questionposter

That probably doesn't matter to world governments, even if what your saying is true, which I think it is.

No I needed someone who has something better to say than "go read a book".

I have confirmed on another website with dramatically less posts that atoms themselves don't violate relativity and thermodynamics, and even as a bonus that entanglement doesn't violate relativity.

What your describing seems logical, however I don't think it is describing what you think it is describing. Your subconscious itself isn't a single entity, it's millions and millions of cells, and cells themselves can't do math or use reasoning or whatever other things your trying to force them to do, they just operate, they just release certain chemical reactions when some chemical or electrical impulse would cause them to do so. Based on your description what your describing seems to be hormonal mechanisms combined with habitual mechanisms that work in a way as to release hormones in response to an environmental habit. If someone is appealing to someone else, then probably based on where they grew up there are certain ranges of hormones released, however based on these experiments, I cannot conclude that what you were saying originally that consciousness is those mechanisms is true. I would also argue that people wouldn't necessarily "need" to have all the mechanisms your describing to consciously get through the situations you describe, and in fact it has been tested that people's environments effect their subconscious triggers so the notion that people would "need" to have a feeling one way or another is false because sub-consciousness mechanisms independent from a conscious mind can adapt to it which is why generally people raised by nicer people will generally not have violent triggers. Only with adapting to it, your conscious mind actually has the ability to chose the degree of the severity of adaptation somehow, which I can only explain by means of consciousness not being those mechanisms themselves. I can agree perhaps that rather than a causation between conscious and sub-conscious that there is sometimes a correlation between feelings and mechanisms, as in it isn't necessarily that consciousness and sub-consciousnesses always have a "cause-and-effect" with each other, but merely correlate to mechanisms being equal to a compulsion and a compulsion being equal to a chemical triggered by a conscious response, or a feeling recognized by consciousness is equal to a mechanism. It is similar to the notion that "if a=b=c, then a=c", which is a correlation, however time does not need to pass in order for that to be true and thus it is not a causation. Even at this point though, I still think we have no idea what things like consciousness actually are, how something "knows" it exists in the universe.

Drilling small holes in a volcanoes is simply not enough to vent the pressure, and drilling big holes and blowing it up is basically just making it happen early or at the very least releasing a bunch of toxins and smoke into the atmosphere. The best we can do is prepare for when things like Yellow-Stone or Sumatra do erupt.

Wouldn't that be ironic... unless swan, the person who was making progress before you interrupted wants to take a swing (which he probably won't), you might as well just lock this topic, I already posted similar questions on another site.

W/e, what your saying at this point is illogical and when I'm more-or-less actually proven wrong then I stop talking about it like with the "time-stopping" thing and the topic can't go on with you here, so I'm just going to go to another website.

Subduction zones don't often occur in the middle of the ocean because subduction zones only occur at the boundaries between oceanic and continental plates simultaneously, and there are very little continental plate boundaries in the middle of the ocean. http://www.learner.o...arth/plate.html As you can see, there are some boundaries in the middle of the ocean, but most of those are continental-continental collisions, not continental-oceanic plate collisions. S

Well, I read Rocket's posts again and I don't see how they prove that I don't understand the uncertainty principal, especially since a lot of the posts are "go read a book". Even in his longest post, he just basically said "quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are different" and then tried to apply general relativity to the atomic realm in that same post, and this was all before he made 3 straight posts in a row that just said "gibberish go read". Besides, you yourself would be guilty of doing the same thing if you seriously thought I said or believed The main reason this topic is so long is because people go off topic with things like with this and with what your saying instead of just working out how scientific notions are right or wrong. Maybe something looks wrong or seems wrong, but I'm definitely not just going to assume it's wrong without exploring it.

If we're in a simulation, why even bother to think about it if we can't break out of it? Unless the city didn't tear down all the phone booths yet...

It's not that "the more food there is, the more humans there are", it's if a system can sustain the existence of more humans, then it will unless there's some major catastrophe.

Is a property of kinetic energy that it causes motion unless it get's converted to other energy? I think it might just be that forces interact with particles, and that causes things to somehow move, and what force we measure that motion with is kinetic energy... Even at that point though, if you have a black hole, all you have is gravity, so somehow a singularity interacts with gravity or higg's fields or w/e, but how does that interaction generate kinetic energy that can be measured? I guess, how do forces cause motion? How does just virtual particles exchanging cause the property that is kinetic energy?

Virtual particles use "complex" and "imaginary" numbers right? So perhaps that when a virtual particle is not real, it contains only imaginary energy so that a particle doesn't lose "real" energy, so that when it does hit a particle it multiplies by some other "i" component of a particle to generate real results (which is actually how it's worded on wikipedia when virtual particles make contact http://en.wikipedia....rtual_particles ), but that seems to suggest there is a different realm in which "imaginary" forces travel distance by, because if they aren't real, how do I travel real distance? I know complex planes exist, but I'm not even talking about a complex number, just imaginary numbers. I don't know, I think there might be a way to explain how "i" ties in with reality, and I know that math is not reality itself, but it is still a measure of the patterns we see in reality. In fact, let's for this topic just invent a whole new thing, called an imaginary plane where both axis are imaginary. If we graph sin(ix) in an imaginary plane, we would get a sine wave containing only imaginary values but varying co-efficients of "i" to generate an imaginary sine wave, and virtual particles use wave mechanics so we should technically be able to map out how a virtual particle acts as a wave and what happens when it hits an atom in an imaginary plane. I know I'm leaning into the more "speculation" realm at this point, but perhaps if you graphed the wave mechanics of virtual particles with mass in an imaginary plane, the virtual particles with mass might stop existing when their values become "real numbers" which would explain their weird "semi-existent" properties as well as why they stop existing after a certain point. Though I think there's probably already something like this though to explain why mass-virtual particles stop existing after a certain distance. What I'm really just trying to do is see how "i" fits in with reality, because for some reason it keeps popping up in the fabric of existence.

