questionposter

There aren't "ultimate" determining factors. For years until he died, Einstein spent his time looking for "hidden" variables that would explain the random patterns found in nature and quantum mechanics that follow his philosophical beliefs of a grand "harmony" of deterministic mechanics of the universe. What quantum mechanics has discovered is after a certain point, there are no more variables, things just happen, and there's no way to predict precisely what will happen with 100% certainty because of that.

Back when dinosaurs were around, the average temperatures were much much warmer, some tropical regions even averaged 120 degrees. Because of this, animals such as reptiles could direct little or no energy towards generating their own metabolic energy and could instead direct it towards growing and maintaining a bigger body. Now, average temperatures are lower and there's less vegetation. However, in the regions that do mimic the dinosaur eras, such as along the equator in south America and in Indonesia, reptiles are very large compared to other animals, and there is more vegetation and food. Of course, it's not just one factor, but this is a major factor.

But everything is always moving, so everything has kinetic energy, but perhaps not continuously. I'm actually very surprised you haven't heard of this before. Since it's impossible to make something have 0 kinetic energy (at least continuously) and things are always moving, if something did have 0 kinetic energy it would have to mean time stops, that's the only time something would have 0 kinetic energy.

You can try to shoot different types of radiation through different materials and see how much of the different radiations come through. alpha radiation is big helium nuclei, so they are more likely to get "repulsed" by other atoms, even by paper, whereas gamma radiation is really small and localized and is more likely to penetrate even things like sheets of metal.

Theoretically, if an object has 0 kinetic energy, then it would mean that it's time stops, but, that same thing is exactly what happens in measurements in quantum mechanics. When we measure a particle, we are measuring a single finite and "not moving" point, its just a point, and since it's just a point and it's can't be moving because it would mean that your measurement is somehow getting information of it's motion before photons reach our eyes, it has 0 kinetic energy, so couldn't the reason why there's all this measurement weirdness be because a million times a second we are technically "stopping time" and therefore giving something 0 energy, and since it doesn't have energy it can't be a wave since wave mechanics clearly show you need energy to generate a wave? Or...something like this? Because we can't actually measure continuous motion, because that would mean that we would need to have an infinitely continuous stream of photons hitting your eyes, without any break, so instead we only measure motion at tiny intervals.... Can anyone make sense of what I'm trying to say?

It might seem intimidating, but it really isn't that bad, atoms can almost perfectly be described by wave mechanics. The reason why atoms act like they do in the double slit experiment is because they are waves, and waves simply don't have a specific location. You can try dropping a pebble in the pond, but you can't point to a specific location and say "the wave is precisely there". As for the actual measurement of particle-waves, they still act like waves, but we only observe single points of them for reasons that remain unknown, though in a complex way it could be related to the mechanics itself stating that "if you determine a precise location, then it cannot have an undefined location", or more accurately, "the more precisely you know one aspect, the less precisely you know another aspect", also known as the uncertainty principal. With this, if you determine a particle-wave, then that means it's momentum is no longer defined if it has a precise location, but if you define only its momentum, then you have no idea where it's location is.

So in the standard model, how do photons cause gravity then? They don't interact with the Higg's field, yet scientists are still planning on building accelerators that use the gravity of very very high energy photon lasers to accelerate particles.

You can't measure an entangled system and continue to observe it's effects, unless your dealing with something like liquid helium.

That's...not what I'm asking. If you put enough energy into neutrons, since energy in any single given set of systems is quantized, how is not the only possibility for bounds quarks to simply be forced to a higher energy level? But since that doesn't happen with that high of gravity (I mean it does, but in the upper levels of a neutron/quark star), what does exactly happen? Do all the quarks become entangled and form one "mega-lepton" like how liquid helium acts?

That's...not what I'm asking. If you put enough energy into neutrons, since energy in any single given set of systems is quantized, how is the only possibility not for bounds quarks to simply be forced to a higher energy level? But since that doesn't happen, what does exactly happen? Do all the quarks for one "mega-lepton" like how liquid helium acts?

http://en.wikipedia....Ruffini_theorem I think somewhere there it states mathematically why you can't generalize all polynomials to get exact answers, but you can really only approximate. " This clearly excludes the possibility of having any formula that expresses the solutions of an arbitrary equation of degree 5 or higher in terms of its coefficients, using only those operations, or even of having different formulas for different roots or for different classes of polynomials, in such a way as to cover all cases."

..

Perhaps very weak telepathy, as in not anything like organized thoughts but more like feelings can be possible as there are many animals which can sense electric and magnetic fields even of other living things (like sharks), but I would imagine it would be close ranged since living things don't generate that powerful of an electric or magnetic field.

