Marqq

http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_courses3.php?Tape_Name=Standard It's worth a look (and I'm pretty sure this one has the part about elementary particles). As to their instability, pay attention at the beginning of the series (if this is the right one). (Sorry, my sound doesn't work, so I can't view the videos to make sure it's the right one)

it's a little laggy also, I don't think I'm nerdy enough for it

He would experience one continuous stream of conscious thought, from the time before being 'frozen' to the time he 'thawed', but no interactions would occur while frozen. I think you misunderstood my post... Nothing new happens during the freeze; it takes time for thoughts to progress, and no time is experienced while frozen. Conscious thought only continues as a state--from an outside perspective, thought is stopped and consciousness ceases.

In another scenario, say, if a person who accelerated to [acr=light speed]c[/acr] while conscious, all interactions, micro and macro, would slow and stop due to time-dilation. I believe this situation would better suit your question, since you don't have to worry about effects of temperature change. To answer, I'd say: Yes, a consciousness that could be observed to be 'stopped' is still conscious. As defined by Wikipedia: Subjectively speaking, a person in the aforementioned scenario is aware of his surroundings, even if restricted to his inertial frame. He still experiences feelings, wakefulness, etc.. The point of view of the stationary observer doesn't alter the state of our traveler, because due to it's subjective aspect, consciousness is relative.

I've checked the links, and I've gotta admit, I still don't get it. In [acr=faster than light]FTL[/acr] information transmission, causality can apparently be violated by transmitting information among pairs of reference frames (2 stationary observers and 2 fast-moving observers). Something still doesn't ring true to me about this theory, and I attribute that to my limited understanding of special relativity. (In the visual aids in the link below, the moving pair's interaction is skewed in a way I don't understand.) (ref http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html ) There are a couple ideas very similar to this involving super-dense constructs spinning at great speeds used to (somehow) skew frames of reference to achieve the same result. The other major mechanism involves the use of a wormhole (or system of wormholes), with one stationary end and one end that's moved to an area with greater inertial influence (forcing time-dilation) and then moved back to the same inertial environment of the stationary end. This sounds completely bogus to me, because time-dilation doesn't slow time, it inhibits the changes by which we measure the local perceived passage of time. I think the only reason time-travel (to the past), or causality violation (love the new term I learned, ty ophiolite), are ideas still being entertained is due to misunderstandings and ambiguity in theories.

I keep hearing this, along with ideas about wormholes and negative energies and all that, but I've never heard an explanation of how GR allows for time-travel into the past. I'm not sophisticated enough to go through the published theory and actually understand it, so could I ask you to put the essential portion of it into layman's terms?

OK, so 1 hp = 550 foot pounds per second (when referring to mechanical horsepower), which means that 1 hp can lift a 500 lb load 1 foot every second. Perhaps you wanted to know how many watts or joules are available from this system (assuming power transfer is 1:1)? By the way, 1 hp is about 746 Joules/sec, or Watts. So for this system, I'd assume 1 second of movement and say: [math]1hp = \frac{550 lb \times 1 ft}{1 sec}; 3000 lbs \times 7 ft = 21000 ft-lbs; 21000 \div 550 = 38.\overline{18} hp[/math] Here we go, now I get that you're asking how much horsepower is being expressed. Half a foot in an hour?? Lets do this, then... [math] 1 hour = 3600 sec ; 6 in = 0.5 ft \frac{\frac{3000}{550} \times 0.5}{3600} = 7.\overline{57}\times 10^{-4} hp[/math] Kinda lame, so I figure you might just be looking for how much potential energy (joules) is available in the system. So, multiply hp of the original 1-second calculation (38.18...) by 746, and you get 28483.64 joules. Edited because I accidentally hit the 'Post' button instead of the preview button before I was finished. This is my first post using the LaTeX math notation system...thanks for the opportunity to try it out.

