, or set of results of whatever the true theory is... the problem then goes back to an old thread I started about Godels theorem, could it be that any proof of how things work is actually forbidden

what's the difference between a virus and a worm then?

are you implying the whole of QM is going to need a rehash?

What you said doesn't annoy me at all, why should it?

when one looks at quantum and classical logic, there are a number of notable differences, and the two don't really seem to match. does anyone have any thoughts on why, and what the problems are with existing theory?

I'm not no... they have this 'exponential speed gain' thing and some deflection.... whichever, it's all bollocks.

I'll just answer the complex system bit for now: yes it does, there are a number of effects that may occur, for example the emission patterns of molecules are much different to the emission patterns of lone atoms, as some of the electrons are tied up in atomic bonds etc. usually the emissions from molecular bonds are very broad band, and not close to the emissions that would exist in the atoms on their own. these emissions come from extra degrees of freedom that exist within the molecule, such as rotational and vibrational modes, which carry their own characteristic excitation energies. furthermore you can get exiplex interactions as well, between excited states of atoms (and molecules) with further add to the mix of complexity, as can be seen in Noble gas lasers such as KrFl lasers.

since when did electrons stop being fundamental particles? I haven't heard about that.

faf, you haven't seen the explanation they give..... furthermore, you don't want to.

I'm not saying that.... those nutters are... actually as yet I haven't found a single physically accurate statement. I think I'll give up.

this is comedy: "Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are involved in the phenomenon called light." and this displays absolutely no knowledge of what red shift is: This should be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum. see what else you can find on this site, a treasuretrove of bollocks.

are you going to reply to me adam, or not?

ow that site makes my brain hurt.

Adam... will you answer my damn points?

It's not too bad if it's pretty rarefied, like the gases in JET and the proposed ITER

quantum chaos... not the easiest thing in the world by a long stretch. essentially what you would be looking at is the border between the quantum and classical world, something that has been occupying alot of very clever people for a long time.

Ozman : I see what you're asking, and roughly speaking, you are right, a body as complex as a star does alter the spectra of the emissions, however, this is in fact a good thing: such things as magnetic fields and even pressure will change the pure spectra of an element, and by looking at the differences between the raw spectar and the adjsuted one, we can see the conditions inside the star - this is one method that can be used to test the overall properties of the star itself. Furthermore, when we consider more complex elements, and arrangements of elements, such as crystalline silicon, it is this variation in the energy levels of the atoms that actually give the material it's properties, giving energy bands, with much larger linewidths instead of the narrow spectral widths of a pure element.

equations? there are an awful lot of them... there are also additional complexities due to pauli exclusion principle and so on.. I did a three month course on atomic physics, and we barely scratched the surface of it, proving the spectra of only a couple of elements, hydrogen and helium.

he's probably thinking 'is our children being educated'

by time you see this thing, there would be no point covering it up