questionposter

So if the "same" goes for both instances, how are those instances not the same?

If it's not uniform, how can scientists model the expansion of the "entire" universe?

..

I suppose I generally agree with what your saying, but to play devil's advocate, isn't it unethical to not feed many hungry people? Also, the things about pain and suffering are still "evolution" based. People might only strive to avoid pain because there is an evolutionary mechanism to tell if suffereing is happening to one's body and mechanisms that implore how to react, so that realm isn't necessarily under ethics.

What about "artificial" life? It could technically be considered alive, yet it wouldn't undergo evolution nor necessarily self-replicate.

I suppose I did forget about the photon being c even if I'm observing it travel in the opposite direction, but otherwise, isn't what your saying the exact point of relativity?

Ok, if I'm traveling 99.99% the speed of light in direction x, and I shoot a photon out in front of me, to an outside observer, the photon I shot is traveling like only 1 mile per hour greater than me, while if the photon itself shot another photon behind itself, to an outside observer that photon would almost instantly hit me because its going the opposite direction. See what I'm saying? It would take more speed for a gauge boson to reach a destination in front of me if I'm traveling near the speed of light to actually exchange in both directions in time.

Ok, as long as it's uniform.

What's the difference between that superfluidity and multiple atoms sharing the same quantum state with overlapping wave functions as to have synchronized responses over various 3-D coordinates?

People I don't think are born "evil", but rather born with under-developed brains that don't completely mature. To me there doesn't seem to be much difference between that type of emotional comprehension between a psychopath and that of an animal like a tiger. Tigers aren't evil, they just don't naturally care about humans the way way most people do and don't usually have a good reason to with all the hunting going on, and this is why they can be smart but still serial killers. They don't "have" to be born as a serial killer, but they more easily can be because they do not find compelling reasons to not kill people. There's a movie that's related to this that I think is called "The bad seed", from the mid-20th century, it's black and white. There's also the matter of environment being able to shape people. If people grow up in a violent environment, they will generally be more violent because they get into a habit of acting or thinking to be violent in order to survive they way they want.

Why "isn't" it unethical? The ethics of anything depends on what you decide. There's really no physics of the universe saying what "deserves" to die and what "deserves" to live, what is actually "right" or "wrong", living things just have to decide that for themselves. Do we want all these cows that don't necessarily deserve to die to in fact die to feed a random species? Or, to us are the values of cows lives un-important and don't necessarily deserve to live? There's no mystical force to decide for us, whatever we decide is on us. Of course, this entire instance is purely relative to human beings, because whatever we decide the value of cows to be, cows themselves can easily and probably do think something differently. It's relative, much like time.

Everything that you can possibly know is based off your of own possible perception, and that same pattern holds true for others as well. People we "identify" with are not necessarily similar minded, but may have had similar experiences to shape them and what they also know. There's probably a few group mechanisms involved with it as well. God does seem pretty unlike to me too, based on my current understanding of the universe, but reality is kind of lame without religion, and there wouldn't really be much of a problem with it if people didn't mix up archaic feelings with religious ideals as to become violent or arrogant.

The fact that we think we know that science describes reality is in fact philosophy.

There is no single person to actually blame for this, it is a collective of how society functions, because the journalists for things like BBC think it is ok to report on science in that specific manner, and then there's the scientists themselves who for them have no reason to not think that the confusing way they are describing it is in fact not the best way. Then there's places like fox and occasionally nbc who don't have a compelling enough of a reason to not lie. A lot of these problems are more about education/communication on large scales, I even know a guy who was super conservative before he got a degree in political science, then afterwords he landed right in the middle, even more on the liberal side, a drastic change.

It kind of reminds me of "if a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound?" Assuming that the tree isn't alive and is just some object which is in-capable of measuring itself in any way, they answer is undefined, because without an actual observer we could only "assume" that it does based on our own understanding of physics which only mathematically predicts that it "should" cause vibrations in the air if those equations do in fact 100% model the circumstances of reality that they claim to. Though if you literally mean without humans, the answer would still be yes because there are other living things to sense the universe.

Science does work on faith a little bit, in this way http://www.sciencefo...ou-proof-proof/ You have to assume that what your seeing is actually what your seeing, and that the initial things for which you base all understanding off of are true. It's still a logical process though, because if the things that we observed where in fact what we observed, then the truths based off of those observations are also true.

This topic: the perfect model for global warming discussions in the real world.

Doesn't that kind of make sense though? If you have an infinitely long function, then there's infinite area under it. I suppose there should be a nodal at infinity itself though, but that doesn't really mean anything in reality.

Gauge bosons which I think are the particles that carry force are suppose to be time-dependent in relativity, (since in relativity that's what those forces are, even if they "propagate" at the speed of light), but in the standard model they travel physical distance over time, but there seems to be two conflicts with this: As you approach the speed of light, there should be fewer particles that are able to exchange going in the direction that an object near the speed of light is going, which means near the speed of light, atoms should more or less fall apart. And then, with black holes, the event horizon is currently modeled to be a boundary where time stops flowing for an outside observer, yet force carrier particles even for the electro-mangetic force can ignore this and still continue to travel distance over time from inside to outside of the black hole, which is related to seeing an electric field emanating from a black hole.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related seems kind of interesting, though before I watched it I already knew that the way normal fusion and cold fusion occur are similar processes. When the wave-functions of the nuclei overlap such as in the sun where they are forced together greatly, they combine to form a bigger nuclei. With cold fusion though, it seems like you can dothe same thing but with very controlled amounts of energy as to increase the radius of the protons which seems plausible.

Particles such as photons exist as waves, and forces are thought to be carried via gauge bosons, and particles exchange these gauge bosons which are thought to exist as virtual particles when traveling in between particles to be exchanged which can be physically described using imaginary numbers.

The speed of light is always constant as far as we can tell, and I think your getting measurements mixed up where they shouldn't be. Prior to measurement or direct interaction with objects, light doesn't "take" two paths, it simply "is" those two paths and an infinitesimal amount of paths in between, and this is due to its wave nature which I think is known as "superposition". After measurement, we measure that the photon's probability has collapsed down to a single interaction point for which it has transferred energy. However, after a photon has been "measured", it doesn't keep going as some point, if it's measured then it pretty much is absorbed in some way and no longer exists as that photon. In fact, I think it's impossible to directly measure a photon without destroying it. Even if an electron jumps right back down to its original energy level, it's still emitting a different photon. So when a photon is altered by the black hole, it's not two individual photons, it's the same entire photon who's probability spans over 3-dimensional changing its shape.

There are various theories, some say the universe will expand so fast that the fabric of space rips to shreds, others say it will form the "bug crunch" and the expansion will go the opposite direction and eventually form a single singularity, and others say it doesn't have an end. All of these would take probably millions of years to find out.

Well if you too also saw that BBC episode, some properties were being able to fall through containers and small cracks as well as climb up walls and move without friction, which I think is more to do with inertness and 0 thermal capacity, and then there was something about all the physical spins of the atoms of the liquid being synchronized, and that by occupying the same quantum state, the atoms could all have physical simultaneous effects simultaneously with the same momentum, since I suppose as you said earlier, if they all share the same state, they aren't really a separate particle. http://www.wisegeek....-superfluid.htm

I'm not talking about fractals, I'm talking about using only 2.3 coordinates to describe something.