Zarnaxus

My brother is majoring in video game programming and design. This is listed as a science major. So... yeah science is a flexible term.

It sounds like the terrorists are the problem then, not the nuclear production. Should we stop the production of guns just because robbers can use them?

How do you know Australia even exists?! Because you have seen it on a map? Because you have talked to someone who has been there? Because you have been there? Because you have talked to someone you has seen it in space? Because you have seen actual pictures or footage of Australia from space to see that it's acutally there? Even if you have done all of these things, you still CANNOT know one-hundred percent that Australia exists. Until you go into outerspace and see Australia relative to the other continents yourself, you will never know... And even then, the glass you were looking through could be an illusion. The entire world is a conspiracy against you, making you believe that Australia exists!! So how can you make such a cosmic assumption that an omnipotent God exists, when you don't even know if Australia exists or not...

I am in complete agreement with objectivity. Also, I find my "spiritual" beliefs becoming more and more agnostic (from theist). Maybe there is an all powerful entity, but if so, it probably doesn't exercise that power. I don't believe atheists or theists should become too arrogant with their views. After all, we could invent an entire set of particles that never ever interacts with any other particle we interact with, but they interact amongst themselves. These particles make up heaven, and when we die, we get transformed into them.... woah... that was a weird idea.... but the point is: there is none. We should keep our expirements objective, but our perspectives open to change. Sound good?

Because the number of possible humans is 103,010,000^9,030,000, I would think we could biosynthesize a human that is far more efficient at practically everything than everyone else.

It depends on how mature our social and governmental structures are.

Lines are theoretically infinite in length. They have no limits/boundaries in their own two dimensions. When you introduce another dimension, the plane, you can have an infinite amount of parallel lines, each infinite in length and coexisting with the others. In the tenth dimensional mega-universe, is it so hard to believe the existence of more than one infinite object?

Are you correct to say that when you feel the need to grow wings, your child will have them?

This doesn't just go for people either. If you see a dog running loose all full of dirt and ungroomed, you will think differently of it than you would for a dog that is sitting well behaved and is groomed nicely. Our immediate response to pass judgement on something happens for every object we see. We assume. We predict. If we see a man with bifocal frames, we assume that there are glasses in them, and that they help him see. We make our own model of the situations we encounter based on our own experiences and knowledge. It's impossible to look at something and immediately jump to a conclusion based on information or ideas we have never crossed before.

I am studying genetics in school right now, and my teacher told me that dwarfism is actually a dominant trait, but since people with dwarfism didn't survive in the early ages, the trait is not present in the gene pool. so i looked it up... Achondroplasia, the gene disorder associated with dwarfism is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder. Now I got to thinking... If people with dwarfism who are achondroplastic survive much more often today than they had in the early days, will the dominant trait start to take over? ...after maybe ten thousand years of civilization? Dwarves will take over the world... O.o

Any chance you can calculate the radiation level California would be getting? I just want to see how overreacted people are.

Even in special relativity, mass and energy are still conserved seperately. Mass cannot actually get converted into energy. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed; they just move from one location to another. We use mass energy equivalence when we want to measure the small amounts of mass lost along with large amounts of energy, like in nuclear reactors. Mass energy equivalence is in fact in agreement with the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the relativistic momentum-energy relationship is where p is equal to momentum i believe.

Photons are the gauge boson for the electromagnetic force. Does this mean that magnetic fields are actually just permeated with photons? It gets confusing, because I have never really thought of photons outside of thinking about electromagnetic waves, but if they carry out the forces of all electromagnetic interractions, wouldn't they be curving around magnets extemely fast? When i hold two magnets together, is the interactions between them happening at c?

I know light is the speed limit. Nothing can go faster than light! That is why this is in speculations.... So, here we are: When an airplane goes faster than the speed of sound, the sound waves bunch up and create a shockwave. If one were to go up to or faster than the speed of light, would the light waves start to bunch up and create a shockwave of light? Think about a bunch of condensed photons traveling across the land ravaging everything in its path..... yeah That is how you make a death ray, except you're gonna have a bit of trouble trying to go that fast....

If they appeared next to a black hole, and for some reason one got pulled in and the other did not, we can get the build up of matter right? If virtual particles appear everywhere, then this occurence should happen often near singularities, correct?

I have gotten into an argument with one of my friends with the size of the universe. Pretty silly argument if you ask me, but nevertheless, i am interested in what your opinions/knowledge on the subject is. Here we are: The universe is huge. Can it be infinite? Where are the boundaries? My point: According to general relativity, space can expand at faster than light speeds, which includes infinity. If the space between two points expands at an infinite rate, the universe can be infinite. I am stating that the universe COULD possibly be infinite. I don't know, I thought that relativity had something to do with expansion of the universe, and it possibly being infinite. His point: The universe is finite.... we have found the boundary already....???......there is no possible way for it to be infinite. If it was, it would have to be infinitely old? If it was infinitely old, the temperature would be the same everywhere, which is not the case. So, the ultimate question is, can the distance between two peices of matter farthest apart in the universe be infinite or not?

