questionposter

I understand that quarks can be proven in the sense that black holes are proven, but I don't think we've actually directly measured them to see that they exist, and I don't know how we ever could. Doing that would require isolating quarks, which is impossible because theoretically the energy needed to isolate a quark theoretically ends up making more quarks which form particles with the quark your trying to isolate, and thus we can never observe an isolated quark and confirm its existence. Also, what type of photon would a single quark even emit?

You should do more research on these theories, because these theories don't break relativity. The only thing is that I think wormholes for some reason defy the law of the conservation of energy, but you can theoretically get from point A to point B faster than light, and you can do it by folding space. Folding space in a certain way cuts the distance between two opposite points in the curvature that would normally follow a straight line, and thus you do not travel a greater distance in the same amount of time as light, but still arrive faster because your cutting the distance it takes for you to get to your destination, it's a pretty elegant solution if we can create it. Also, many engineers and scientists are working on way to store humans. There's even animals that can naturally remain dormant for virtually indefinite periods, such as waterbears and certain frogs that can freeze.

Even if we leave now, we still don't know for sure that planet will be able to support life. What if it turns out its not right in some ways? Spectral analysis can't tell us everything. And what if a giant meteor smashes into it on the way there? And where are we going to get the energy to fuel a giant rocket-ship for 5 billion years? And even if there won't be physical contact, Earth could still be flung into the center of the collision where may bursts of high energy occur as well as very large areas of super-heated gas and many black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs, all of which could destroy Earth and the sun.

There are a few ways scientists expect we can get from point A to point B faster than light. One is wormholes, which have been udner attack lately. Another is moving the fabric of space itself, since there isn't really a limit government how fast the fabric of space can move. And then there's quantum teleportation or jumping, which is extending the probability of an object or the complex manifolds of the fabric of space to a location you want. Then there's also that warp drive thing where you can curve space in a way to travel faster than light. I don't know exactly how you can travel faster than light just because space is curved, I guess you could describe it as constantly cutting the distance between two points by bending the space between them, and thus you don't actually cover more distance than light and don't break relativity, but still arrive at a faster time. In less than 5 billion years the sun's energy will be used up, and in only 10 million years its possible Earth may be flung into the center of the galactic collision between Andremeda and our galaxy, right into Saggitarius A.

If prisons did that though, would people really stop committing crimes?

Well I don't see what else makes sense, since your not really explaining it. Then why did you say it in support of particlism? No, you didn't explain how it was wrong, all you said was "that" it is wrong, and I don't see how spin proves it wrong seeing as how you use spin with wave mechanics to determine probability. Furthermore, how do these "operators" account for the nodal surfaces and quantinization of energy, spin, momentum, etc? How do they explain it? So it only occurs with the weak (force) interaction? Or it doesn't occur because the process itself is a weak interaction? Because otherwise I don't see many other explanation for why the contact doesn't trigger them combining if it only occurs with the weak interaction. Why doesn't it occur without a weak force interaction if they come into contact with each other?

It seems to satisfy the criteria if we assume it's an oval track. but there's still more than one answer.

Ok, they only happen in radioactive materials, which I think have a lower binding energy per nucleon but still have a greater total amount of potential energy seeing as how it takes a supernova to form them and it would also take a higher amount of potential energy. With radioactive materials it seems to happen naturally, but otherwise not even degenerate matter seems to be able to do it, the electrons just get squeezed out, and I wouldn't be surprised if particle colliders can do it. And you still didn't answer my question of why it doesn't happen more often if the electrons in most atoms actually come into contact with protons. Actually, based on what I can find, I can't say any lab has done ANY particular combination of particles, all I can say for sure is they have done experiments involving protons, electrons, neutrons, positrons, etc.

Math is just the patterns we observe, there's nothing to suggest that math is reality and I can just find the number 2 floating around (I think one of the great philosophers like Plato or Aristotle also thought math was reality and that numbers could therefore exist on their own without human invention, and literally believed you could in some way find the true value of "2" just floating around somewhere). Math is reality in the sense that there are many of those patterns that exist in nature which change by specific amounts of something, but I don't think you can directly say any particular object is math.

Is there a way to compress matter into degenerate matter here on Earth? Would have you to constantly compress it or once you compress it does it just stay like that?

