questionposter

Not necessarily, but more like a feeling of that I've done enough, I don't really need to be around for anything anymore, maybe tired of working too.

Why don't they put a "k" in-front of the "c" then?

Don't know, I just remember heating about it in some abstract physics.

So I get that your body burns energy, but on the treadmill I have to take quite a few steps before I burn a whole calorie and I very very highly doubt that the energy contained in raising a mere cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree is enough energy to move my body 10 feet at 10 miles per hour.

Like the actual same genes and same proteins in the same order, as in you could replace 99.98-.99% of your genes with someone else's and you'd essentially be the same person.

I could see living for a good long while, but I couldn't do it forever, I'd eventually just get tired of everything.

I don't get what your point is. First you were talking about that man is "savage", which can be explained by common ancestry to other violent animals such as chimps which have genetic mutations to cause compulsions of such behaviors, then you say like...sharing isn't good or something or maybe that the bible's advocation of sharing is wrong? Just look at ants, pretty much the most dominant insect species on the planet, and their members all work together. There's a point in sharing where sharing past a certain value of resources costs too much for a host to efficiently have resources for themselves. However, this is only in a space with very limited resources. A simple mathematical model could probably show in a community that holistic sharing probably works. Another problem with this seems to be the image of "hive mind" or lack of free-will people would have, which doesn't need to happen. Most of what's wrong with communism is the human aspect such as with dictators rather than the actual mathematical aspect of a working model. But there might be some instances where it wouldn't work, but I think modern civilization can afford some sharing. In fact, without sharing we probably wouldn't even be able to globalize and have a modern civilization.

It's not so much "unreason" as it is reason itself. There is in fact a reason for this and I think it is primarily biological responses, or processes such as those that were linked to spendature of energy. For these types of people, they need to see the direct outcome before putting the work into it to see it is beneficial to them.

I think Steven "Hawkins" is trying to mock Steven "Hawking" by rambling on about all this theoretical spiritual stuff.

That's just what I remember seeing. I don't know if it's true or not.

I think with what I was thinking of, there was an analogy with a bar magnet. If you break a bar magnet in half, those halves both have two poles, and you can keep breaking them in half until you get to a single particle where even then mathematics says it has two poles.

In metallic bonds, there just seems to be some kind of general random field electrons occupy and hold a metal together, but are there specific energy states in metallic bonds or is it just a mesh? And are electrons entangled in metallic bonds?

But if they are uncharged, wouldn't they penetrate to the point where they would simply pass through you like neutrinos and dark matter and etc?

It seems like the more I look at complex physical systems, the more they have the same patterns I find in fractals. I can't remember what it's called, but when using sine waves in parametric equations there is sort of a "time" that the function takes in order to return to a previous state and overlap itself, or maybe it's simply called completing a cycle, and this same type of phenomena of repeating occurs in both fractals and wave mechanics, so I was wondering if there was some complex way fractals could be used to describe quantum mechanics and how it evolves to things on the macroscopic level.

Is my understanding correct than somehow single charged particles such as an electron have two varying magnetic poles? How does this happen? I think I was trying to figure out why magnetic monopoles are impossible, and I found out something about particles themselves having poles, so that even if you have something of pure electrons, it still somehow has two poles.

I don't actually understand what's "unethical" about it, it doesn't have to "reduce people to machines" of any sort, it just means everything is pre-determined.

No wait, isn't it just plain and simple that the genetic variation from human to human is only about .01-.02%?

A photon carries both an electric and magnetic oscillation, but why does it have both? How does it have both? Or is it just one of those math things where there "needs" to be some two oscillations to do something like also change the vector state or something for all of the rest of the math to work out properly? Or I guess, how does an electron jumping an energy level actually make two different oscillations? Also, how do we know those oscillations are perpendicular to each other?

Is there a physical meaning for where the turning points intersect with the sign change of the second derivative of a wave function? I ask because there's this picture and I think I saw something talking about it somewhere, but I don't completely understand what the point is.

Wait, maybe I'm not understanding something, but is this actually suggesting I can instantaneously make two separate measurements of the same thing and count it as the same result because the particle wouldn't change or "evolve" over time between the measurements because they are instantaneously consecutive? Even if there is no time evolution, isn't there still uncertainty with measurements? Wouldn't that imply that you can in fact predict future position because there would be only one possible result for one specific time if two different yet simultaneous measurements yield the same result? Also, just a random question I thought of: Does an infinite summation of possible energy levels = an infinitely localized probability wave?

Is it even possible to damage people with only neutrons? Alpha particles bounce right off of you, and neutrinos fly right through you...

Perhaps it has more to due with how the physical vibrations themselves effect you. Perhaps some random vibrations generated by a chalk board contain such a concentrated amount of energy they damage your ear drums, similar to how gamma rays contain a very large amount of energy in a much more localized space and thus damage your skin and cells, while on the other hand you could be hit with an equivalent amount of energy in the form of various radio waves and pretty much nothing would happen.

Why is this such a mystery? There was a random gene that developed which coded for a greater amount of neural connections per cubic mili-meter and that gene was a success, so it survived. There's also the skull shape and energy. With skull shape, different shaped skulls will inhibit or enhance brain growth due to the physical capacity for certain areas of the brain to grow, and this is why you see different animals more adept at different things and why humans have a sort of broader bulge in the brain to increase this capacity. So it's not necessarily just that one gene, but the capacity for high intelligence could have been there the whole time by having a bigger skull. The problem with that is that it would offset the weight and it would take more energy to grow that bone and keep all of it alive from metabolic process.

Well what is the "charge" made out of? It would probably be virtual photons, and virtual photons travel distance over time to an outside observer if we could observe them, just as light would.

There's plenty of evidence, but there's no direct proof. What else do you think throws stars around it at 40 kilometers per second? Neutron stars can't do that, the physics predicts that when something is denser than a neutron star, it collapses into something which by proportion to size and mass creates an escape velocity greater than light.