Globalization and localization generally refers to where a variable is declared, as well as from where it can be accessed. A global variable can be accessed from anywhere within a class, or in some languages, from outside the class (requiring the class be pre-loaded). A local variable exists only within a class or function or whatever, and depending on the language, can even share its name with other local variables in other parts of the program. The concept can also apply to functions and subroutines as well. CLASS Example PUBLIC x AS INTEGER = 20 'Global variable SUB CountByN() DIM n AS INTEGER = 7 'Local variable x = x + n END SUB WHILE x < 100 TextBox1.text = TextBox1.text & x CountByN() END WHILE TextBox1.text = TextBox1.text & n 'CRASH!! Because 'n' is not declared at this scope END CLASS This example is in ad-lib VisualBasic...I doubt it'd really work, because I don't think I can put a while loop outside of a function or subroutine, but it should give the idea...

Occam's razor-- Doesn't always lead to truth, but definitely is a good rule of probability. But considering science never proves anything, and by protocol follows the path of greatest probability, Occam's razor definitely has a place here.

You know, upon rereading, I'm picking up (sorry I'm slow) that you've already inhaled vapors... I'm not a medical professional, and nobody on this site will give you medical advice, because lawyers suck, so call your poison control center immediately and tell them you may have inhaled fumes from a capacitor, most likely containing boric acid or sodium borate and reacting with whatever it was spilled on. Sorry...last base has been covered now ...

I think the warnings imply to keep the area well-ventilated, wear protective goggles, and rubber gloves... I'm sure you hate the idea, but I should probably advise you to seek parental aid in this... If you're seeing vapors (still?) then it's probably mostly whatever's getting dissolved by the acid. I hope you can get it out of the house (like, that it's not the floor or something else nailed down)... I might be overreacting, as these agents are in very small quantity, and the reactions are likely complete...but you gave away your age, so I've got to cover all bases. Just be careful, and use your head, dude, even if that means telling on yourself.

That's all I could find...apparently, there's materials in the solution nowadays to slow dangerous evaporation, but yes, it's likely toxic and corrosive. Not as bad as they used to be, but not terrible. Check your local ordinances for disposing of toxic materials (this isn't the sort of thing your supposed to just toss in the trash, though most do).

Can this be related to the Double-Slit Experiment, the conclusion of which states that undetected electrons take all paths and no path simultaneously? Perhaps while they're skipping the space between orbits, they're also taking every possible path between them?

How long was it frozen, and at what temperature (don't frozen aqueous solutions sublime)? Also-- 1 cup 13% alcohol + 1 cup stock + ~2/3 cup onion = 2 2/3 cups, so that 13% alcohol is already down to ~4.875%. Finally, how would the alcohol dissolved into the fat of the stock affect your results and the titration technique?

(underlines added) The truth is that most people who argue the pro-life side of a suicide debate are religious folks who believe hell (or its equivalent) awaits anyone who commits suicide. They're also the sort of people whose lives are satisfying overall, and are deluded enough to think that every other person has similar circumstances. Now I know that denying an argument based on its presenter is a fallacy, but here, I only mean to deny the unspoken premises: That all lives are more good than bad; That suicide leads to even greater suffering for the one committing it. I do have to admit that, in many cases of suicidal thoughts and actions, the motivation lies in a childish knee-jerk-like pouting brought about with little more than anecdotal suffering. Such instances could be disqualified with relative ease; the validity of logical no-hope-of-improvement conclusions could be tested. But there are instances where a person would truly be better off dead, and help in that situation should be available. This is not an argument of pessimism vs. optimism. Males do hate it when women have a point that's valid.....thanks for hiding it so well...but just to rile us, could you try to be more clear with the statements I didn't underline?

OK, I'm not sure how you don't see that, for the majority of humanity, "Stop having children" = "Stop having sex". Even if you could convince people that life was so horrible that creating new life was the most heinous cruelty imaginable, they'd just (quite automatically, in the US) counter with the fact that making babies is the one thing that makes life bearable! Well, that or they'd just look at you like you had two heads... To put it simply, though, it's extremely improbable that anything could convince people to even cut back on procreation in a significant way. Even with the criminalization of fertility, children would be born somehow, somewhere. Feelings are highly variable from person to person due to perspective, as mentioned by Hari. Also, as mentioned by Tony, many lives are perfectly livable and overall good experiences. However, though they appear the minority, some lives are torturous traps of despair. A person should have the choice of whether or not to end it oneself. As it stands in America, the desire to die, by itself, classifies a person as mentally ill, and therefore unfit to decide their fate. For these people, I agree, there should be information available on simpler ways, or maybe even a government aid program, to end one's life. The whole idea, though, is taboo in nearly every religion, and, considering most of the world is religious, a very difficult subject to breach in any group. Politically speaking, voting for any legislation allowing for suicide would be political suicide. Ethics is not a primary concern in our society, despite so many claims to such. Appeasement of the ignorant, selfish and whiny majority is all we can reasonably expect from today's leaders.

