someguy

I would have thought that the ambient space is of equal dimensions than the embedded objects. I'm trying to find situations where it is greater and i'm not sure really if i found any but at least most objects seem to me to be equal in dimension to their ambient space. i can't think of any objects that exist in space in three dimensions but not in time. so then, maybe some object that exists in only two dimensions of space plus one of time.. and for that, i'm considering waves as possibly being such objects, and perhaps light could be consider to exist "outside" of time. but, even if this were true, i would still consider the vast majority of objects to be 4 dimensional just like their ambient space.

bentheman I don't know 11 dimensions seems too crazy for me yet and i don't even really understand properly how they are meant to be mathematically. I even have some trouble with 5. understanding 11 dimensions and what that means in reality just seems way beyond me right now. however one dimension or two dimensions or even three if they exist should and i think must be not only describable as known things (like not in a math sense, just like we say the 4th dimension is time rather than plotting the 4th dimension in a graph) but we should be able to find examples or recreate examples or know exactly why we can't but sub-atomically we could. But i'm still wrestling with the idea that waves are two dimensional, so maybe that's one down and two to go.

I guess it depends on how small you go and how much you trust about what is currently most believed when you go that small, and i guess it also depends on what causes mass. how small can you go before there's no mass anymore? can you even do that? personally i think that mass is energy and that energy causes the warping of space time, energy is pretty much in all cases that i can think of unless you go so small i don't know like for your question, some type of motion. The only kind of different thing is light. which seems to be more in the realm of warping of space time rather than like most other things that exist that have mass.

I see what you mean, still can't really imagine a string properly. I can imagine any of these shapes as a plotted function but not in reality. I was trying to imagine a 2 dimensional object since this post though and i sort of thought.. well a wave is sort of a two dimensional object isn't it? (3 if you count time). granted it causes the moving of 3 dimensional objects but the wave itself could be considered to have no thickness could it not? taking your coin thing how fast would it need to spin in order for you to call it a 3 dimensional object? for some reason i was under the impression that that was the speed of light. does it actually sweep out to a two dimensional surface? or is it just so close the difference is negligible? that actually makes sense to me about string theory. (still not the whole 6 dimensional part) but it seems to me that nearly every kind of energy in the universe is some kind of motion. and since matter is such a concentrated amount of energy it would kind of just make sense that it is made up of smaller and smaller things moving really fast, even maybe things of lesser dimension but due to their moving become more dimensional. i don't see why it "needs" to be that way but i kinda like that idea about string theory, even though i still have a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea that something can exist as being of less dimensions than 4 (unless you count waves like i was saying before, and i'm not sure really what i think of that yet).

that's awesome, maybe if you played your cards right you could direct the organisms to evolve into specific things that we need like super plants that breathe more oxygen than the ones we already have.

oh ya i see what you mean, sorry. i didn't mean it as an argument, just a question.

ya but is there evidence that suggests that co2 won't cause global warming? because it's a sure thing that we caused an excess of co2. and btw 1veedo a question never demonstrates ignorance always the opposite and mine wasn't an argument just a question. The temperature of the oceans doesn't matter. If we are heating the atmosphere and sending ice that was not previously in contact with the water into the water even if it had just melted the water should be kept quite cool. what matters about the oceans is the salinity level which will diminish as more ice melts into the ocean. if the ocean reaches much higher temperatures than it has been on average then we will already be toast... no pun intended. who decides what scientific is? does scientific mean just using facts? are statistics not facts? would not all of us agree that we could "prove" opposite points of view using real statistics? for me, scientific means that there must be a consensus. if two groups of people are representing opposite points of view and both claiming to be scientific and both have shared all of their information with one another, then at least one of them must be full of it. well then if that's what you believe then i hope your children are either plants or at least that they learn to breath CO2. you i think, believe that we should build build and produce produce and go economy go. what if the economy one day was completely maxed out? that would mean we would have no more resources. what would you do then? the economy is just confusing lingo for the rate at which we are using up our resources (except for the few recycled materials). I would prefer to slow it down until we figure out how to use them more efficiently. your mentality is very capitalist but it's not even smart capitalism to use up materials faster than you can reproduce them because then you'd have nothing left to sell.... except for if you run out after your dead or if you achieve more money than you can possibly ever spend first.... so then your mentality is extreme capitalist and selfish... yup, that sounds republican to me.

