steevey

You said "the arrogant sense of superiority we have" not specifying that you only thought that and that you thought it was only most human beings. But in any case, the point I made is still valid, no matter what the source. There's a reason that alien theory doesn't have a lot of followers and its because most of its evidence is circumstantial which is exactly what those episodes didn't make clear.

From a completely materialist standpoint, you can do it, but we really don't have the technology to do such a thing, because it requires re-arranging all the atoms and molecules to where they were at a point of life, restoring all the lost enzymes and other chemicals that may have been lost to their specific locations, restarting the heart, restarting the brain to analyze things as well as restoring it's damaged tissues and the tissues of other organs, and then on top of that restarting the process of the cell cycle which includes the body auto-analyzing RNA and duplicating DNA and then auto-using the DNA to synthesize proteins and other chemicals. It's just too complex right now. The only other way would be cloning.

For one, I don't know how you can assume no one but you knows that we aren't that far from the certain mental capabilities of other animals, really only 100,000 years max, and for two, I'm guessing you watched that history channel special explaining the different evidence for alien interference in the past, which I thought about for a little while. What those episodes didn't do however, is talk about other theories and reasons how the human race has high mental capabilities in certain areas. Over time for millions of years, the brains of different organisms have developed to analyze the outside environment and respond to it. Because of this, the brain is like a muscle, in that the more you use certain parts of it, the more those parts develop. The reason humans have much higher mental capabilities in those certain areas is because for all those years, primates were using those part of their brain the most. And after to many generations of those brain parts needing to be used more and more, it was only most efficient that the capacity for things like memory and logic and communication increased. And then, after humans did actually appear, all of these things could advance even exponentially more as more communication developed to more complex forms, and more and more information could be carried down through generations and had to be innovative in order to adapt to new environments. So, it only makes sense that after all those 70,000-100,000 years it would only make sense that the human race is at the point it is today, which you might think is very far, but it's really only a small step forward.

Neither and I never said the big bang was an "explosion". I'm trying to see if that's what he's actually saying, because the whole point of him posting this topic is to see what people think to determine if he's right about his idea or not. In a balloon, the volume increases, but the only solid part that expands is the very outer layer, since there isn't any balloon material inside of itself, just air. However, this is a false analogy to space, since obviously the universe isn't a hollow disk or sphere. In order for the balloon analogy to work, the material that makes up the balloon would also have to extend all the way to the very center of the balloon, which would also expand. If that happened however, at any point in time, there would still be material near the center, which from this particular analogy is also why you can notice that from any single point in the balloon, the rest of the balloon seems to be expanding from that point too. I can make a cone growing through time with this equation x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2

I see what your getting at, and personally it doesn't make sense to me either if the Earth is close to the center. For everyone else, I think what he's trying to say is how can their be galaxies near us if the initial universe expanded and is now like x billion years away from us? Well, the answer is, not all the gas went outward. The universe wasn't and still isn't a hallow disk, it was a filled sphere. While the edge was expanding and making the universe bigger in volume, there was still other gas which wasn't being flung completely outward at the same speed. Not only that, but the universe was a lot more dense and energetic, so gas was running into itself a lot with high energy, and some clumps of matter formed and attracted other clumps to form stars, which further effected where the expanding gas goes and used it up as it formed other stars from its supernova. The universe can actually be represented as a cone getting bigger, using the variables x, y, z, and t.

Of course its not accidental. Heavier elements are more complex and take more time for stars to reach a point to where those elements can be formed, so it only makes complete perfect sense anyway. But what increases the possibility for life like us, is what appears to be a pattern of elements lower in a group being able to replace elements higher in the a group. It would be like the reverse of fluorine replacing chlorine, except the cause of it would be just a lack if fluorine, so life would just have to use what it has, whether its the most efficient or not. Because as you get into heavier elements, there's also less energy released from bonds, and on top of that, the charge from the nucleus becomes weaker as the required distance from the nucleus increases as you add more electrons.

Then why do so many other sources say electrons can't be in the nucleus? And how could the new standard model be based around electrons not being able to exist in the nucleus if they can in fact be in the nucleus? Physicists like Heisenberg and Max tried to come uo with a way to avoid electrons being able to fall into the nucleus, which is why they gave electrons a wave function. Also when I looked up "reverse" beta decay, I found this which says the electron is a result and not a cause, http://everything2.c...erse+beta+decay I honestly could have sworn electrons could occasionally fall into the nucleus from their orbitals, but for some reason some quantum mechanical laws prohibit it.

