DevilSolution

Balance. Particles pertaining to little to no mass are pretty much non existent, The force they exert acts as if they were the same. There's no absolute form of knowing where particular particles will be at any given time so we apply laws of probability to give an approximate. The sub atomic movement is dance of balance within the atom. EMW behave differently, they are in wave form and flow like a spiral of sorts with the sine and cosine having a relative phase to each other, because they're electro magnetic they are effected by various things within the universe like magnetic flux or other EM waves. The cause of most of the EMW are by product to huge nuclear reactors or stars basically, energy transforms from the tightly compact, high temperature chemical reaction into the release of this energy. Realistically speaking we don't have the means to measure things we may presume have no mass. Its easy to measure the mass of a bowl of sand, its almost as easy to measure a grain, it gets harder to measure fine particle of sand and once you get to the subatomic levels you might aswell give up on thinking in general terms of mass, speed, distance and time as they are impartial to some of what we observe.

A+ and N+ are a pisser, its when you get to uni and get negative marks for wrong answers on multiple questions you'll realize what's hard.

This thread is retarded. And thats a generalisation. Yes natural remedies can combat certain conditions aswell as prescription or otherwise, sometimes you get stuck in endless loop with prescriptions and the answers are alot more simple, like go jogging, take anti-oxidants, st-johns wart, positive thinking, maintain a healthy lifestyle. Stay away from radioactive material....dont eat yellow snow and so forth.

Build a mini computer on a multiple bread boards, the basic requirements would be a decoder, full/semi adder, multiplexor and a 555 timer. You could also create registers if you didnt want the data to get fed straight back into the arduino. The outlay would be fairly minimal, just need aload of 5v transistors and a 555 timer. oh and low amp resistors i forget the arduino output and capacitors if you want registers but then you'd need a feed back loop. Dont imagine it will be very quick but you could get some LED's to light up as the your gates are working so you can see the actual process take place. I'd probably start with 8 bits aswell, or 9 with the sign.

Out of curiosity, this thread is in the philosophical section, have you read much about philosophy and philosophers? Each philosopher generally has contrasting outlook on life and will give you some insight into how great thinkers looked at the world around them from many different perspectives. Other than the basic fundamentals there's a great deal to be said for philosophers and we each have our own preferences but i'd strongly suggesting reading into it a little more. Other than your famous greek and german philosophers i have a personal tenancy towards bertrand russell and henri poincare.

