questionposter

So it can go in the nucleus, just not for a long enough time to do anything? But isn't there a nodal surface in the nucleus?

There actually isn't much in physics that says the fabric of space itself accelerate travel faster than light, just matter and the propagation of forces, that's why scientists think just after the big bang that the universe expanded faster than light to get so big.

Is something technically still existing even when it has 0 energy? I mean I guess if it has 0 energy, it has 0 mass, but if you have something like an "electron field", what is it existing as when it's not oscillating? How would it start some perturbation sequence? Is there some way to force electrons to have the same spin state in the same quantum state and cancel each other out and make them not exist anymore?

Einstein wasn't actually wrong. Both matter and energy distort the fabric of space, and in the newly developing world of quantum field theory, all of this "stuff", both matter and energy, can be described as various types of oscillations in various fields. Both a ball and a light beam are comprised merely of oscillating fields. I suppose it's more like it takes energy to oscillate, and that same energy will cause different oscillations in different fields, like matter fields or light particle fields.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were immortal...

I'm still not quite sure what you want from this thread. What is your position on sharing? There's many subconscious actions that effect your perception and chemical feelings. Many of these mechanics were formed through the process of evolution. For instance, when you watch TV a lot, if your not very careful, your brain will take it as a mental environment and adapt to it. This is because your brain is not adapted to distinguish between reality and something that is not reality, evolution as only effected how those survive via reality, so your subconscious brain may mistake things for TV as the environment around it for which it must respond to. Of course, it is a little more complex than that, because on one end, you have someone like Siddhartha, and on the other, you have someone like Hannibal Lector and millions of varieties in between. Both people are intelligent, but besides from growing up in different environments which when your brain is developing in its early stages it tries to adapt to and then solidify to in adulthood, you have the physical mechanisms themselves such as those that release certain amounts of certain chemicals and those that are responsible for neuro-function in various parts of the brain. While it is possible for both a kind and violent person to be intelligent or stupid, there mechanisms that are more adapted for doing things. I'm thinking people like Siddhartha have very open minds and don't really solidify on just any particular mental state, and then I'm thinking people like Lector have brains which do solidify or keep in the habit of mental states, but I guess people like him would already know that, so then it would also come down to consequence, whether they will do something or if the risk out weights the benefit which is a separate mechanism. Its very complex, and many of these "violent" adaptations are simply remnants of our ginetic ancestry, such as from primates. Its very complex, and many of these "violent" adaptations are simply remnants of our ginetic ancestry, such as from primates. But now, there isn't much of a logical use for those adaptations for civilization to survive, which is why people like Lector tend to get sent to prison, whereas 3,000 years ago he might be some war hero. For some these mechanisms are easy to control because they do not occupy as much brain function or not as much of certain chemicals get released or not as much of a habit builds up, for others, not so much. This is often how I explain racism too. Often times with racism, there may simply be an environment someone grew up in which was discriminatory to a certain race, and their subconscious saw that that was a pattern and built onto it and carried it through.

The mud could do something, but that's not what it does. The machine doesn't care what species something is. If it fits in the parameters and there isn't 3 of it already, it will collect it.

Well, your immortal, so...how do you feel about being immortal? Do you hate it?

Why wouldn't the universe rip apart? And how would a black hole pull "on" the fabric of space as to cause it to contract? According to the physics of your theory, only the mass in the universe would be sucked in, which doesn't even make sense anyway because there can easily be beams of light traveling directly away from the black hole and thus the black hole's gravity would never be able to catch up to those light beams, and thus not all matter and energy of the universe would be inside the black hole anyway.

