steevey

Ozone helps protect against powerful ultraviolet rays which a complete lack of would have killed any nascent life. But otherwise just any surplus of air helps control the overall temperature around the surface of the planet. That's why on the moon which has no atmosphere, you could be buring hot on one side of your body and freezing on the other side.

Mathematics is just the label to distinguished patterns and logic. Nature was already here using specific patterns to create things before we existed, and we happened to have recognized those patterns and labeled them accordingly. Mathematics itself is just the recognition of those patterns in nature. Those patterns are their own things though and are the result of DNA and all that stuff.

Except, how do you know that?

So my arm is holding up the ball, and its putting a certain amount of force into the bottom of the ball in order to resist Earth's gravity. But, what if I were on a place holding my arm out and I was up 30,000 feet in the air? You could point out the potential energy of the plane, but the plane isn't holding up the ball, my arm still is. Or What if some random piece of ice suddenly started falling towards the Earth and hit the ground? It's been in the vacuum of space for a while and hasn't been gaining much energy.

What happens is you have something that creates a powerful shock wave, or a sort of solid pillar of water from something like an Earth quake. As the same singular wave approaches the coast, the water it carries gets forced upwards by the fact that the coast is also slanting upwards as it travels along more of the coast. So the shape of the island doesn't really matter, its more of how tall it reaches at the coast and how powerful the shock waves is.

What if an object was in perpetual orbit around something?

Herbivores are muscular than carnivores only in some aspects. Generally, its the back leg muscles which are often used to make powerful jolts to escape predators. There's also things such as climbing and reaching which some herbivores have to do every day to get food.

Ok, the specific atmosphere and Earth-magnetism we have on Earth shields us from the otherwise very powerful solar radiation and other cosmic rays. Light itself thats not blocked by the atmosphere happens to be enough energy for the first lifeforms to use and also cause some important chemicals to form as well as drive a circulating whether system and currents. And since water is a very versatile chemical, many other chemicals which can store energy can by made from water by using the sunlight. With the temperature, if it were too cold, reactions couldn't occur at a fast enough rate. If it were too hot, most organic bonds we see today wouldn't be stable and would break down under the heat.

I think what that translates to is that light is being bent out of our field of view, but its not just that. By current calculations, there isn't enough visible mass to hold galaxies together as tightly as they are being held now.

Is everything logical? Can some system and combinations of different systems of logic completely describe everything in the universe? Even if you say "that walls looks blue", thats the atomic propositions and the recognition that the wall to you is blue because you can't see it any other way you see it. So what isn't logical if logic doesn't actually describe everything? It seems like the universe is completely logical in one way or multiple ways, but I can't say for sure.

So if I take a ball and just drop it, when it hits the ground, the ball transfers more kinetic energy to the ground than if I just set the ball on the ground. So, how does gravity cause this increase in kinetic energy being transfered to things and how does it not run out? The energy and momentum has to be coming from somewhere...

Cancer probably isn't caused by lactic acid, its often a natural cause which itself is caused by when the gene that controls the cells devision process becomes mutated and out of control. Usually some other genes are altered too which is why cancer cells are often disfigured. Some chemicals do cause cancer, but only the chemicals that have the capacity to alter and interact with proteins in the nucleus of a cell (strong radiation pierces though the cell membrane so it can easily alter those proteins). Since not everyone get's cancer in their life and lactic acid is naturally in at least 99% of the world's population, it's unlikely lactic acid would be a cause for cancer.

Maybe the particles in the man are slowed down, but the rest of the universe is continuing on.

I can't find the specific link, but the reason there seems to be dark matter in the universe is because there isn't enough visible matter to account for whats happening, by today's calculations. In certain instances, there are large clusters of matter such as two galaxy clusters merging where the matter being observed in certain places isn't enough to bend light the way it's already being bent. So the only known explanation is that there are large quantities of matter which we can't see.