Virtual particles use "complex" and "imaginary" numbers right? So perhaps that when a virtual particle is not real, it contains only imaginary energy, so that when it does hit a particle it multiplies by some other "i" component of an atom to generate real results to be real (which is actually how it's worded on wikipedia), but that seems to suggest there is a different realm in which "imaginary" forces travel distance by, because if they aren't real, how do I travel real distance? I know complex planes exist, but I'm not even talking about a complex number, just imaginary numbers.

Ok, so kinetic energy occurs by the exchange of virtual particles, but nothing except I guess gravity is suppose to escape a black hole... I suppose we'd have to consider that you'd never actually directly measure photons from a black hole itself, just matter around it.

How does energy get caused or transferred by those other forces? Or I guess if your moving away from the black hole, then from your point of reference it seems the black hole is moving away from you, but that's sort of cheating in my opinion because that's just you, I mean more of when you measure like a quasar traveling distance over time. Er, ok, so we measure kinetic energy based on the energy of the photons we perceive as well as a pattern of the location we perceive of information inside a photon concerning the location of a particular interaction point with that photon, so is kinetic energy simply caused by measurement? Or, how else do forces actually "cause" kinetic energy or it's transfer?

Based on what I'm told in this forum, quantum tunneling is just when a particle of a high enough probability at a large distance exceeds the boundaries of another object as to allow the particle to be measured on the other side of something like of a wall. It would seem as though it's part of normal wave mechanics, but for it to happen on the macroscopic scale would take immense luck or energy, such as in the sun where protons are forced so close together at such a high energy that their high probability boundaries exceed each other's and so combine.

Well how does motion get transferred? It get's transferred by boson exchange doesn't it? When you touch something, your not actually touching the atoms, the atoms in your hand and of the object are repelling each other by exchanging virtual particles and the repulsion somehow allows for energy transfer. Also, I notice that based on our current observations, black holes themselves don't have a magnetic field, so it would appear that only certain virtual particles interact with a black hole or at least the singularity.

Well I don't really know how much rocket knows about QM, but if he does know a lot about it he's not showing it. Also, about the I'm pretty sure I was saying before that kinetic motion applies at the atomic level which is why I was saying that you wouldn't measure that atoms are at absolute 0 since they never have 0 kinetic energy. Maybe the net kinetic energy of an object from a point of reference at the macroscopic realm can appear to be 0, but because of the properties of an atom as well as all the constant macroscopic forces being applied to it as well as uncertainty in it's position, we could easily measure the atoms and even the whole object was moving in amounts too small to be seen normally. I've seen evidence to suggest that using only our eyes that we can notice a macroscopic object to be at rest, but the information of all the individual atoms existing in one location and then another are still there. Also, even if all matter in the universe was at the ground state expect for our experimental devices, couldn't we use very accurate instruments and measure that the electrons around a nucleus are appearing in one spot, and then another, and then an even more different spot, suggesting motion or distance over time, suggesting kinetic energy or at least momentum?

Ok, well then relatively speaking, from a single given frame of reference, there is not always enough food. Even though the food still exists miles and miles away, in a localized situation, enough food is not necessarily available.

Well if "imaginary" in math doesn't actually mean "made up", then "real" shouldn't mean "it exists" either right? I guess, is there some way to see where"i" exists in reality?

What about in liquid helium or Bose-Einstein condensates where it's an entire substance? Or does wave functions combining count as a single entity? So then even at the lowest possible energy level of an atom, it's still possible for the 100% defined energy of an electron to still have indetirminism about it as for the electron to exist in a location further away from that nucleus that for a higher energy would be more probable and thus form compounds that would an electron at a larger distance away form the nucleus that would otherwise be normally achieved by a higher energy? Let's look at a hypothetical: Trillions of years have past and all of the last possible energy has been used up on entropy, and every single atom in the entire universe (which for this we have to assume that the universe is a closed system and that there are not motions within the fabric of space) has decayed to it's ground state. Does the motion of atoms in the universe stop? And if they are moving, doesn't that mean that they have kinetic energy?

It makes sense that imaginary numbers aren't actually just "imaginary", but at the same time, why can I not point to where x^2+5=0? Is there perhaps some other plane of existence where it does but not in 3-d space? Or...

Sometimes there isn't enough sunlight or there isn't enough land horizontally to cultivate many crops, but I would agree that sunlight is still themore efficient energy.

So your saying that because an atom can't lose any more energy, that it doesn't violate the second law because the second law only states that if it "can" then it eventually will? How does this apply to virtual photons or how forces are carried? How do electrons get further away from the nucleus without containing more energy? And if electrons are further away from the nucleus, couldn't they have a probability of forming a bond with another atom because of that larger distance? I don't think any of what people are saying is particularly right or wrong, it's just a matter of if it all logically fits together. With time stopping, I suppose it didn't, with the second law, I'm still working on that. But if it can't be proven that I'm wrong, how is there not a probability that I'm right? I already know that information out there could probably prove it either way, it's just a matter of when and if that information comes to light. I didn't even think the "time stopping" thing was actually a correct notion, I just wanted to be 99% sure it was wrong.