questionposter

CO2 technically isn't permanent, it's just that human beings will either be extinct, on a different planet or a different species by the time the effects wear off.

Your not even reading my posts, are you? Although I guess it's pointless to ask that. I already stated it is very likely too many fragments could heat up the atmosphere too much. This is my acknowledgement of the law of conservation of energy! However, the article I posted said pieces that didn't vaporized would be small, and they wouldn't shatter Earth's crust, so the extra energy could simply be many many small impacts in the form of Newtons, which also follows the law of the conservation of energy. So if the pieces also travel slow enough not all of the energy get's released via friction, but also many small newtons of force which not only wouldn't shatter the crust, but would likely not have much of an effect at all, except perhaps possibly altering Earth's orbit or rotation by an almost immeasurably small amount. The rest of the energy would be in the form of potential energy in the rocks at rest on Earth's surface which did not completely vaporize nor were they big enough to shatter any part of the crust. Obviously I can't prove this works because there isn't a giant meteor heading for us to test it on, all I can do is look at smaller scale models and similar things, like sunlight versus a laser beam. If the pieces aren't too small or too big, then it's like sunlight. It heats up the atmosphere some and the surface, but not either one to the point where life is extinct. So an additional thing I figured should happen now according to what I had just said, is that the speed of the meteor should try to be reduced, which reduces the amount of energy it transfers. This can be done with explosives probably, because we can put energy into the opposite direction of the meteor and thus make the net energy carrying the meteor towards us lesser amount thus reducing the force it hits Earth with. Is that "conservative" enough for you? But, if there's something hundreds of km of rock heading at us, we would likely see it many many millions of miles before it got to Earth, and that would probably be far away enough to use up every nuke we have on it and try and spread it out as much as possible after trying to direction-ally reduce its speed. This logically leads me to the modified conclusion that if there is a meteor that isn't big enough to use every nuke on due to the costs outweighing the benefits but would still cause mass extinctions, the best thing to do is to try and reduce it's speed with a lot of energy as well as fragment it into pieces that aren't "too" small but not too big so that they can evenly distribute energy to both the atmosphere and the ground so that no particular part of the biosphere is damaged too much. The temperature increase in the atmosphere could send us back to the dinosaur era or possibly an ice age if there is too much dust in the atmosphere from pieces that happened to not get fragmented to a small enough size, but it's better than Earth's crust being completely shattered. There is probably easily a size limit where no matter what, the energy that will would be transferred would still be too much, although I kind of wonder even if there is another planet that would collide with us if we could first nuke as much of it as we can, and then have it transfer its remaining energy gradually in the form of Newtons only so that it would simply push Earth into a different orbit rather than shattering its crust, and the added rock would probably add to the gravity, kind of like pushing rather than punching.

I get that it has gravity, but why don't we see planets of it going in front of the sun if it has such high gravity? How could light seamlessly pass through it if it's that dense? You would think light would at least get altered not just from the gravity but also form the substance itself...

If the universe contains everything, how could there be anything before it?

Ethics in Morales in general we need in order to have a society. Modern society is built on the specialization of workers, but workers can only specialize if they have enough resources to not constantly spend energy looking for food themselves, which can only happen by working together. I guess in my opinion I would say the ancient religions served their purpose in bringing people together and advocating just being nice, but nowadays we need something more advanced.

I don't know exactly what Dawkin's get's from that theory itself, but it's not really inaccurate. There isn't really determinism as far as science shows, but more of probability and I suppose a lack of a reason for things to work any other way. Many things even in culture are influenced by biological responses, but I would hardly say we've simplified it enough to even approach calling it determinism, and I'm guessing that Richard being credited with being as smart as he is doesn't think think that either. It's probably more of a problem many people's images that things don't actually work in such seemingly cruel ways, but really, if there's nothing stopping anything form working via the process of evolution, then it will happen. Evolution is kind of like a default. I'm sure Richard knows that molecules can't think or be conscious and therefore cannot be selfish or posses any sort of mentality.

The difference is still how the energy is transferred. Instead of the crust of the Earth being completely shattered, you have the atmosphere warming up as well as probably a few deep impacts, but nothing that would cause mass extinction if it weren't many many km large. I suppose if it is big enough and all the pieces were that small, then it might heat the atmosphere up to the point where the oceans boil away, which is what was happening when Earth was in its very early stages, but then again there was a lot more debris back then. I don't see what your asking evidence for exactly...Your asking for evidence that if a piece of iron is small enough that it will vaporize? Because that's my..."claim", even though I thought it was just a fact. http://curiosity.dis...on/meteors-word Maybe if it is hundreds of km wide, well then we still probably have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth a few times over, so that would fragment it, but there would need to be some kind of explosion to actually push the fragments away out of the path of earth since anything over 30km might heat the atmosphere up too much if it were broken into pieces, and all the radiation may damage the atmosphere. But less that, small enough pieces will simply vaporize and heat up the atmosphere. Although, according to that website, the lighter pieces that don't completely vaporize travel slower, so perhaps we can still have many many Newtons of energy hit the earth, but the impact won't be as devastating... if the pieces are the right size. It's just likely that many many people's homes would be destroyed. I guess blowing it up into pieces that aren't small enough to completely vaporize and heat up the atmosphere but not big enough to actually cause large impacts might be the solution for even a 100km meteor, but how would you control it that much?