Okay so basically if we presume "God" created all the energy within the universe aswell as defining the laws of the universe. If "God" was then to be a spectator of this universe, it could be said that it would only be watching a simulation, a simulation that it could run over and over again with the same results. Given that were yet unable to explain the genesis of life, or exactly how life started (1). It could be argued that life wouldn't ever exist within these simulations, in the same way that if we were to run computer simulations of the universe, we wouldnt expect life to form in the simulation. Therefore i suggest that "God" decided upon the epoch of the universe to split its consciousness across the universe. This would essentially be the self destruction of "God", all that exists now is the lingering shards of its consciousness across the universe. Now under the right circumstances this consciousness can apply itself to some specific scenario's where it thinks life may be sustainable so it uses some of it's "local" consciousness to make the basic steps required to form the first form of organism. There's 2 ways at looking at it, either it waits for the right conditions to further "push" along the process when the time was right, such as "filling in" the gaps of evolution we currently miss, such as the gap between us and our cousins aswell as other missing links in the evolutionary tree. Or the reverse of evolution is true to the extent that evolution still acts and processes as it would have, but instead of us being the product of evolution, instead this consciousness created life in a very specific way and then evolution took over. Either way what the consciousness was waiting for was carriers (or made them), being's with enough potential for its "local" consciousness to fit into. I suggest that humans possessed that potential at which point the "local" consciousness evenly distributed itself amongst the homosapien population (when the population was big enough to absorb the consciousness). Therefore we humans have within us some shared consciousness of "God", so that we can experience life and each other from different perspectives, in contrast to being a single omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. This would make us all schizophrenic personalities of "God", that we must learn our various attributes, virtues, short coming etc from an introspective point of view. Humans ofcourse would have only adopted a "local" portion of that consciousness when we had enough potential to harness the "local" consciousness and the entire consciousness will have various domains within the universe also acting in a similar fashion. This would imply that other lifeforms should also exist else where in the universe where ever this consciousness decided to act upon its "local domain", this could mean that we humans took possibly [math]\tfrac{1}{10}[/math] or [math]\tfrac{1}{100}[/math] or [math]\tfrac{1}{1000}[/math] etc depending on how much consciousness was distributed and how much is used in the process of the intermediate "steps" required for an organism to posses the potential to harness the consciousness. So in conclusion i am suggesting that "God" became somewhat pantheist (became the universe), spreading its consciousness evenly around the universe waiting for the right conditions in which to instigate and help the progression of life to the point where the most advanced form had enough potential to share the "local" consciousness into the population which then gives god a personal perspective and it makes us schizophrenic persona's of that consciousness in which we become individual but with a collective consciousness of some totality of "God's" consciousness. If you think about it logically, we as humans together have some aspects of omnipresent (2) we are also fairly omniscient (3) and finally we becoming more and more omnipotent (4). We therefore share some traits that religion prescribes to "God", although we don't have all or even most if these in totality we atleast show signs of having a proportion of them. I've tried to be fairly scientific with my approach to how this whole process would take place but obviously there will be flaws, especially philosophical flaws such as "the first cause" aswell as declaring that energy and physical laws had a creator which most people nowadays dismiss due to the probability of mathematics and the possibility of "many universes", however i'm simply coming from the approach that in the "many universes" and the probability of mathematics we still dont know how genesis occurred or if its actually possible and we don't know how or why the big bang happened (or how time really exists) so therefore this theory simply defines those factors in simulation terms, where "God" was a passive observer who'me got bored of repetitive results and therefore "became" part of its simulation to experience and adapt the simulation. I have no idea whether the essence of its being will become one again if the universe was to die out or if the big freeze occurred etc but i'm guessing by spreading its consciousness it wanted to interact with these variables from a micro perspective. Also i quite like the idea that we somehow inherited a part of this consciousness and all of humanity share the equal burden of being schizophrenic persona's of this consciousness in which we all have to come to terms with. This type of hypothesis could be adapted in many different ways to adhere to each persons preference on creation, the nature of god, our understanding of science etc but fundamentally i went for the most plausible scientific approach, skipping over religious dogma's beyond that of initial creation. One final note, even if we were to prove genesis within a laboratory it still doesn't mean that there isnt a consciousness out there waiting for hosts with the combined potential to inherit this consciousness (5). 1) (genesis) We have a fossil evidence for the first forms of single cell organisms but other than the "primordial atmospheric chemical soup" hypothesis we dont actually have any proof of the creation of life. 2) (omnipescent) We are fairly well distributed as a species and we also use telescopes and microscopes for viewing the internal and external realms aswell as using EMW's to view a large spectrum of the universe. 3) (omniscient) To the extent that we have fundamentally broken down the laws of physics to a high degree, we have an innate ability for understanding abstract mathematics and we have built the corner stones for most scientific area's like chemistry and biology and so forth. 4) (omnipotent) We have made huge scientific and technological breakthroughs which have allowed us to harness the power of the atom, the power of solar energy, the power of chemical energy, the power of thermal energy etc, were also able to transfer these sources of energy into other sources of energy making us collectively quite powerful in regards to other animals and as a system of and in ourselves comparatively to non-conscious entities. 5) (invocation paradigm) This would simply imply that each simulation "God" expresses itself differently and allows itself to interpret itself in many different ways rather than be trapped in the higher realms of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresence being, because lets face it, its existence would be very very very very very very very boring. By becoming pantheistic and destroying itself it would allow for endless possibilities with the potential of never being whole again. (if it cant unite and stop the big freeze or exponential dark energy etc) so it also has a challenge. P.S I'm agnostic by nature, i dont conform to any religion persay but i do have deep philosophical roots within existentialism and collective consciousness. Regards.