An electron doesn't tend to "orbit" around a nucleus, it tends to "vibrate" around a nucleus, much like a wave. There's also something you have to understand about correlation, which is that in quantum mechanics, things can happen just because they logically should happen. For instance, if I say an electron travels at 2 miles per second, it will take 1 second for it to travel two mile, but if I say "when the electron's energy equals 3, it's distance form the nucleus will equal 20nm", in the second example, there is no "time" that it takes in order for 3 to = 20nm to be a true statement, the electron's probability is just "equal" to that distance which makes it an instantaneous process, and this is the difference between correlation and causation and also why quantum mechanics itself doesn't violate relativity. So if we use this to look at why an electron doesn't fall or vibrate into the nucleus, it's because at the electron's lowest possible energy, it's probability isn't equal to anything in the nucleus. An electron's probability of being in the nucleus = 0, and thus the electron doesn't ever fall into it.

In other words, no one really knows for sure. All we know is that that's just how the universe happens to work.

Yep, dinosaurs needed to live underground, but they're still wiped out. Though, I suppose they are interesting enough for an advanced species to want to bring them back to life...

For now, all I can say for now is that ultimately Ayn Rand's philosophy seems more like an excuse to be greedy and screw people over for one's own benefit and not feel bad about it, and even if she thinks there's some better motive or "good" reason for this philosophy such as that humanity will become stronger by "stronger" people surviving, diversity may be and often is good anyway, and what one lacks in some skills they can often make up for in others. Look at Issac Newton: He doesn't really seem physically fit. Left out in complete wilderness, there is a high chance he would die, yet is mathematics gave birth to modern civilization. Not every person who's rich is some genius, and not every person who's poor is stupid. So far the best type of political setup is a mix of both socialism and capitalism anyway. I think this whole "religion" thing is over exaggerated anyway, no one "has" to do any specific thing, people could even let themselves die if they wanted. People could be violent or kind if they wanted. People can be as altruistic or as selfish as they want, and they will face whatever consequences they face. People can be weak in many ways and find love, people can be strong in many ways and not find love, or someone can be weak and not find love, and people can be strong and find love. Also, I can't really find anything about right to property in my physics books...

What do you think mud would do? Your thinking may be on the right track, but why would just covering himself with mud make the machine go away? It can still see him, and I didn't say he fell into a wet puddle or anything. And, based on the information, I don't think you can safely assume the man is dead.

The aliens set it to capture any animal according to weight, and only capture 3 of any particular animal, but if your thinking it had already caught 3 humans then, why would it of started chasing him in the first place? It's clearly an advanced machine than can distinguish between things.

Dude, I proved my theory right which doesn't even normally happen on these forums, your just arguing semantics and details because you don't want to admit you were wrong to automatically say humanity would be destroyed with my theory in place or there's some very very large potions of my posts your not understanding. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/951_Gaspra It says right there on the side the average orbital speed is about 20km/s which is most likely the speed it would hit Earth at. and it has all the other stuff like about the mass, I got my info from wikipedia, I mostly just copied and pasted an extended link which is why there's useless data in there. Maybe the Earth could be moving towards or away the asteroid, but it could also easily be an impact into the side of Earth and thus it wouldn't really matter. If all of 951 Gaspara's kinetic energy was converted to thermal energy in it's current state, it definitely wouldn't raise Earth's atmosphere's temperature by more than 2 Kelvin. I even multiplied Gaspara's energy by 1000 unnecessarily just incase I did make the same mistake like you said I had and it's still less than 1 Kelvin. Actually, the word "impact" is a sever over-exaggeration because I'm talking about millions of small fragments, the asteroid wouldn't hit Earth at all, the pieces would burn up in the atmosphere practically harmlessly. Also, I copied the Newtons thing to show where I had left off from, and I clearly stated I was going to use kinetic energy instead of Newtons for my calculations from that point on. Some asteroids are faster, some are slower, but the temperature change will be around .0001-3 Kelvin with many of those relatively similar sized asteroids in our solar system since there are varying speeds. What specifically do you even think needs to be multiplied by 1000 in my new calculations? Because I don't see a reason to in addition to the calculations I already did. Just because a unit is squared doesn't mean the coefficient is. If I say 1X * 5X, I don't say (1 * 5)^2 * X^2, I say 5X^2. (1*5)^2 would equal 25, and 1x times 5x does not equal 25x^2, it equals 5x^2. and the only other reason I could think of for you thinking I need to multiply something by 1000 is conversion from a unit to kilo-units. 1 joule does not = 1000 kilo joules, because there are 1000 joules in one kilo-joule. 1 joule is 1 1/1000 if a kilo-joule, thus I divide joules by 1000, NOT multiply by 1000, to convert that number to kilo-joules, and it also needs to work that way so the units cancel out at all (see dimensional analysis). The comet that hit Jupiter was very large and more rare anyway, it left a scars the size of Earth itself. Not only that but the system of Earth would want to return to an equilibrium anyway as Earth loses much heat energy to space, and thus Earth would try to cool off even if I had to multiply Gaspara's energy by 10000 which would make the temperature change about 9 Kelvin. Also, if some parts miss Earth, isn't that a good thing anyway?