Hi..my name is Mark and I'm a poorly educated scientist. I've got a good grip on basic reasoning and have a wide range of random knowledge, and I'm awesome at video games...like that's helpful..but still--G.E.D. and no degree. My main area of study has been language and teaching, but like most of my knowledge, I don't know enough about any one area to be an expert on anything. I have a lot of interest in physics, math, and engineering, along with some special interests in politics and medicine.

OH! Well, in that case, you'd have to refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: You can't simultaneously know the position and speed of an object (and, ok...there's LOTS more to it). And we know where the Universe is (you are here ☻).

So you're really just looking for a cipher... Since you apparently want to be able to type it, the Russian alphabet may be a really good choice for you. You could even make it a bit more random by NOT learning their alphabet, and instead equating it with the placement of their letters on your keyboard. Using windows, you have the option to install many different keyboards, and switch between them very easily...this could be done rather easily with Japanese, and using the katakana approximations of our sounds, but then any 日本人　could easily figure it out. With Russian, the keyboard layout is very different from the US standard Qwerty, so you could simply type in English, but it'd come out like this: Еру йгшсл кув ащч огьзув щмук еру дфян икщцт вщпю (The quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog.) (period comes out as 'yu'--ю) And, it'd still be complete gibberish to Russians.

Where can I find an elaboration on this idea? I always thought of the big bang as the creation of matter(etc.) in the known universe. In this interpretation, the whole system is still 'banging', and it's center could be considered its origin. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of 'an explosion of space', but it seems like some funky way of saying 2 things moved apart... Does it, perhaps, imply that nothing existed beforehand (at all)? If so, isn't the idea somewhat akin to geocentrism? If this thread is asking about the speed at which the known universe is expanding, and there's actual evidence that said expansion is accelerating, then let's speculate: 1. Perhaps there's mass outside our known universe and our edges are finally close enough to be affected. 2. Perhaps the gaseous mass of our known universe has a life-cycle like that of a star, maintaining size for a great period and then expanding rapidly before its eventual collapse. 3. Perhaps space-time curves as things get further from the center of our known universe to the effect that events accelerate without added force. 4. Perhaps the lack of external gravity lessens the effect of inertial time-dilation, and the known edge of the universe is finally approaching the boundary where such is observable. Just a few ideas, imperfect as I'm sure they are...

OK, wow... I can't pretend to really understand QM or anything, but I do get what the disagreement is here. Daedalus says movement along the X axis implies motion, because it has a function on the y axis that can be measured. Swansont explains the standing wave thing; well done there, but I think it wasn't quite implicit enough. So the x-axis is time, and we (along with everything else-electrons and standing waves included) are moving (per se) along it at a rate presumed to be constant. Atomic clocks measure a change in state that, as Swansont said, can't be considered motion-- This state-change would be represented by the y-axis, and thus be measurable. The question is, how can something change without movement, and well, the answer is, the way a point in space doesn't move when a sound (or other) wave passes over it. The wave is there, then it's not. In the case of a sound wave, the density has changed, but for subatomic quantum-mechanical thingamajigs, there is no density, there's just existence and non-existence. They phase in and out (ya, QM loses me right about here), without movement in the classical sense. That makes the y axis neither spacial x/y/z, nor time, but rather a 5th dimension to be measured in boolean terms. Nevertheless, I'd have to argue that anything that exists for any amount of time DOES move in relation to something, as there's always something in motion; and yes, the inability to reach absolute zero does mean that atomic clocks will always have some motion to contend with. But the purpose of this thread is not to question motion, but time. The only issue with these statements is that you use the word 'motion'. Motion Change is inherent in time. I'd even go so far as to say that without change, time would not exist. It'd certainly have no meaning at all, and it could never be measured. I'd go a step further and say that the 'dimension' of time is little more than an emergent property of change in the three spacial dimensions and the fourth--phasing; time cannot be observed without these, which is why its passage seems relative. These 4 dimensions exist for every point in time we can arbitrarily define. But though we define it, observe it and altogether depend on it, time doesn't exist as a stand-alone dimension. Therefore, time-travel is impossible, because the x-axis which measures it is ultimately imaginary. (time is the y axis) Ya, so I started off all humble, then my outstanding arrogance came out....better disclaim: I'm a laymen college dropout with very little scientific training who's done only several hours of online research on the topics of GR, QM, and whatever else sparked my interest while watching the science channel at 4 in the morning. So if I'm wrong about something, CALL ME ON IT! I do hope I at least helped with your disagreements.

