Mr Skeptic

Well, either you or Fred56 may need sorting out, and I suppose this is the thread to do it. It would also be the thread to sort out Fred56's notion of time. Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that saying "e is an electric charge" means that e is an electric charge. Obviously e is an electric charge by definition. I was asking a "what if" question. Could you tell whether e is an electric monopole or a magnetic monopole? If all e charges in the universe were replaced with a magnetic monopole, would you be able to tell the difference? Or would it be like with matter/antimatter, where you have to just say one is matter and the other antimatter? Basically I am asking, is there proof that e is an electric monopole rather than a magnetic monopole, or do we just define it to be so?

That is essentially correct. I think that information having energy is also why it cannot be transmitted faster than c.

I agree. Religion can be easily used as an excuse. In anything politics or public relations, I usually assume that it is completely faked.

Sure, but I would rather he explain his position himself first. ----- Can we post some random questions here too? Here's one I've been wondering about: If you replaced all the charges e in the universe with magnetic monopoles, would it be possible to tell the difference? The obvious things like putting it in an electric field wouldn't work, because you wouldn't know for sure whether you had a magnetic or electric field if you didn't know whether e was an electric monopole or a magnetic monopole.

Saying that there's a logical fallacy in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is just plain ignorant. Also, you are wrong in this case. Given an infinite number of planets, you would have an infinite number of inhabited planets only if the probability that a planet be inhabited is not infinitesimally small for most of the universe. Consider all the integrals from n to infinity that have a finite value and you'll see what I mean. Or the infinite sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1. What do you mean? In my example, all the negative numbers would become positive. Then zero would be the greatest lower bound rather than the least upper bound but would still not be in the set [now of all positive reals]. Then you would be unable to find a lowest number in the set of positive reals.

Someone just recently educated me on this matter [of large finite numbers in an infinite set]. The idea is that the supremum of a set is not necessarily in the set. Consider the set of all negative reals. Then the supremum is zero, but zero is not in the set. You can get as close as you like to zero, but no matter how close you get, there will always be a closer number between zero and whatever negative number you chose. Does that make sense for you?

Fluorine is also a necessary trace element, important for both bones and teeth. It is nearly impossible to be fluorine deficient. It is best to keep it a trace, too, as it can be very nasty. I think it is best to not use fluorinated water and apply extra fluorine directly to the teeth for cavity prevention purposes. Also, avoid all toothpaste with "whitening" unless you brush your teeth after every snack or meal.

What you don't seem to understand is that science doesn't give a damn about "reality". Science is about observable reality. If you say, for example, that gravity is caused by invisible pink unicorns according to Einstein's equations, science will say, "We don't care about the invisible pink unicorn; if we cannot observe a difference than we will just assume there is no invisible pink unicorn and keep just Einstein's equations. Cause it's simpler that way."

[math]E = \sqrt{(m_0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2}[/math] For a photon, the rest mass [math]m_0[/math] is zero, but the momentum p is not.

I've read about this quite some time ago. The only new thing is the funding. Microwave radiation is not ionizing, so your testicles will be fine. The only problem with it is overheating, which will not be a problem so long as the radiation density is low enough. That will come at the cost of larger antenna area, but is doable. Whether the military will turn it into a death beam as well remains to be seen

Also, what about the Schwarzschild radius of the universe? Given an infinite universe with matter density [math]\rho[/math], the Schwarzschild radius would be [math]r_s = \frac{2Gm}{c^2} = \frac{2G}{c^2} \rho \frac{4}{3} \pi r_s^3 = \sqrt{\frac{c^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\rho\frac{4}{3}\pi}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}}\sqrt{\frac{c^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\frac{4}{3}\pi}}[/math] [math]r_s[/math] can be made arbitrarily big for small enough density [math]\rho[/math], but for any infinite universe it would eventually reach that radius. So how does this work? Does the Schwarzschild radius not work at this scale? Gravity work differently? Is the universe finite? Did I make a mistake? Is the universe's density zero, or even negative? Is this what is meant about the universe collapsing? For our universe, estimating mass density at [math]3 X 10^{-39} kg/m^3[/math], the Schwarzschild radius would be [math]2.3 X 10^{32} meters[/math], which is farther than we can see (c times age of universe). Would this mean anything? My head hurts.

If a law enforcement officer cut himself on it, you would be prosecuted for whatever charges they have for poisoning food. They'd probably throw attempted murder on top for good measure. You know its true. I think it is more about avoiding blame for making a mistake. People need to start suing them when they do this, and then they will stop. I think the problem with advanced sciency equipment is that it is quite unusual for people to have these now days, so anyone who does have them [in their home] sticks out like a sore thumb. Sciency stuff can also be used for nefarious purposes, so the cautious thing to do may well be to investigate. Trouble is, when they don't find anything they don't want to admit they made a mistake.