Is the amount of matter and antimatter that "randomly" appears always equal? In other words, would it be possible that over astrinomical amounts of time, matter can start to build up just by the imbalance of virtual particles? That would be important.

I believe you are trying to seperate the concept of consciousness from the physical matter that dictates it. Our consiousness is a result of the on-goings of the physics which dominate our lives. Yes, you are made of atoms, which follow known physical laws, and are as set in stone as the orbits of the planets. If fact, free will is not as supported by data as you think. Test support that the chemistry in your brain is in fact dictated by laws as much as you don't want to believe it. So, we say matter exists. In a seperate universe, matter may exist in the same fashion as it does here. That is SEPERATE matter, and it also exists. Nothing more. Also, we find that the parallel universes idea is a result of combining relativity with quantum mechanics in m-theory. There are an infinite number of membranes (universes), just as you said, in a big eleven dimensional sea. This needs to exist in order for us to explain the workings inside singularities. So, i don't believe it will likely be false. I agree that it is still incredibly difficult to define or explain the concepts of experience or consciousness, but i am sure it is within the realm of science.

I find these responses quite WIMPy... Here's a question-- Why is there soo much dark matter in energy in the universe compared to regular matter? Something like 95% of the total matter-energy in the universe in Dark matter and energy! This is ... strange, considering we experience the small 1% of regular condensed matter in our everyday lives. Would having an extremely large dark matter-energy to regular matter ratio be a good factor in the creation of life?

I have been trying to increase my knowledge on the elementary particles of matter. I have already known that their are (for some odd reason) three generations of elementary particles. Each one being heavier and having more energy than the last generation. So, this brings me to the Muon, the second generation of the electron. I read about how particle accelerators have created muonic atoms. Tau based atoms are impossible, I have heard. What my question is, is if muonic atoms have similar or different chemical properties than regular electron atoms. They are obviously a lot heavier, and probably tighter together. Would muonic helium act like regular helium, or in sense, is there a completely new periodic table of muonic elements?! Maybe they can't get very big though. Maybe they only exist for fractions of a second before phasing back to their lower energy states. It is easier for me to present this question to those of you who are generous enough to respond and share your knowledge, than for me to go traipsing about the internet sifting through articles, trying to find the answers i am curious about. Muonic nuclear fusion bombs!? lol more explosion?

Currently, it is uncertain whether the universe is infinite or finite. If it is infinite, I cannot find a reason why the total matter-energy within it has to be finite. Any part of that kind of universe will have a finite amount of density of matter-energy, which is why you, imatfaal, could still be slightly chilly in your office even with an infinite amount of matter-energy. Although there are some problems, like a vacuum supposedly having an infinite energy density. A singularity is also calculated to have an infinite energy density. These infinite densities, however, could just be a result of the unfinished theories and laws we use to calculate them with. In other words, with a quantum theory or supersymmetrical theory of gravity, possibly m-theory, we can maybe calculate what happens within a singularity without getting infinite densities (or infinite probability of things happening, but that's a different story).

i know this is an old forum, kinda. But, i have another question that relates well to this conversation. Why , on the fourth dimensional plane, are we even travelling relatively steadily forward in time? Why, in the four dimensions, can we only decide to move freely in three of them. I know that the space next to me is real, and that i could move to it. If i know the past is a for certain real thing (snapshot), then why cant i move to it? Why am i being forced to move forward. Maybe its another universal foorce!!! or not... why can't i paddle upstream?? (and to YdoaPs-- i have read in one of Stephen Hawkings books, that it is a conveniant theory to look at the past in an accumulation of definite "snapshots", but when looking at time at a quantum level, when measuring a result, you have to take into consideration ALL the past timelines which could have led to that result. In fact, the universe may have an unlimited amount of possible pasts. I quote from his book "Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history." sorry, but.... yeah.)

soo, why exactly can electromagnetic waves travel through space? or do we now know? They are a wave, so they must "wave" through something. I have asked my science teachers this. They say that an electric field is generated, which in turn generates a magnetic field, which creates an electric field, etc. But is this a legitimate explaination? Is it that light is made of photons, which are like a particle, so they can travel through a vacuuuum? Is it that the wave is actually "waving" through fluctuations in space at a quantum level (virtual particles)? I am confused. To me, radiation should not be reaching earth from the sun. It has no medium. If it doesn't need a medium, why?! How?! I want to leearn!!

so how did someone reach this conclusion and how does it make sense (why is it indistinguishable from matter traveling backward in time)?

I have heard once that antimatter is similar to regular matter, execpt it has the opposite charge AND it is travelling backward in time. I am not exactly sure the source from which i got this information, but i would like it to be clarified. How does it work? How did someone discover this? and why does it make sense?