steevey

Dreaming is completely rational because your cycling through information specific to you and using the imaginative capabilities to form images you can understand. There's no external or internal anything, there's just this one thing thats the universe where all visible things are made up of this stuff called matter. All the atoms that are in your brain allowing you to dream were once apart of other things, such as living things, the ground, a meteorite, and even stars.

Position is a term which is relative to a specific object or region. You can say "I would like to be in this place (relative to the Earth) 100 years from now" and still be in a defined location since Earth itself will still be Earth.

Your brain is just cycling through memories and other info. Not really anything special about dreams. When your dreaming, your probably sleeping in bed.

Thanks swan, THERES some actual evidence. Everything D H posted only stated interactions between photons and other matter or particles with mass.

We haven't figured out how to do that since some chemicals are broken down in the process and there isn't a known way to restart everything, such as the cell cycle and replication of DNA, motor functions, consciousness, or even a beating heart which can sustain itself.

I thought you knew what I was saying, and it turns out you didn't and you were being condescending. Ok. here is as simple as I can make it: JUST TWO AND ONLY TWO PHOTONS COLLIDING WITH NO INTERACTION WITH ANY PIECE OF MATTER IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE does not produce matter is what I'm saying.

How come lower energy photons don't form high mass pieces of matter when they collide? And why can't I find a single shred of evidence anywhere other than people from this site that this phenomena occurs?

Dude, that's what I was arguing against, there's no proof for that anywhere that I can find. You honestly didn't know that when I kept emphasizing "two photons" and "only two photons" that I meant two photons on their own without any other matter? Yeah of course photons can create matter when they hit matter like a nucleus. THAT can produce an electron position pair. However, the statement that only two photons can create matter still isn't proven. Just so you can make sure if you even bothered to read this much of my post: I already knew that when high energy photons hit a *NUCLEUS*, that they can produce matter and anti-matter. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO PROOF KNOWN TO ME that in a collision of JUST two photons without ANY other matter, that matter is created from the collision of JUST those two photons regardless of how powerful the photons are. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Your arguing just to seem smart and not to actually iron out true information?

Going into the future requires constant units of time to count at a faster rate than their standard constant duration. This does not happen every day. Every day, you measure things in seconds, and you constantly measure things only in the terms of seconds, or hours, or minutes, the duration of which is always the same throughout the day. A day never counts faster than a day, an hour never counts faster than an hour. We know because of logic and observation.

You can't rewrite your memory. Your brain remembers whatever it remembers, which typically is things that occur every day or things that are useful to you. Changing a memory doesn't have anything to do with the universe. The memory contains specific arrays of chemicals and atoms in your brain. There was matter here before there was anything to have a memory, so memory shouldn't effect anything anyway. Light isn't really even a memory, it's just a photon with a specific wavelength and energy.

So what if the word gamma occurs? Those sites state a collision between a "gamma" ray photon and a NUCLEUS. Not only that, I never said I don't understand the process, I said there isn't enough evidence to back up how it works on this topic. Maybe there is proof somewhere, but it doesn't matter unless you find it. This theory shouldn't be considered scientific consensus on site nor has it been in the real world.

The problem with the fact that you wrote it is the fact that I can't find and I guess you can't find any proof to back up the mechanism that powers this version of it. It can't be scientific consensus if there's no proof for the way it occurs. http://en.wikipedia....ility_supernova http://www.wisegeek....y-supernova.htm Nothing about photon-photon collisions. The evidence for a pair instability nova in general doesn't seem to be so good either. There is no way this is scientific consensus and that's why I point out logical fallacies. If it's something that's been proven but there isn't an explanation, like things in quantum mechanics, you can't really argue with that and shouldn't with those things since they are still proven to happen. But this, this is something you can argue against existing. If there isn't enough evidence to prove this exists, you shouldn't bother telling people it's a real thing. The mass of a black hole is only a little bit more massive than an electron... Last I heard an electron has a mass of something like 10^-32 kilograms, and a star like the sun has like 10^12(+ or - a power or two) kilograms. That statement doesn't make sense to me because of that.

Multiple planes of existence wouldn't arise from conceivably itself. There might be a chance of other planes of existence because all matter is waves. They are waves of existence which extend indefinitely to every possible point. What the means though, is only the position of matter as well as some properties such as the specific charge and spin and etc of specific particles varies. Even at this point though, there is no possible way of telling if there are other planes because whenever matter is observed or measured in any way, the property of being a wave of possibilities becomes determined and therefore only assumes a single point. It's possible what matter is determined from infinite points of view, making all universes different patterns of the same matter, and wherever matter specifically is in one plane of existence, it can't be in another (or the existence of a particle would overlap itself and cancel out), thus making every plane of existance different. The physics of every plane of existence would not be different, it would be the same. It's just that there would be different positions and quantized values for properties of particles since everything would still be from the same matter which follows specific physics and has specific values.