So, the argon is dissolved in the solution...and you're decreasing atmospheric pressure. I'm pretty sure I remember from high school chemistry that doing so would decrease the solubility of whatever is dissolved (along with moving the freezing/boiling point). Kinda like opening a can of pop-- air pressure inside the can is much higher than outside, and when you release that pressure (making a relative vacuum), the CO2 .... I can't remember the word for un-dissolving--solve maybe?...but you get the point, and that's what you're doing to the argon. Do you also cool the solution while degassing? I think that also changes solubility, but that can also be a method for saturation, so idk how much difference it would make...

You're measuring events on the smallest scale possible, then? Supposing that every microcosmic event (am I using that term right?) can be reduced to a standardized interval of existence (your "units"), I think you may be right... I wonder, though, about systems with less mass, or less energy, or under the influence of inertia; what else would be happening to make up for all that's NOT happening, to fulfill your equation? Does this suggest that, for any point in space, existence and eventuality are greater than zero, that there's another relativity going on? (I'm glad I'm in the Speculations thread so I can talk like this) Is it the same relativity, with said happenstance being the cause of inertial dilation of observable happenstance? OK, I've rambled enough...if anyone can follow, you get a gold star, because I'm not really sure what I just wrote...

98.6°F is your body's internal temperature. Your body produces heat constantly, at around a maximum of 98.6°F. As you near your external surface, and especially the extremities, the average temperature drops to around 91°F1. That's why they have to stick the thermometer up in your [acr=armpit or under your tongue..what did you think I was gonna say?]...[/acr], because the heat doesn't escape so quickly from there. Certain organs even have different temperature requirements to function well, though the difference is very slight. Your skin, though, is supposed to regulate the transfer of thermal energy to and from your environment. Feeling hot or cold is less a reaction to your internal temperature, and more a reaction to your skin temperature. Since your body is always producing heat, an external temperature equal to your internal temperature allows much less of that excess energy to be expelled. In such a situation, your poor body can barely keep up! 1:http://{http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AbantyFarzana.shtml}

I think your main issue is that you're not including the qualifiers and one definition. D). The Universe is all that is, and includes everything that is known to us and not known to us. 1). Nothing can exist or act from within a place that doesn't exist, having inherited the property of non-existence. (ex. Phil works at the WalMart on the moon. He says, "Hi.") 2). Without existing in some place, a thing does not exist [acr=qualifier]in relation to any place that exists[/acr]. (ex. The construction workers that built the WalMart on the moon are nowhere to be found. So where do we send their checks?) C1). [acr=qualifier]Because the Universe includes everything that exists[/acr], nothing can or has ever existed outside the Universe. (ex. The WalMart on the moon has never had customers...) 3). A thing must exist before affecting change. (This one is actually debatable due to mass assumptions about God creating itself.) (ex. Phil, the guy that works at the WalMart on the moon, knocked up my sister!) C2). The Universe was not created by anything that exists. OR The Universe was not created. (ex. But there is no WalMart on the moon.) C3). God, [acr=qualifier]as defined by most religions[/acr], does not exist. (ex. I'm voiding my check to the construction crew...and I'm having a talk with my sister.) The examples were really just for fun, but I hope they help illustrate the argument... Note that it all crumbles depending on your interpretation of religious texts.