If I'm asking this question here, then obviously google doesn't help. The reason for an electron not falling into the nucleus is one of the main reasons why quantum mechanics exists, because in the previous standard model, en electron should fall into the nucleus. In our current theory that an electron really isn't even found in the nucleus. In quantum mechanics, an electron can sit in a position above the nucleus at the most minimum state of energy possible for an electron, the ground state without falling in. Quantum mechanics specifically prohibits an electron from even the ground state from just falling into the nucleus. But still, ****************WHY*************** isn't it ever found in the nucleus? Why don't I ever see anything anywhere about an electron going from an orbital to the nucleus?

A wave function extends indefinitely through space though. Those "orbitals" are just the *most likely* places for those particles to show up. An electron could actually appear in any place in the universe, but the chances of it doing so are unimaginably small after you get past even 10*10^-9 meters, which is why the classical world is so different from the quantum world. And what I'm talking about isn't a particle in the nucleus giving off an electron, I'm talking about an electron in "orbit" around an atom going from its orbital to actually being in the nucleus.

They way I see it, 1/0 (in terms of physics) would equal infinity, and the evidence for that would be that the universe's volume (not visible matter, but rather just the fabric of space itself) is infinite because when you apply a wave function equation to when the universe was just a single point, the distance is 0 because a point is a 0 dimensional sphere (weird huh?). And even if that is somehow flawed which I think it is, but not by much, you still have to consider the entanglement between two particles renders distance meaningless. No matter how great the distance is between two components of a system of entangled particles, either of the two will respond instantly to a change in the properties of another, but how could that be true unless the true distance between all objects in the universe is actually 0 and everything is still somehow the same thing? In mathematics, you would have to be able to do this 4*2=8 8/2=4 8/4=2 which you can't do with infinity (or all real numbers), but mathematics isn't the universe, it's simply a way to recognize the components of the universe in terms of numeric values. Never in nature is something actually going "well lets see, 1 + 1 = 2". What happens is, you have two apples, all with their own atoms, which have separate distance (according to modern physics), and all your doing is bringing them closer together and saying "now I have two", but the universe doesn't recognize ( I had 1 then I added 1, now I have 2) in any way. The math is something that we just made up. In terms of the universe, it's just a cluster of atoms being brought closer together, and the evidence for that is that the apples' gravitation fields have a greater effect on each other, however the apples aren't fused together. The apples are not counted as one system, and if they were, that would be a violation of quantum mechanics because if you can measure the two apples in some way to quantify the information, that means you'd have to be collapsing the wave function, which means the two apples aren't actually one system. Math can easily describe things, but it isn't necessarily actually those things. Thats why I can have an equation for how the price of an item in a shop increases with the amount of that item bought, and yet neither the shop nor the item have to exist. There are still rules and things that govern how things happen, but that's why we have physics and science.

If an electron can appear pretty much anywhere, why can't it appear in the nucleus of an atom? You could argue impenetrability, but couldn't an electron just combine with a proton or just force other particles out of the way? An electron is pretty small compared to the other particles too, I'm sure there would be some gaps where the particles that make up an electron could fit. Even though an electron is a wave, why can't the wave ever touch the nucleus? No particle in the nucleus has the same exact quantum numbers as an electron, so there shouldn't even really be a problem with them canceling each other out.

It does increase the chances for places life can exist, but can't I take almost any element that makes up our DNA and replace it with another element in the same group? It might not be as efficient, but if those were the only materials for life to evolve around, I bet life could use any other group element.

Good

True, but you also have to consider the fact that even though greenhouse gas was more prevalent, the Earth was still frozen. With the ice-caps extending to the equator, almost all of the sun's light was reflected. So clearly, there are other factors causing global warming today.

According to the book, there was more greenhouse gases, and the evidence for that comes from carbonated sediments dating back to that time period. Is there maybe a particular snowball Earth where greenhouse gases were lower? Or maybe in the very last one, green-house gases began to fall? But, while I was searching on the internet for something, I found this http://earth.geology...feng%20EPSL.pdf It would explain more in-depth how the continents got to be so focused near the equator and how that impacted the Earth.

on page 29 of the Smithsonian Earth book, The editor-in chief is James F. Luhr.

During those time periods when continents were centered near the equator, it seemed like nearly half the Earth was covered in ice caps. 730-580 million years ago, there were several events where the Earth turned into basically a giant snowball. I think they are called "snowball events". The one I am referring to occurred in the Precambrian eon in the Proterozoic era about 840-900 million years ago. Here's roughly what the Earth looked like then The blue is ice.