So your saying there can't possibly be anything smaller than an electron? Cause there's a lot of theories containing particle smaller than an electron. What about the singularity of a black hole, which really isn't even a theory? Still, never says only two photons make matter, its always a photon and a nucleus or a photon and some other piece of matter. Threshold energy doesn't really help this at all either. Why don't you find a page that says something like "when two single high energy photons collide with just each other (and not with anything else at all in any way), an electron pair is created" because I can't find one anywhere.

We don't actually know space itself is expanding and we aren't 100% sure there's a center, and the reason is from the fact that through the observations of Hubble and other telescopes, the center of the universe is through observable evidence, everywhere. All matter is moving away from all other matter in a way so that no matter what piece of matter you look at, there's always things expanding away from it. In every single direction you look, there's both old and young galaxies expanding away from every other galaxy. The center of the universe is either everywhere or nowhere.

Get a steel rod, wrap copper wire around it as much as you possibly can, then run a strong electrical current through it. That should be a pretty powerful magnet. Maybe not from 5-10 feet, but some electro-magnets can pick up things like fire trucks and small buildings.

When the fabric of space get's warped like in a worm hole? Not that wormholes exist, but that's basically what the paper is doing. It's curving a plane to make two separate points the same point, making the distance between them 0. As predicted by quantum mechanics, the true distance between two objects is 0, otherwise entanglement would not be able to occur (which it does and has been proven to exist). Real experiments have been done where entangled particles have been separated by over 100 kilometers and the properties of one particle as well as the determination of the two particles responded instantaneously, proving distance does not effect entanglement at all. How could that happen though unless distance wasn't really there?

Time travel can't be possible as it would not only be a paradox, but also assume that for no apparent reason, the universe is recording every event. I guess if we were in some giant computer it would be possible, but you'd have to re-arrange every atom in the universe into a position and state it occupied before. Even then, you, the time traveler, would have to be unaware of anything. It also violates the conservation of matter and energy if everything isn't re-arranged. If you went back in time and saw yourself, then there would be infinite yous going back in time in the future, and for that to happen, matter would have to somehow get created.

1. Low, but so what? Why does that amount matter? Why wouldn't it create smaller pieces of matter smaller than electrons if it was two flashlights? 2. Yeah I've googled it a bunch of times and didn't find anything on photons colliding and creating matter. The only things I've found is that physicists don't really know what happens when photons collide or that the photons don't really interact or scatter at all when they collide. They might just create a different photon or equalibraite or something like that. But also, how does m=E/c^2 happen with two photons colliding? Because E/c^2 is what's required to make matter from energy, at least according to Einstein.

But the "lower energy level" doesn't seem to fit the electron configuration of any of the other bonds.

How come two flashlights pointed at each other won't create matter? And why haven't places like the Fermi lab done this to more accurately study what particles matter is made of? Because if you can create electrons from a couple pieces of pure energy (which I still don't get how), I think that would really tell us something about the anatomy of an electron. But I can't find any reports anywhere, whether it be in books or on the internet about documented experiments using high energy photons to create matter.

What about in an ionic bond? Also also, why does the electron occupy a low region for n between C-H, but all the covalent bonds in these occupy high regions?

That's why I said "it doesn't make sense" and not "it's wrong". But... ****m=E/c^2**** How does that happen with two photons colliding? Also, so if I point two high energy laser beams at each other, I should get a lot of matter being created right? Because those would be very powerful beams with many photons, and it only takes two photons to create solid matter, so if there's 10^20 photons colliding every second, I should be creating matter equal to half that every second. So why hasn't anyone ever taken advantage of this property of photons?

The fabric of "space", as far as evidence shows, is a purely mathematical representation. The only reason why we have that is so we can more easily see the patterns of how gravity acts. That's not to say that that's how the universe actually works. It isn't even that space would be expanding, it's that the position of matter is changing in a way that much matter is moving away from much other matter. Actually, we know they are correct because that's how they are defined. An inch is defined as a certain amount of distance, therefore in something containing a multiple of that singular distance, all the same integers of an inch are equivalent. It's true there can be an infinitesimal way to measure distance, but mathematics accurately describes observable things using units of distance. But with space, even if it doesn't exist, the properties of distance still apply in classical mechanics.