Sayonara

This has all the hallmarks of homework...

Then I guess the question is: is that a reply to me or to the OP?

Duplicate thread closed. I have left one thread open in the forum where I think you have the best chance of getting a useful reply.

And yet the laws governing the universe only apply within the universe, so there is no reason to impose them on the origin of said universe. Claiming they can't be applied to the origin of the universe is approaching strawman.

I know, what you said was: Here you are trying to make the conversion of the particles to energy equivalent in thermodynamic terms to the state matter reaches at absolute zero, and they are simply not the same thing. From the Wiki page, "at absolute zero all molecular motion does not cease but does not have enough energy for transference to other systems, it is therefore correct to say that at 0 kelvin molecular energy is minimal." That clearly rules out a system where high-temperature matter is converted to energy in a single release. Your brief "energy-free zone" which you claim results from that conversion, even if it existed, would not be a part of the system anyway.

czimborbryan, you are misapplying well-defined physical terms, and misunderstanding well-documented physical processes. As in your other threads it appears that you have a basic understanding of some popular terms and concepts, but for the purposes of applying them to your own ideas you seem to have nowhere near enough of a grasp of the fundamental principles that underpin them all. At the very very very least, you really need to read around the subjects in a great deal more depth before you start trying to make an argument for a hypothesis. As far as this thread goes, no. Even if particles could be said to be stopped (as opposed to converted) when they get "too hot", the definition of absolute zero is specific to the point of negating your proposal.

You have already said that your laziness or disinterest is preventing you from doing any of the work necessary to expand your ideas (i.e. the maths), so you won't get very far by alienating the only SFN maths expert who is trying to help you develop your approach. You need to get away from broaching ideas with the words "I think" or "I believe", and try and get to a position where you can instead say "my knowledge of physics leads me to hypothesise mechanism X, and by calculation I predict outcome Y, which can be demonstrated experimentally using method Z". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged While I am not in any way criticising your willingness to learn, I suspect you will find that relativity is too complex and subtle for "bullet point learning" to be of much use in any consideration of gravitational mechanisms. As always, however, Wikipedia is a good place to start for an introduction to such topics. I am fairly certain other members have good links to more easily-absorbed sites.

Sweet: pineapple and fudge. Savoury: bacon and egg.

By Your Command.

The thing is with arguments involving Christians is that they are often quite satisfied falling back on "God did it", despite any objections you might have to that line of reasoning. So you may find it just as frustrating even if you have a good knowledge of the evolutionary principles they're arguing against.

From that article: It works on the level of a shrink-wrapped bucket of bricks, as long as they are not approaching c or being teleported. On the level of the whole universe though I don't think it can be applied. Swansont will be able to confirm/correct.

There is no Law of Conservation of Matter - that is a common mistake. There is only conservation of energy.

But Mokele is really really old so he knew what you meant.

Nonsense, the results of this poll are as pure as the driven snow.

Imagine how SHOCKED we would all be to find out that the starter of this thread was a ROBOT!

I don't know what you're talking about.

I imagine American Carol as being the Carol with the least economical car.

No. Whether or not a person or animal reproduces at some arbitrary point in its life has absolutely nothing to do with its dominant sexuality.

I don't think you have put a lot of thought into that.

Be assured that threads in the P&S Forum get a lot of attention, especially threads pertaining to physics questions.

"I think" doesn't cut it. You need to propose a mechanism and make specific mathematical predictions which that mechanism should produce. These predictions obviously need to be commensurate with observed reality.

"I think" doesn't cut it. You need to propose a mechanism and make specific mathematical predictions which that mechanism should produce. These predictions obviously need to be commensurate with observed reality.

Not just ammo but also flammables and lots of dry wood. When the horde builds up outside the stone walls it is cheaper to burn them off rather than waste bullets.

I am closing this thread for (a) staff review and (b) for people to cool off a bit.

We should be able to use that against them. In all the 34,908 zombie movies so far, why has nobody ever lured the entire z-population into the crushing depths of the ocean?