There's actually yet another way for global warming and cooling to be the result of. When I was looking through my history book, it showed where all the continents positions were and what the climate was throughout all of Earth History. Whenever the continents were mainly only in the equatorial region of the Earth, the ice caps extended down, cooling the planet. Whenever the continents were more spread out, the temperature increased more. Even the book itself said "...global cooling due to continents focused around the equator...". If this is true, which it probably is since it's not in the news and the book publishers wouldn't have much incentive to get a bunch of scientists together and publish only that lie, then global warming is for the most part completely natural. And, in those time periods where the continents were in the equator, I noticed the the carbon dioxide levels were usually at least 2 times higher than they are today, yet average temperatures were below the freezing point of water. If this continents position thing is as big of a factor as it seems, we virtually have no control over what will happen to the climate. On top of all that, there's the Moon too. What the moon does is keeps the axis as it is, which is why Mars, which is moonless, has an axis that changes year- round. It will be a long time before the moon is away from us to cause such effects, but the moon is moving away from the Earth right now at a centimeter per year. That may not seem like a lot, but the moon use to be much closer to the Earth. It's pedigree use to be 340,000 kilometers away from the surface of the Earth, now its 356,334 according to the internet.

It seems like what this is referring to is something in quantum mechanics called the wave function. The elementary particles we think of are also waves, but they are waves of existence. The way particles work is by appearing at the most likely locations in the form of points once observed. However, a particles wave function extends indefinitely through space. An electron has a probability of appearing on the other side of the universe, but it's just such an unimaginably small probability that everything usually stays on small areas of probability. In an atom, the most likely place for an electron to be found with the energy that occupies the first energy level is in a sphere that encircles the nucleus with a radius from the nucleus of about .529*10^-10 meters. Typically what happens in physics with the wave function, is if you know something about a particle such as its energy, you can figure out the most likely places for that particle to show after some x amount of time. Quantum mechanics uses continuous variables. In a probability function you have infinite possibilities, but you try and find a high probability between two numbers. An improbability function can look like this:

But as Einstein pointed out, the fabric of space is non-euclidean. The shortest distance between any two points is not necessarily a straight line. The universe can't really be summed up in a number line either, I don't think, cause that's saying there is only one dimension for the universe to expand in, whether it goes on perpetually or not. I think Einstein along with other physicists determined that space isn't flat, but curved.

Light is pure momentum, but light is also another form of matter. Matter can't travel past or at the speed of light, because that would require the matter to be pure momentum. In a less accurate way, it's like putting paper in water. You can put as much water as you want on the paper, but the paper will never become water, unless you actually go and change its structure, which is what you'd have to do with matter to make it light. And look around, most of the universe that you see is made of matter. There might be forces or things that travel past the speed of light, but we don't know how to detect them. Even the reason gravity travels at the speed of light is because it's carried through gauge bosons, which are particles of pure momentum, like light. Momentum is also different than energy, just in case you didn't know. Technically, light it's pure "energy" because it's a particle, and can be identified at a fixed magnitude.

Time is just a periodic measurement of a motion. I could easily replace the word second with something such as "per 10 swings of a that pendulum". However, everyone uses the same "pendulum" and time is thus perceived as a given of the universe. So, the only true to actually time travel would be to re-arrange all matter and energy in the universe to a state it previously was.

Never had anything against type 1a supernova, other than the fact that what's supernova-ing isn't a star going its normal course therefore making it irrelevant stars, not white dwarfs, but how stars supernova. But otherwise, then we agree that there is less than adequet evidence to support pair-instability supernovae. Whats wrong with isotopes being formed from an iron core supernova or other non instability supernova for that matter? Virtually all elements above iron to uranium are formed from supernova, and you don't even need supernova to produce large quantities of an isotope, just large amounts of certain types of radiation.

A very very weird one I heard was using xenon tetra-fluoride, because when fluorine de-attaches from xenon, that process is exothermic, and the fluorine can easily re-attach to the xenon in an endothermic process. It's a bit like how plants use ATP for photosynthesis. One end of the ADP forms, and with some energy carried from the sun by cells, becomes ATP. Then when the plant cells want to do something, the end of ATP de-attaches and releases that energy again.

What happens with primates is they pass information down from generation to generation, which has been observed in Indonesia where monkeys learn to disable traps and then pass that information down. Not only that, but it's more of a matter of adaption. It was more efficient for human beings to learn and use cognitive thinking, so the ones who could do it and be innovative survived the most. There's plenty of other animals that can think and memorize and, but the problem is either they don't have the right appendages or they can't communicate. Also, without a complex system of labeling information, which is what we do with words, it's harder to do cognitive thinking. Words are like shortcuts. They make think more efficient because we can summarize an entire though process of a minute in a matter of a few seconds. So if you can think by labeling information, you have more room to think about other things at the same time and make more connections, and most other animals do not have this ability.