Maybe you should do the former and not do the latter. Then people might take you seriously. No, but it completely destroys your argument. It shows that we can, in fact, eat meat without causing excessive suffering. And of course, I get: Seems like just another post trying to bait me. How would you have me respond to that? You can continue to dismiss me if you want. Continue to feel superior. Do what makes you feel good. In my defense, you do seem silly, and also amusing. Though you are getting more of the former and less of the latter as time goes on and the posts accumulate. Also, I wish to point out how silly it is to expect us to not eat meat. We are omnivores, which means we eat plants and animals. Do we have less rights than an animal? Perhaps you should start the Campaign for Vegetarian Omnivores. Why does it not bother you that other omnivores eat meat? They have the choice to eat only veggies, but they to choose to eat meat. Why are you not bothered by carnivores, who's very life depends on eating others?

I think you are selfish too. If you weren't you could give whatever money you pay to access the internet to the poor, and the time saved you could work and get more money to give to the poor. Sounds like you're being a hypocrite. Note: I am a selfish bastard, but that doesn't mean I can't point out that you are one too. Believe? Why don't you go check out the farms then. Some of them are quite good, especially the open range ones. There's still plenty of forest out there. You can leave the artificial constructions us humans have made and go live a free, natural life in some forest where you won't bug us. Good for you. Go visit a ranch, then.

You mean something like the bombardier beetle? I agree with SkepticLance. Nature does not plan ahead, and spontaneous combustion is a negative trait. Why would we want to get energy from expensive food when we can get it from cheap coal, sunshine, hydro, wind ...?

I don't think he will give up until he figures out why he is wrong, proves it is right, or dies, whichever happens first. I think this is a good thing, we need a few crazy ideas so we can have some progress if they are not all completely wrong. --- Farsight, as promised I looked more closely at your electron, and found a specific prediction. This is more general than just the moeibus loop configuration; there will be similar predictions for any photon loop. Prediction: the electron will have a maximum wavelength like a photon of 511 keV in a loop. The actual wavelength depends on how many wavelenths fit in the loop. This is a departure from the de Broglie wavelength [math] \lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/math] for low p. I'm not sure it is measurable, though.

I like the space based solar power idea. It will always be in the sun, not be filtered by the atmosphere, promote space launches, provide power in space. The energy can be beamed to earth by microwaves, which can be done without risk of harm. I am suspicious of the DoD involvement in this. The least they would want is to beam power to remote military instalations (to cut down on supply line), but it could probably be used for some other nefarious purposes as well. I think this may be a stepping stone for future space exploration, colonization, or manufacturing, which is a big part of why I think it is a good idea.

I've been wanting to calculate the classical electric force of the electron assuming that the electron is a smoothly distributed charge, where the charge density would be the e times the probability of finding the electron at a certain location. And then calculate the potential energy of a electron/positron pair given this model, to see if it would be equal to the rest energy of the particles. However, my math-jitsu skills are lacking for this. Does anyone know how to do it?

Females have redundant X chromosome, so that if one is damaged, the other can make up for it. That's why females can carry genetic diseases without necessarily succumbing to them.

Haha, its too "deep" for me. Deep in what, I cannot say

It will fall at about escape velocity plus its initial velocity. Conservation of energy here, it gains as much energy falling as it would take to throw it back where it came from. So it will fall quite fast.

Conservation of matter is a fundamental of chemistry (disregarding specific cases like matter-antimatter annihilation, which requires antimatter). Basically, the law of conservation of energy plus the mass-energy equivalence mean that you can't create matter from nothing. Unless you're God, maybe. Some energy is stored in as potential energy (which looks like mass) in chemical bonds (tiny amounts) or as evidenced by the differing masses of different nuclei (the basis for fusion and fission energy) Overall, the mass of the earth has increased a lot due to space debris falling down. Due to the radioactive decay of uranium and such, some of the mass of the earth is turning into energy, but this is incredibly small. Even smaller is that energy plants store as chemical bonds, but that overall is zero because the plants are eaten for their stored energy. Basically, you got the right idea. There is no free lunch, it had to come from somewhere!

I think that without ego people would be so worthless the monkeys would laugh at them.

Thank you, Aeternus, that makes sense. So then saying "as big as you like so long as it is finite" is like saying as "in the set of reals less the 2 you can get as close as you like to 2 so long as you don't actually get to 2"?

No, my proof only concerned the leftmost digit. Or you could just use binary. 0 and 1. I'm talking about the number of digits, not the number of distinct digits. And yet each integer in the set is unique, and you can only have so many unique integers per so many digits. Simply saying it is so won't make it so. How can there be infinitely many integers with finitely many digits, and what would that finite number of digits be? Saying the number of digits is bigger than any finite number seems equivalent to saying it is infinite (not finite). Well, it would be more like [math]10^{\infty}[/math], but I see what you mean. It would need a nonzero "first" digit at infinity, which seems like a contradiction. And if passed through my mirror function, it would become an infinitesimal [math]10^{-\infty}[/math] Actually, the ...999 gives me more trouble than that, because mirroring it would give .999... = 1, and mirroring it back again would give 1 instead of ...999 . So then my mirror function isn't actually a function. That kind of messes up my idea --- I still can't see how you can have infinitely many integers with finitely many digits though.