do you mean that they view that "one dimensional" string as being for example of dimension nX, nY, aZ, for n->0 and 'a' any real number? and i was for some reason under the impression that these strings were somehow coiled. wouldn't a 1 dimensional object need to be by definition a perfectly straight object? if i could see a one dimensional string making a coil i would feel compelled to call it a three dimensional object, but i could sort of also see how the string itself may only have length... so i guess i would just go cross eyed. I suppose part of my problem is i can't imagine how a one dimensional object can exist in 4 dimensions. or even a two dimensional object or even a three dimensional object. I can't really imagine a one dimensional universe either but that's besides the point. so this might be a weird question but, is this string meant to exist in its own one dimension? or is it in fact existing like a one dimensional coil in our 4 dimensions?

I like to think of it like this. the faster you move the more ground you take up in space compared to a slower moving object. the faster you move in space also the more ground you make in time. so, while you in your spaceship are not moving compared to other objects in it, and thus not aging at a different rate than those objects, compared to here on earth you are moving much faster and therefore you and everything in your spaceship are making great time in... time. so when you arrive back on earth you will have aged less than everything on earth. i find this way of thinking helps because it helps you think of time not as a linear thing, like we grew up to believe, but more like a 4th axis of the 3 dimensions of space. imagining time slows down for the fast moving spaceship promotes thinking of time in the conventional sense but that it gets warped or changed dependent on your speed which i have come to believe is sort of an imprecise, or misleading, way of looking at it, though it's not really wrong to talk about it in this way. sort of like saying that if the door of plane opens in flight everyone gets sucked out, when technically, they are blown out. if nothing moved at all there would be no time at all right? everything would be on pause. so you can see right away that time and motion are very closely related. in fact, they are co-dependent. this part at least is more obvious as just a natural rule of the way the universe "must" be. when you start thinking about how the faster you move in relation to something else the more different you experience time, it gets more unconventional and weird, but it's the same kind of "must" be.

I think you guys both found the real thing here. People will not understand something like relativity but they will agree that it is a natural law of nature, maybe that it would require refining in the future but they would believe it as science and pretty much a truth without understanding it. If people are willing to do this then they can be convinced of almost anything it just depends how reliable the source seems to be. how convincing the "argument" is. and that to me is politics. the art of seeming and making believe without having anybody really understand you. So, if people aren't going to understand you if you explain something scientifically to them.. what's the point? you need to try to be better at politics than the person representing the "wrong" view. this is why democracy is not such a good idea in my opinion. It requires politics. So, i think actually i would prefer the person that has a big problem with relativity until they understand it. or that they remain without opinion until they do. having a big problem with it and telling everyone about the problems you have with it should eventually teach you all about it anyways. that's the way i try to be at any rate. some people can get annoyed with that because they think that you think that you're better or that you know better than the person who's name is attached to a given theory but that's not the case. in fact it's sort of the opposite. just trusting stuff you don't understand is how propaganda works. i think it's Millgram's experiment that basically showed that roughly 50% of people when asked to give a guy an electric shock large enough to kill him would do it.. because the order came from a guy in a lab coat. so put a guy in a lab coat on tv saying there's no global warming and that's 50% right there and maybe the other 21% lives in a cave somewhere or are Amish or something. Certainly some are just skeptical and that's the best part of the 71% i guess. what evidence is there that we are not causing global warming?

ya, that was quite the sentence huh? of course everybody knows that just knowing is enough to know and if they don't then they don't know enough to know anything...... ya i meant that nature kind of gets into a balance well.. a continuously changing balance or slightly off balance but everything evolves or changes at roughly the same rate so the world can remain "balanced" in terms of forms of energy, though all things are energy certain forms can only transform into other forms in specific ways so having too much of one type of energy can be bad like having so much co2 the trees can't breath it fast enough and we would run out of oxygen and all there would be left is plants. but also I meant that we change things much more quickly than evolution can keep up with. and that's not good for us i don't think. if we put too much co2 in the air gradually, then maybe trees could grow bigger or taller and eventually increase their capacity to breath co2 or something like that, and all other animals that use those trees could compensate for it. but we don't give evolution a chance to keep up. but evolution usually always does since all things evolve at similar rates depending on their life spans or rather speed of reproduction.