You raised a good point in regards to this thread. Vegetarians generally dont eat meat because they dont like the thought of killing sentient being's, science doesnt account for moralistic effects on the universe. "Some" might argue that morals are divine, they are a form of balance in an otherwise chaotic, non-biased universe that would allow the unjust freedom. I'm not necessarily specifying that god gives us morals, but there is a case to be argued that morals are unique in nature and give some balance to an otherwise unjust universe. Also science can't really account for morality and existentialism. Atleast not yet. (my bowl of word tortilla chips)

I've briefly heard of entropy balance being a process of gravity. Not sure if that relates to your "universal energy balance"? In regards to your preferential reference being a process of "dark energy", i think the reference is universal in so much as we see that galaxies are expanding away from each other relative to each other, not to us. I recently watched a documentary that said the sporadic creation and annihilation of matter and anti matter particles that happen all the time might be a partial cause to this "dark energy" . I think i've done quite well not to be pushed into speculation already, i suppose dark energy isn't actually understood though so im not contradicting science that already exists. I'm surprised there's not many people that have idea's regarding the logical cause of this phenomenon. It's quite open for interpretation.

Whats more a part of you? your arm or the air around you? Most would say the arm obviously, as it is part of you, but you can survive without your arm, your cant survive without air. Your suffocating yourself through your own thinking. Get rid of the arm and find some decent oxygen.....

as in JTAG with and D types??

It's true you cant defeat the British, dno about the rest though.

I see i see, flash disk as in usb or SD card? I'm not very updates with tech.

I see, very nice description. So do any of the other planets in our solar system have molten cores? I'll read into it, see if our wide selection of elements is rare or normal.

So essentially its a wave until observed? or interacted with in some manner or another.

There's no reason to think they are (bound by SOL), I'm not sure anyone knows what happens in them as obviously they suck in all energy and light etc. I'm sure they redistribute the energy in some other form, i imagine matter completely dissipates and perhaps sub atomic particles are stripped down further than we currently have knowledge of. Strange how supernova either give us gold or black holes. As for the dark energy i assume it's related to time, loss of matter and gravity and possibly something regarding black hole interaction. I always wondered if once we got the furthest reaches of the universe in which we would expand (excluding the big freeze and perceptual "dark energy"), if time would go back on itself, and just rewind all the way to the big bang.

No i dont claim they are, i simply mean by sucking in other solar systems, suns etc they keep getting energy. Or is it the case they eventually stop sucking things in and just exist as dents in spacetime?

I understand that, but im trying to say is the label and possibly the effects are illusions, Yes they are happening but for a reason. Okay if i amend my analogy slightly to incorporate inflation (which is general consensus, best idea we have) and say that this specific chemical reaction took 1 nano second for the chain reaction to take place, then 1 nanosecond later it released all its energy, but after 5 more nanoseconds another explosion was due as a secondary reaction to first (took 5 nano seconds for the chemicals to reform with the gasses released). Then you can have the secondary explosion be a very slow reacting one, it takes 2.5 nanosecond for each part of the chain to hit the next and the chain is 4 chemical links away. so over the next 10 nanoseconds the explosion slowly builds up (17 nanoseconds in) at which point it uses all its energy in 1 nanosecond and the reaction is over. It can be reworded in many ways but the primary point is that what were calling "dark energy" obviously has a cause, in my analogy you wouldnt could the second reaction "dark energy" because you know its a secondary reaction from the first, so what im eluding to is the fact theres a logical conclusion and this "energy" might not be energy at all. Imagine spacetime, atomic clocks tick faster the higher up in altitude you go, so arguably gravity and time are relative, the more gravity, the slower time becomes. Therefore you could say its taken 7 billion years for gravity to disband far enough from each other such that the time in-between galaxies is now getting faster and faster and some minuscule changes in one galaxy (such as billions of gamma rays firing from all the suns of the solar systems) is having a larger impact because the time inbetween galaxies is going so fast, and this cycle is perpetuating. (Obviously this isnt true, but if it were, then "dark energy" would be an illusion) And i think there will be some fundamental cause to why it suddenly started expanding, at which point dark energy will be seen as placeholder for the actual cause, which will probably some equation relative to distance, spacetime and gravity (and possibly black holes, antimatter, a whole plethora of things) I think i mentioned in my other OP it could be something as simple as requiring x amount of supernova's so that gravity is decreased enough for expansion to start picking up pace. in such a case "dark energy" is nothing more than a time variable relative to the amount of matter that has been converted into other energies like gamma and light. It wouldnt even be a form of energy in such a case. Sorry if i seem a little OTT here, im just trying to convey that i perfectly well understand what "dark energy" stands for, but i also think there's a logical reason behind it, and that the whole thing has the possibility of being an illusion.