Well, I want to resolve this. I never requested that you never say anything to me again. You stated that you didn't care to hear what I had to say. I requested that you don't say anything to me UNLESS its not trolling and is instead useful or helpful to me(which obviously wouldn't be a waste of my time). The wave function of the singularity universe is not my own theory (which could explain how the universe could be a single point and still have matter moving in an outward motion and seem to have existed mathematically in only specific areas), but rather a very contemporary theory I heard from a physicist.

Wouldn't they just go find another planet to inhabit? How did they even get in here in the first place if they can't just fly through space? It means life could no longer be sustained on this planet. Photosynthesis might cease, things would die, nothing would be able to reproduce, etc.

Well, it has taken me over a few months to accurately describe a lot of the properties of quantum mechanics. But I still have more to go.

Here's what happens: The star runs out of fuel, it blows itself apart with VERY high energy which takes 1,300 years to reach Earth, and the remnant gas is both energetic AND heated up by the aftershocks of the supernova as well as energetic particles being generated by whatever type of core is left feeding on surrounding gas. It wouldn't really look like another sun, but rather just a brightish area in the sky either VERY huge due to its proximity to Earth or very small due to its lack of size and energy output. On top of all that, the gas would be expanding outward at high speeds. But, the gas could be fed on for thousands of years. Just look at the crab pulsar. It's 3,000 light years away, and its supernova was observed at around 1,000 AD, and its still going to this day. However, after the primary aftershocks of the supernova as well as the supernova itself which would mainly be the brightest time and last for a few days, it would dim down a bit. But, this still raises a greater concern which is that the star is only 1,300 light years away. If the supernova is powerful enough, it has a very high chance of sterilizing Earth.

I know that a star is some specific multiple of millions of light years away, but the only way to say "that star is 1 billion years old because its 1 billion light years away" is if the universe was always expanding at the exact speed of light. Since the universe has been expanding at slow, and maybe even faster rates than the speed of light, the distance doesn't equal the age.

I know that some scientists say the universe is moving along increments of Planck time, but Planck time is just the shortest amount of time that matters in our current physics, why would scientists think its the shortest amount of time possible? Couldn't something have happened in the creation of the universe that took less than a unit of Planck time?

Now that I think about it, the universe can still be infinitely old since we have no way of telling how long the universe existed as a single point or if it wasn't a single point, we have no idea for how long the thing was there that caused the universe to exist (thing isn't necessarily tangible in this context). Maybe the universe is infinite, and its just that nothing caused it to grow in size till a few billion years ago.

Hey swan, there was some lecture I went to and in it was a theory on how fusion in the sun occurs. I didn't get a good look at the math, but they said that the force in the Sun isn't enough to force particles together and cause them to fuse, so they instead said that the reason particles such as protons fuse is because when they get into a close enough proximity to each other, their highest areas probabilities overlap each other's boundaries where the electro-magnetic force would push them away (or something similar to that). Is that at all possible?

I think I know what your trying to get at, which I think is that we still wouldn't be able to have all the information of whats going or that the scientists shouldn't be able to tell the universe is accelerating, but scientists aren't looking for the direct light, but rather the increments of observing the light. The reason they know the universe is accelerating is because the light emitted a would get weaker or shift to the red part of the spectrum by a larger and larger amount every time. But then again, I could be wrong on what your asking. You said you had something to teach me, so I gave in a little. However, instead of gloriously proving me wrong on why I'm completely wrong to think what I think about the universe, you instead started this, which means your sole purpose in this topic is probably just to insult me more. Also if you were truly ignoring my posts, why would you reply to me? --isn't there some rule against trolling?--

Whats going on its its still a wave, however your only just seeing a single set of properties (along with a single position) of it. That Dr. Quantum thing makes it seem as though its a particle first, and a wave second, and that usually confuses people. Just imagine the electron is a wave on water, and you just pick a single part of the wave to focus on. No one really knows why this occurs, but for some reason, photons hitting the electron and then hitting a rock doesn't cause its wave to collapse, it only happens with things that can "measure" the electron based on the photon.

But don't you use the absolute value in quantum mechanics? Otherwise how do you have negative positions and probability?