If dark matter has gravity, shouldn't it culminate to also form clumps like planets?

Ok, so your saying time is simply warped at the event horizon so that time doesn't flow relative to an outside observer, yet the actual mass and event horizon of a black hole increases as soon as an object crosses the event horizon, not when it reaches the singularity, which makes it seem like the singularity occupies everything up to the event horizon. Perhaps to an outside observer, something inside the black hole reaches the singularity instantaneously?

I think time is a dimension simply because it's a coordinate, it's a coordinate you need to describe an object in reality. If you look on a graph, there's length and width and height, but more often than all of those is time. So you can think of the 3 spacial coordinates, 1cm thick, 1 cm tall, 1cm wide, and occupies the relative time coordinate of say...13.5 billion years after the big bang, and counting, i.e. the time coordinate is changing all the time.

I think the fabric of space-time harbors both space and time, but I don't think the math actually shows the gravity actually = time. If I travel at 20 kilometers per hour, what's my gravity?

Ok, just checking, I thought there might be some extra-dimensional theory or something more complicated than that.

Honestly I don't see much of the point of introducing a new theory and causing even more complication if all of QM can already be accurately described with the math we currently have. Quantum mechanics isn't weird at all if it's taught properly and teachers cared more about the conceptual side, because without concept, math is meaningless.

No, it's just a fact that no matter what, if pieces are small enough, they will vaporize in the atmosphere. Nothing more too it. Not even solid iron doesn't vaporize. Therefore, if we can break a meteor into pieces that small, then the Earth's crust will not shatter. But, can we actually break a meteor over 10km into mostly pieces that small? And what about measures against the atmosphere heating?

In the past I've accidentally hit the wrong button, and I can't change it, so there should be the ability to change your vote if you want.

So, to solve this problem, why not just have a size limit? Like maybe the max can be like 150x2000 pixels?

Photons aren't forced to do anything, it travels through the slits, and because of it's wave mechanics, it interferes with itself. With the atoms of the sheet with the slits, they simply don't absorb the photon and thus deflect it in some random direction backwards.

You would probably just see random patterns because the electrons wouldn't collapse down, they would merely deflect off of the smoke atoms. Think about right now: There's radio photons that are traveling over many meters with all this air and rock around, yet they don't instantly collapse down as soon as they are emitted...

Right, I mean they still spread out, but if they are all waves, should they combine to form higher amplitude waves? And couldn't the strength be dependent on the amount of charge or mass because of this property?

The only thing wrong with quantum mechanics is when quantum physicists ask me how these things work. Apparently many teachers of the subject push a bunch of math in your face and introduce different elements at the wrong time. For instance, they state that the statistical probability of finding an electron through two slits is not in fact a single bulge of probability, but in fact a double bulge that is even larger than a single bulge, but that only makes any sense if you were told pre-hand that all particles exist as waves.

I'm pretty good with photoshop, and other people probably are too, and from what I know, many websites that have user-interfaces such as with forums allow users to have a sort of personal banner or logo or signature.

I couldn't say god doesn't exist, but I can say that it is unlikely that god is so kind and compassionate if old doctrines accurately depict it.

In what game can you kill two birds with one stone?

Particles can still travel as waves after bumping into things, but the shapes of their probability will be altered. If an electron simply hits an atom and nothing more, it doesn't localize to a single point, it just repels, so if electrons hit the smoke atoms they would continue as waves but because of the deflection they would change shape and/or direction. Measurement that collapses wave functions is more to do with how we observe light, which is only temporary anyway. So relative to you, even if you do observe an electron as a point, the moment you stop observing it, which, impulses from your eyes travel very fast, it statically exists as a wave again. And, after the electron hits the wall, it goes back to being a wave and following its wave mechanics. What we see is simply the interaction point at which an interaction happened, which is carried by photons.

According to my understanding, the more...atoms you have, the strong something like a magnet is, or at least the stronger the range it has. If I have two magnets made of the same material, one will have a greater range than the other. Is this because there are in fact force individual carrier particles which act upon wave mechanics and therefore combine to make more powerful ranges? Because if you look at simple sine mechanics, when you add two of the same sine wave together, the result is basically the same thing except which twice the amplitude...