If you consider all of the animals we don't know about that go extinct because of humans they must pretty much be all from destruction of habitat. Since we don't know about them then this number can't be documented. Only ones we know about can be hunted to extinction.. I can't imagine this would be a huge proportion especially if you count insects and stuff. I suppose also it depends on how you value it. do you count how many species die to what cause? how important the animal is to the ecosystem? how well known the animals that go extinct are? are you only considering the ones that actually go extinct? or does endangered qualify? It looks to me like loss of habitat is what will make US extinct and that to me i guess gives loss of habitat the win in the "most important extinction causes" category.

what are the arguments for saying that humans aren't causing global warming? there's a whole lot of evidence we are. for all these people that still don't believe that we are causing GW what sort of proof would you find satisfactory? just knowing that humans convert materials from one form to another in large quantities and often into types of materials that cannot be changed into to anything else and others into quantities too exaggerated for the forces of nature to casually keep in check is enough to know that something severe will occur eventually it's just a matter of what was going to give first. it didn't takes us so much convincing to know we caused a hole in the ozone layer.

I know what you mean but humans came from monkeys where there are alpha males and even if we all lived in a cave together i could still sneak a girl out or while the alpha male is out hunting find myself a safe bush. I realize there is still competition for mates but it is different now. we have more knowledge and are not such simple animals as we used to be. A skirt would not prevent a rapist from raping a female but it could prevent the desire to rape her animals will only have sex if they feel the emotion of wanting it. a naked female would provoke that or another male having sex right in plain site would provoke another male and he would then want to take the female away from the other guy and it would start a fight. so if you're not gonna be the guy winning the fight you might wanna find some privacy. we compete for females but its rare that we could fist fight for one as a prize, still fairly common i guess as a showoff kind of thing. In the animal kingdom raping is normal behavior women don't really have a choice, unless there are no stronger males around to catch you. you're right burkas must have been a defense against this, in Africa women had their clitoris removed I guess for the same reason. maybe that's why black men have such a reputation for having horse like qualities. And they even invented the chastity belt not so much against getting raped but cheating on your spouse which may have been forced upon you against your will like the way an alpha male would just take you. Do you know during which period humans started wearing clothes in comparison to how their society was structured? maybe it depends where, but if language and structured and enforced law arrived before clothes then clothes doesn't really fit into to what i was saying. So i am guessing or sort of assuming i guess that humans wore clothes while still quite animal like.

if you look at animals they will have sex in front of each other, but usually also the alpha male gets all the women and the others get nothing. Unless of course they go into hiding. so this could be a reason why privacy would exist. But then with humans the alpha male eventually became also the leader the chief eventually the king, the emperor and then elected official. and somewhere along there there would be too many women for just one man and the leader would need to admit that in order to keep having many subjects you need to give them wives and have them bear children and probably even at this point doing it in public might start a fight where some other male would try to take the girl from you so doing it in private became a better choice. As for clothes maybe it just became habit from it being too cold, maybe only the chief had clothes and it became then the "in" thing to do, or maybe it was just because wearing clothes would reduce the chances of women being raped so their men made them wear clothes. I know that wasn't very scientific or based on facts but it's some possible answers to your question at least.

perhaps only the lack of freewill could be understood through logical deduction.

thx, i may do that. how does that book approach the subject? And how much do i need to know before reading it?

if you would have read my post then you would know that i was talking about a specific type of heat transfer into energy being that you could only harness a change of less than a degree over a huge area and yet accumulate a reasonable quantity of energy and you would keep this plant in the antartica and north pole thus essentially keeping the temperature in those places in check and preventing desalination of our oceans. steam power is completely different as is nuclear and as is coal. my question was less can you use heat to make energy, though i did word it that way, and more for this specific use, or in terms of natural heat of the planet not artificial concentrated heat caused by combustion or other means specifically for the use of energy, only using that heat which exists in the atmosphere like a windmill does for wind. But not a windmill even though wind is technically caused by temperature differences. thanks for the thermocouple idea though, ajb but upon reading, it says that thermocouples aren't really useful for changes in less than 1 degree C and also need to measure the difference between two points and so for this application it might not be so handy since the two points would need to be too far away. so i think in this case that wouldn't really work. still it was good to know. I think for this application you would need something that works with absolute temperature. maybe something like a giant thermometer, giant in radius not height, that would push up a huge plate and get energy this way. the distance traveled by the plate in this case would need to be very small and the resistance very high so you can get alot of energy from it but perhaps this would be too inefficient to help regulate the temperatures there.