None of these answers are correct so far. How did the machine see him from a mile away and start to chase after him then? They aren't indestructible as far as I know and they probably don't float on water. It's not that it was dangerous, it's that the man was probably afraid he would have gotten paralyzed like the rest of the animals. Does the amount of bacteria in your gut really make up that large of a percent of your body mass?

Wait a minute, it IS more complex that that. If force carrier particles followed wave mechanics that simply, why wouldn't they also cancel out in the presence of other fields too?

I didn't say during that era, I said "Now".

Taxes are best spent on making society better as to accommodate people better. The way civilization works is you have people who gather resources, or some way of gathering large amounts of resources, and those resources can then be spent for the specialization of workers, such as to doctors, physicists, etc in order to advance civilization and make it run more optimally. The things that help with this are medical benefits such as that you would not need to worry as much as you do now about contracting a harsh disease. Things like those require energy to deal with, which means less energy is able to be spent specializing. There's also sustainability, because a country is only as strong as it's people. If you have people in all these poor homes with little hope and resources, it's not going to make a country strong, just look at all the 3rd world countries and how poor of a lifestyle those people live, then look at how inflated those countries dollars are. Then of course there's those evolutionists who think it's actually possible to "medicaid humanity out of existence", which is illogical because if you have more diverse gene pools, then there are more possible catastrophes that humanity can survive, and it's not like there's a large percent of the population that's physically impaired because naturally impaired people can survive.

Even if people don't live forever, if you look at the current birth rates, we need global birth control anyway.

If corporations are people, then corporations are psychopaths who need to see a psychiatrist 24/7.

Of course it wasn't I joke, why wouldn't I write on books and then throw them in the fire for no reason? It's so much fun.

During the era of the dinosaurs, an alien vessel landed on Earth and set a device down on Earth to collect animal species according to their weight, but before they returned to get it, their ship got destroyed. Now, a man get's out of his truck in the middle of a field and finds a line miles long where 3 of various animals lined up, like such as deer, alligators and even small dinosaurs. They weren't dead and decayed, they were somehow preserved but motionless. Then, the man notices in the distance that a small spherical machine was rolling towards him at 5 miles per hour. But, the man could outrun the machine. He didn't know what to do, but he ran away, a mile away, and stopped, but he still saw the machine coming towards him. So then, he ran a little more and got up on a cliff and found a large boulder where he waited for the machine. When the machine crossed the path, he pushed the boulder over it. But, out from underneath the boulder came the machine looking completely unscathed. So the man keeps running away trying to think of ideas, and the machine slowly but steadily just follows him. The man can't keep running forever, so he tries swimming into the middle of a large small pond and just floating, but the machine just floated on the water as if it weighed nothing. The man makes it back to shore with the machine shortly behind him, but finally the man is out of breath and trips over a tree branch coming out of the ground. The machine finally get's to him, and stops 1 foot from him, but, the machine does not do anything with him, and instead wanders in a random direction. Why didn't the machine capture him?

Like I wrote the word on a book then threw it in a fire...no, it was a mistake, suppose to say "heaRing"