I'm not sure what i got, the streams are inputs into the black hole which has "said" rotational value, and they dont have loads of mass its just concentrated, which to my thinking doesnt explain why the whole galaxy rotates around it, if it doesnt have the biggest gravitational pull within the galaxy? Inform me if im wrong but do black holes ever run out of energy? From what i know its like a vortex where space propels the system much the same way a planet is catapulted around an elliptic orbit. Space itself can be pulled in and out because it has no property. They only get bigger. Never smaller. And as i put in my OP wouldnt this be counter active to dark energy??

It still fundamentally boils down to abstract thinking which can sometimes be counter intuitive to logic, which is the biggest problem probably. Especially for people of the science and math realm who use logic as primary tools. I've gone from quite an abstract thinker to a logical thinker mainly because its more grounded and i find it easier to think in logical terms. Keeps david icke and timewave zero at bay. I'd say thinking in abstract terms too much probably isnt healthy either, You'll probably end up drawing all sorts of nonsensical conclusions with perhaps a few good idea's. The great geniuses probably thought very abstract but they are generally acclaimed to some extent or another as insane or reclusive. Not uni-formally but generally speaking anyway. Also i think its important to define what box your in and what box your out, like boby fischer, he was inside the chess box, infact he defined the exact limits of the box, but he was far from within the political box. Philosophically speaking you define your own box and essentially thats what it all comes down to, but then philosophical thought is almost always abstract so i dont know. I think its important to grasp at what intellectual level you actual sit aswell, Like i know im never going to make any major breakthroughs or discoveries because i dont have enough pre-requisites to get deep enough into any field, science and math and philosophy are just hobbies and im content with that. It's therefore better for someone like me to think inside the box or else i'll hardly develop my understanding. Ill leave it to the dr's ad professors to do the heavy lifting.

Okay, so when do we talk of electrons being particles? All the chemistry i've learnt make use of them being particles within Schroedinger orbitals. I take it chemistry is classical physics? But fundamentally the same laws must apply? Hmmm i'll have to get my head around that one, i had fun thinking of the world in atom form based on the chemicals and chemical reactions, like the matrix. Now thats gone!!!

I'm curious as to the nature of the birth of our planet, primarily because were sitting on alot of molten hot iron, and i cant imagine how we would have a molten iron core unless we were a star or a star created an almost perfectly spherical drop of iron, or if 2 stars collided and we managed to grab aload of iron from the process. I know iron is the one of the most common element in the universe but i thought that was mainly due to nuclear fusion from all the stars, most of which dont make many elements bigger than iron. I'd imagine if we were to have been made though gravity and bits of iron they would be solid due to how cold the universe is. Is it common for planets to have molten iron cores? Also im aware that the higher density elements are only made from supernova, like all the radioactive elements, which leads me onto my next question, how do we have such rare elements? i mean from gold upwards these elements must be pretty rare yet we seem to have atleast an equal quantity in ratio terms to the amount that exists within the universe. Which is bizarre, to have an almost even spread of elements on a singe planet as there are elements in the universe is pretty unique. How would we acquire some of the radio active elements? Given earths atmosphere burns out most of whatever enters with the rare occasional extinction or such but even then the probability must be minuscule, even before we had life and an atmosphere its pretty random to have such exact quantities of rare elements. I'm presuming mars doesnt have such vast quantities of radioactive elements or gold etc (though i am only guessing) Also completely random and impractical BUT given we have 2 magnetic poles and the fact we spin on our axis, couldnt we use this conduct electricity, for example if the moon was sprung with totally in copper wire linked to us by nanotubes wouldnt we have infinite electricity? Regards.

Given the strong force keeps protons together in the nucleus, why would the protons not be held in place by the electron orbiting (or existing within an orbital zone) anyway?, i know they are opposite charges so the electron would attract the protons, but because they move so quickly in a very small area, given the probability of it being anywhere within that orbit is equal then the protons wouldn't move anyway, such that by the time its attracted to once place, the electrons moved to the other side and its reversed direction etc etc. (I dont know much about the standard model other than the primary classes, no idea about interaction) Also what stops the electron sticking to the proton? like if the strong force keeps the protons from repelling each other, what keeps the electrons in orbit? why dont they react with the protons immediately instead of doing everything in their power to avoid the protons, or in larger elements why dont the electrons in the outer valance disperse? if the inner electrons are tightly locked and act as barriers then eventually you'd presume the outer valence electrons would go just far enough out of their orbit area to break free (also given the fact the electrons should be repelling each other aswell), Regards.

