Mr Skeptic

It doesn't seem like you found an explanation for why space expanding more where there is less matter if it were caused by matter unfolding. Your theory seems to predict the opposite, that the expansion would be greater wherever there is matter. Also, read up on particle decay -- particles do not disappear! Only matter/anti-matter can make particles disappear. The only decay I can think of that results in less particles is reverse beta decay, but that only occurs in very few atoms.

So do something already! Well, you also forgot about the first part of my sig, Much of what you propose I already have figured out what is wrong with it, and most of the rest I do not understand. Also, I know quite little of astronomy, so I am probably not the best person to talk about this. However, since you asked, here's what I think. Well, according to the current theories, all matter was created everywhere, with a large density. Now, if you say that the matter was all created in a small area, then the center of that area would be the center of the universe. This goes against current scientific theories/knowledge. So photons are "folded up space", but they are also "unfolded" and "the most basic ripples possible". Seems like you are contradicting yourself. By the "as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space" do you mean the premitivity of space and the permeability of space? Also, by saying "annihilation" and "half-life", are you implying that radioactive things turn into photons? Cause annihilation requires matter and antimatter, whereas radioactive decay causes some particles to change into other particles, releasing energy as well. Then why is the expansion larger where there is no matter but smaller where there is matter? I don't know, its your idea. However, don't forget about the first law of thermodynamics. The whole quantum borrowing of mass-energy is for a limited time only, so I don't see how it could explain the universe. Actually, it would snap back to its original shape, bye bye particle. Maybe you should look at how Farsight dealt with this problem, not that any one here will listen to him. Hmm. That bit sounds about right. The speed a wave travels at is pretty much independent of its frequency, amplitude and energy. The speed is determined by the attributes of the material (for a string, that would be tension and linear density). I think it recieved the worst redicule possible, being ignored. Probably because it seems mostly wrong and also unclear and vague. You might consider reading some of Farsight's stuff (which you may understand, or at least understand why no one wants to touch your theory with a ten foot pole), or some string theory, which also deals with waves and (I think) knots, and other attributes of space as an explanation to matter. When you get some answers to that, I may also consider criticizing your other posts.

Well, I don't think they are an actually infinite set, but they are theoretically infinite. Eventually they have some limits, such as the number of atoms in the universe, or the size of a black hole, etc.

Hope no one misinterprets that

People generally have one leg that is slightly larger or stronger than the other. This tends to make them take slightly larger strides with that leg, so that they walk in (very large) circles, when they think they are walking in a straight line. With proper landmarks to guide them, they can correct their course, or course. I don't know if that is the problem here, but it might be.

An antenna for EM higher than visible light? Seems to me like that would call for a molecule or atom-sized antenna. At higher frequencies the capacitance of the antenna itself would become a problem (as it is in computer chip wires at high frequencies). Why would you want a high EM antenna when you could easily use a photodetector at those frequencies?

So is the attraction a large inverse square force, and the repulsion a smaller inverse cube force, or how does it switch from attraction to repulsion?

Yeah. Time travel is soooo dangerous because we could destroy the whole universe by creating a paradox!!! Oh, wait. Paradoxes are paradoxes because they can't happen, and if they can happen, they are no problem Also, causeing the world to cease to exist would cause a paradox as well. Anyhow, if time travel were dangerouse we would have gotten a note from the future telling us not to use time travel.

Of course it goes wrong. This thread is an example of such, where they apparently activated his memories instead of finding a solution to obessity. Just remember that the electrodes can easily be turned off, so it's not like its a particularly bad mistake.

Well, I'm pretty sure that we now understand nutrition much better than we did a few hundred years ago. People know what vitamins and minerals they need, and can learn from what to get them (sometimes the side of the box says that), we can always add supplements to foods (like vitamin D milk), or take vitamin pills. There's little reason for anyone to suffer a vitamin/mineral defficiency nowadays.

Making it a large, rigid, airtight tube would just be unfeasable.

Not really. Read it and weep.

Yup. That's why it is usually a more or less last resort to start sticking stuff in the brain. There's also a risk or physically cutting the wrong neurons, or inserting the electrodes in the wrong place. But for some things, it works really well (like an extremely well targetted drug).

Just wondering... would it be possible to blow up Jupiter? It is a large body of mostly Hydrogen and Helium (99+% for the atmosphere and 95% below), and if we put enough nukes in proper arangement around it might we be able to make a miniture supernova? That seems like it would be enough to destroy Earth.

Mind telling me your password?

Well, there's (I think) all biomolecules, water, most if not all acids, anything with the hydroxide (--OH), amino (--NH2) etc groups, and so on. If you wanted a list of every molecule that contains H, I don't think you could write it in all the paper in the world.

Deep brain stimulation can also be used for things like curing major depression. It is a new science, and it has both great potential and great risk. Perhaps by doing it more we will learn more about our brains, and gain more control of ourselves.

In general yes, but there are exceptions. (The exceptions are effects of things like half-filled orbital shells and such, which have lower energy than other configurations)

I agree with bombus that at least some abstract thought has been demonstrated in animals (as well as capability to plan, communicate, teach, socialize, make compound tools, etc.). What humans have is a unique combination of mental skills at sufficient levels to have a technological society. Also, there is evidence that brain size is not the whole story. There were many brilliant people who had very few braincells. Also, H. florensis is thought to have been very smart despite their tiny brain.

SkepticLance, you are so fond of pointing out how little percent genetic difference there is between humans. What do you thing the genetic variation is in Canis lupus familiaris? Perhaps we should consider banning all dogs?

Just keep in mind that no matter how high such things are dropped from, they would not fall fast enough to form a wound. The terminal velocity from something like that is so small that you would hardly notice if one hit you, even if it were dropped from a plane, much less break the skin.

What are the reactants?

Well, the flaky translucent aspect of it seems like it would be mica. It is definitely some kind of crystalline mineral. Why would you think that something as big as a grain of sand is something nefarious? Does it emit em waves or something? I would guess that if you removed that from a lesion, the things you think are antennas are most likely to be lint fibers.

Very little energy is actually required on a per-molecule level in chemistry. Such is evident in eg batteries and electrolysis of aluminum. And (h * c) / (240 nm) = 5.16600715 electron volts. But that is an inefficient production method' date=' though I don't know if ozone can actually be produced directly (3 O[sub']2[/sub] + energy → 2O3) So it seems your calculations are correct, and for a bit over 5 eV you can get two ozones. --- I also looked up the minimum energy needed to form ozone, which is +142.3 kJ / mol from O2, which turns out to be 1.47 eV per molecule. I also learned that ozone can explode

But it is very close to reality if the assumptions are close to reality. If your projectile is in space, or massive with an aerodynamic shape, those equations will match extremely closely with reality.