what about using something like the storms on jupiter? I guess here the big problem is transportation. perhaps you could power a large laser with energy from jupiter's storms shine it on a specific place on earth and convert that? probably that would be too complicated and only usable in somewhat short periods of time when the planets are just right. are there any other sorts of ways to send energy like that? but i guess bringing more energy from outside onto earth might not be the best idea since most of that energy would eventually become heat and we'd just be making global warming even worse. what about heat? is there a way to convert heat into energy? maybe some type of thermometer that will grow with little temperature change but would lift something with huge resistance. you could put it in antarctica and if the temperature rises there that heat would be converted to electricity or something and that way could keep the temperature there in check? could something like this be possible?

I think so, but if they decide to put down their own baby to sleep then i guess not. that's why I think the decision must always come from the parents.

my bad. it sounds like what i was talking about is what you're talking about and i probably misunderstood. But i don't really understand the theory well enough to know exactly what you mean. I realize it's very mathematical and would take me too long to understand well enough. But where did they get the equations they used to plug in those values that are necessary for there to be no anomalies? It seems like the dimension thing was a necessary mathematical conclusion to string theory. But what i'm wondering then i guess is why superstring theory was ever considered in the first place. wasn't it just math? I don't think anyone can argue with math but not all physicists agree with string theory so there must be something somewhere.

personally going with my earlier post then i would have to say that I agree with you Freethinker. even a new born baby would not meet any requirements for why murder is bad, just the same as the fetus, the fact it breaths air doesn't really change much. But once the baby is met by other family members and people start getting attached to it it could breach one of the reasons murder is illegal, so the baby would need to be killed while still in the hospital and making the rule that it is not murder until the baby is born is just easier i guess... anyways if doctors are the only ones that could do this then why would they wait for the baby to be born? ... maybe some unforeseen circumstances.. i guess i could see that actually. although if someone were to kill the fetus without the parents' permission i think i would need to call that murder, or maybe not murder exactly but certainly some sort of crime, the severity depending on how old the fetus is because there is a decent chance i think in the earlier stages that the baby would miscarry anyways and the later it would be the more obvious it would be to the murderer what he's doing.

I think what you need to do is look at why murder is illegal. I can only think of three reasons: 1- i don't want you to kill me so i would like it to be illegal for you to do so. 2- killing somebody hurts those people that knew the recently deceased well. 3- ending a the existence of a self aware being is just plain unethical because it is self aware, simply being alive is not sufficient (does not apply to plants, insects and whatnot). none of these things apply to destroying a fetus. therefore it is not murder so long as only the parents have the power to decide whether or not the fetus is destroyed because if not, condition 2 would be met. that's how i see it anyways. maybe there's other reasons for why murder is illegal but i can't think of any.

oops i thought the question meant what sort of element would work best, i must have skipped the star part. i never meant mercury would be the best because it was most dense i just meant that it would be a good one, amongst the best, because there are probably some elements i was not familiar with that are denser. so then a bar of osmium/iridium at n kelvin when n->0. but if we're gonna go into the realm of gravitationally squished celestial bodies then the big bang would be the best, the entire universe conglomerated together, i don't think you could find anything denser than that.

as long as there is money to be made by killing whales whales will be killed. The problem with whales is that you can't really farm them them i don't think, they're just too huge. maybe one day it would make economic sense, but the only way to stop the whaling is to make it unprofitable to whale. like everything else in our world. so long as profit can be made from it it will happen, as much as humans demand it and can afford it. The thing also about whales is that whales don't live in japanese waters or american waters or indian waters or whatever, they live all over the place, they swim from one ocean to the next, so what you need is a world government imposing restrictions and looking at the whaling industry from a world perspective, more and more the world is requiring an actual world government that actually governs the world,