Yes im aware the energy is transferred, essentially taking matter and stripping it apart, as long as matter is going in and massive rotational energy is created as a force of gravity, Q1 should be correct? Black holes only expand aswell which over time accumulate to larger gravity pits and its gravity is still huge, if there's one at the centre of every galaxy and thats what the galaxy rotates towards it must be pretty heavy. To my knowledge they dont run out of rotational energy because they are constantly being fed matter and space which then propels it even more, making it larger. From what i was told, the universe will end when the last black hole has transferred the last bit of matter into energy. Little side note, any clues as to where or what the energy of the matter is turned into? I think i've seen one hypothesis that says it spills out as EMR or basic sub atomic particles no longer connected and another that says it gets passed into either 1) a warp hole bending space on itself and spilling out half the universe away or 2) a parallel universe of a non-de-script nature.

Okay so im quite curious as to the test's performed and theory behind actually "entangling" two particles. All i know so far is that the dual split experiment acts differently depending on whether its being measured or not, such that when it is, we observe a particle going through a slit and when we dont, the particle acts as if it were a wave giving out the distribution that would be expected of a wave. I think this has already been equated to some law of probability that describes how the particle would distribute regardless of its form and by measuring it we are simply capturing an instance of that probability. Or the fact whatever we use to measure interacts with the "wave" giving it "particle" form. (so essentially it exists as a wave until we interrupt it which then bring about the many worlds hypothesis) Expanding upon that there's the experiment with 2 photons being emitted simultaneously by using 2 lasers and then these photons go in opposite directions and pass through a double filter that polarises them. When the filters are the same, both photons reach the detector. However if one filter is not in sync with the other the photons can still both be detected because they inverse each other and to go one step further, if at the time of the photon split both filters are synced and then one filter is then altered on one, it has the same effect (not sure if neither get detected when the filters switched after the split). Anyway the conclusion is that the 2 particles are somehow relaying information to one another over a distance that is greater than they could communicate if they used the SOL (which they are but in opposite directions) So this is where i get a little confused. Firstly, is this a primitive form of entanglement? such that the 2 photons somehow become synced when they are emitted? Actually what is the procedure for syncing any 2 particles? Im guessing they work on some binary system that is they are equal but inverted in some fashion (spin, polarization), Now does the entanglement have to do with the source and or time of creation? such that if they come from the same source at the same time they are automatically entangled? and how then do you entangle a third particle? (from what i've been told if you sync a third particle with the second, the third can swap places with the first, meaning it moves instantly, not just the state of the particle switching but a actually switching particles). Secondly i heard of an experiment where you fire electrons or photons or whatever at a barrier which then reflects the said particle, however for some reason a few actually pass straight through the barrier as if it weren't there which i believe is called tunnelling. Now from what i gather this is scientifically implausible, its the equivalent to dark matter such that it passes through the barrier as if it were a different form of particle or matter altogether. I dont know the exact statistics on this one, but might it be possible that if 2 electrons are fired at the same time and happen to hit the exact same location there could be some sort of tiny lapse in the barrier allowing the second particle through. such that the first knocked an electron out of position allowing the other a small gap to fly straight through, regardless of the material, because unless its positively charged (the barrier), the electron simply has pass by all the other electrons without being reflected. Infact, even without knocking the first electron out of position the law of probability would dictate that if you fire 100m^10m electrons at anything but metal there's the probability a few will pass through without getting deflected by the layers of electrons in the barrier? Thats actually quite a scary concept, if you had an electron gun you could fire them at someone and aswell penetrating them and knocking internal electrons out of orbit you could fire an electron straight through someone. Anyway I've digressed, so first a foremost what are the conditions or method required to create 2 entangled particles? Do particles exist as waves until acted upon by some other force? (like a measuring device) Can particles pass through solid objects? (or wave if we do not interact with it) Finally is it possible to entangle a 3rd particle to a 2nd and then have the third switch places with the first? I did rather like Einsteins analogy of a left and right hand glove though. Which would have been true if it not for the bell test.