Yeah, nukes on the meteor itself seem like it would be a good idea, I didn't know we had the technology to land on a meteor and plant a nuke, so I'd always imagined there would be some kind of missile that was just designed to detonate based on proximity, since it's a pretty hard shot to make, but there should be testing to make sure releasing enough energy to destroy and/or very quickly deflect [math]2.5*10^8*10^8kg[/math] of mass doesn't destroy a large portion of the oozone or really damage Earth that much at all.

I don't see why they wouldn't be, because if they went backwards neither would be able to come into first place because technically you can't finish a lap that way. They are also facing forwards.

So how often in a random object on Earth does it actually just have an electron spontaneously fall into the nucleus? Or is it only in radioactive materials? And still, why doesn't it happen more often if it doesn't require any added energy?

Even in an oval track, there is often a straight part for which the finish line is placed on, and based on how I was told, I would say they are moving towards the finish line and not from it.

It is a big hypothetical, but it would also answer whether or not gravitational fields are really analogous or quantized bundles of energy traveling at specific speeds.

Oh wait, actually, it says the people are running which means they are currently in motion during this riddle, which means if they are in motion and before the finish line, they haven't passed it yet since if they did passed the finish line they would stop, so the riddle is still unsolved.

So if it means nothing, would I never pick up a green marble if the chance of picking one up was 1/i?

Wait, I'm all for quarks and I practically go about physics as if there's no debate that they are real, but since when were they actually "proven" to exist? The problem is that so many experiments have been done that saying many of these unobserved particles don't exist is a lot like saying air doesn't exist. There's still some theoretical particles, but there's pretty solid evidence for many, people wouldn't just make them up on the spot or for the fun of it and the existence of these particles is taught in college for a reason and there are consistent patterns that can be seen in particle collisions.

From what I and other people I have concluded, much racism seems to be formed from environment and prejudices that aren't eve corrected. Seeing as how that is the case, with consistant education in youth, hate crimes at least in the US will be more of a thing of the past, and I've actually seen that development in my own city.

A lot of health care would be nice for many people. It would take a large burden off a large population of the United States, which would probably make people less stressed and in effect kinder (like Canada?), as well as able to focus more on work. I really don't mind paying a little bit more on taxes either from on products or my Capital Gains tax seeing as how it could do a lot of good.

Perhaps the part of the fridge your attaching it too isn't made out of magnetic material...

There's virtually infinite ways to explains things, so out of infinity, you just have to find one thing or sequence "Holly" would understand.

According to my Nephew they are teaching that phrase in high school. Many (but not all) of the laws of the US constitution apply equally to every citizen, but that doesn't mean things can't ever be unfair. It's not a bad decision or a direct result. No one chooses to be born to any specific person, and it's not their fault the US constitution didn't mandate right away that they should be educated. It wasn't until Linden B. Johnson or shortly after him that the President actually used the military to force schools to accept black people after the repeal of the Plessy vs Ferguson law. And even if it was illegal to be discriminate, many police officers often didn't listen to the complaints of black people. In fact, even when black people did have the right to vote under the constitution, they were still often intimidated away, and in the south they were arrested or lynched. I wouldn't really say it's their fault they're poor, I would say they are poor because not enough has been done to combat the after effects of that era of segregation. And you think that is fair? So if you were an African American who earned only about $30,000 dollars a year or less with kids to support, you would blame everything on yourself then? Also, the point of ending segregation via the constitution of the united states is to make "one race gaining an advantage over another" and utterly meaningless phrase. It is still the case, and not just for black people, but for gay/lesbians, Latinos in the south,, Native Americans and many other groups. Many probations require you be in school, so if you dropped out of school because you had to help your poor mother work and get money for the family and can't afford college, your screwed. And if you think that didn't make sense, think about this: There's two main types of cocaine. There's crack cocaine and powdered cocaine, and there isn't much of a difference between the two, they are both the same drug just in a different form. However, the white population tends to use powder cocaine over crack cocaine, and the black community tends to use crack cocaine more than powdered, but guess what? The prison time for crack cocaine is 10 times more than for powder cocaine. So black people go to prison for 10 times longer for using the same drug as a white person. Maybe if they get raped by a black person, but other than that, I wouldn't see why.

No I watched the intro of the video then googled the Mayan calender thing myself and found all sorts of doom day prophecies ranging from the Earthquakes and rapture to black holes and gamma-ray bursts from Alcyone A.

Well how about we make them a little bigger then? We can make meteorites a decent size without them actually making giant craters. The speed of the asteroid would likely be slowed down by earlier failed attempts too.