Well, quantum physics isn't meta-physics which is why it's been around in the science community for over half I century since it was created and why its the modern frontier of science . I think that perhaps your views at this point aren't as approaching religious extremism as I thought your statements were originally, but I can't help but notice your still seem to be suggesting some determinism revolving around "why" things happen or that living things "have" to do something that leads to their survival. Quantum mechanics says things can't be deterministic, and that's because atoms aren't deterministic and you cannot predict the future state of an atom based off of the past state of an atom. The entire macroscopic world is built from atoms, and living things are built form atoms and even things like DNA are subject to this chaos. I can agree that things can be probable to happen. Your saying that consciousness is nothing more than the coding of DNA to make chemical reactions that will generate processes to generate some kind of electromagnetic...um...whatever you think that voice in your head is (and there's another problem, even at the point where your viewing all the chemical reactions line up to do something, you still need to figure out what they would actually be generating which hasn't been...I guess, confirmed? Studied?) and that DNA will generate things to generate "thought" processes that survive if the DNA is to be passed on, right? One problem with this is quantum mechanics, because the atomic (which includes DNA and all the chemical reactions in your body) world is even more visibly subject to chaos, so how does DNA go about "determining" what will happen in the future if what "will" happen in the future cannot be based off of present information? Then, another problem is consciousness itself. It's immeasurable, yet we can still measure what it causes. How is it that we measure the impacts and choices of consciousness as a separate entity, separate from all these chemical reactions, if it is nothing more than a bunch of deterministic reactions? How is it that we cannot measure that consciousness is those chemical reactions themselves? What about the fact that we cannot predict with certainty what something "will" think in just the plain macroscopic or "Newtonian" world? What your saying implies that if we figure out how DNA works, than we can determinate what something will or has to think, but nothing "has" to think any particular thing and what something does think cannot be determined with a lot of accuracy. Things might "seem" deterministic at times because there isn't enough information to see the pattern of chaos that is occurring or at times there aren't a lot of apparent variables that change much or things by pure random chance might just be coincidentally happening in a slow enough time scale to see where they are "likely" to go. Consciousness is just something entirely different than a chemical reaction or just some generator, it doesn't belong in the realm your putting it in and that's why we can't measure consciousness itself as chemical reactions or "things generated from DNA". Also, what about all the other "thought processes" that survive but don't actually help someone survive? Surely you don't think "I want to get hammered" helps you survive, even though people who get hammered all the time end up surviving and reproducing. Even with wanting to commit suicide, I think you can agree that it's at least a little tiny tiny bit more complex than "he has inferior genes so he will kill himself due to his inferior thought processes". There's still the process of conscious thoughts becoming actions as well that you have to consider with this. The genes make the glands of your body likely to generate a more of a chemical that can somehow cause consciousness feel the feeling of depression in response to something, they don't generate thoughts themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think that what your saying is logical in most respects which is why I'm paying attention to it, but that problem with determinism and that problem with consciousness not being actual chemical reactions are big problems. Perhaps if it was tweaked to say "Some genes will be less likely to get passed on because they are more likely to code for a gland that will generate too much of a chemical response which in turn has a higher probability of afflicting consciousness more severely" or maybe "building bad habits", I think you see relatively what I'm saying. Perhaps the high levels of hormones can inhibit conscious thought all together, which would be more plain evolution. Although even at this point, you still can't say if a thought process will actually turn out successful lead to an action that ends up allowing something to survive.

I think for some wierd reason you can't generate forumlas past a certain point, so what you'd have to do is break the polynomial up into its constituent squares and cubes. After thinking about it, I think its no different than not being able to have a formula to get the angles of any octagon or any nonagon or etc. There's just too many parameters that can change, so instead you break it up into triangles and solve those.

That's where it ends.

I'm sure that for every person with IVF there's a pretty healthy person, and if something is really that bad to have then you just die from it and you can't pass it on or there's some law. Besides, you can't determine how all of the mutations would play out. A lot of things like asthma wouldn't necessarily be a problem in the stone age where the longest your likely to live is like 30 years anyway.

That's a good point, but that almost never actually happens where something is directly mutated to the point where it can't reproduce with the same species that gave birth to it. It's more of "down the line" that things can't reproduce with. So something probably wouldn't reproduce with another thing that was like 10 major mutations away in the evolutionary line of that particular creature, but would be likely to be able to reproduce with something only 1-2 major mutations away in the evolutionary line because there wouldn't be too big of a difference.

So energy or photons distorts the fabric of space even though they doesn't have mass? What's the point of having mass then? Mass then? Doesn't that pretty much disprove the existence of mass if photons can distort the fabric of space without some sort of "higg's boson" or "mass causing particle"? How could force carriers themselves emit force carrier particles?

Perhaps there weren't necessarily bigger plants because even though they could take in more CO2, the amount of sunlight the Earth received wasn't enough.

I actually am pretty sure I viewed evolution in my own backyard. I have a hand-mower, it's a fairly small yard, and one week I noticed there was a wheat-looking grassy plant that had such a flexible stem I couldn't cut it while all the others in my yard at this time could be cut. A few weeks later, I was able to cut all of those wheat-looking grassy plants except for two that were so flexible that they couldn't be cut. Another few weeks later, there were 4 or 5 of those wheat-looking grassy plants that were too flexible while the others got cut down, and just before the winter I counted 15. Although I suppose if they were truly grass plants, cutting them at the stem wouldn't kill them and they would just somehow grow back more flexible.

What your saying would make sense, but a meteor doesn't just wipe out all living things unless it destroys the entire planet itself. The reason the dinosaurs went extinct isn't because of the meteor, but because of what it caused, which is an environmental shift caused by millions of tons of debris thrown into the atmosphere blocking sunlight, making it colder and disrupting the food chain by blocking sunlight and killing many plants. Right now at this very moment, I suppose the biggest reason they don't survive is because humans make them extinct, like with mammoths and almost whales and those very large birds that use to be around, maybe it could be both of what we're saying at different times. Bigger is more efficient in a way, as in it somehow takes less energy per cubic centimeter to operate which many scientists are puzzled by despite knowing of the reasoning you presented, but it still takes a large amount of resources to keep them alive which is why when there's a large food chain shift, the biggest animals usually die the fastest. That's why rats and bugs and small birds and small lizards survived the event and not dinosaurs.

Yeah, there's ways to "construct" "high dimensional" shapes that are basically just extensions of themselves, but they form interesting patterns when viewed in continuous motions and at different angles. I'd imagine that the object is somehow "hyper" or "hyper-hyper" cubic based on how it looks in 2 dimensions. A manifold basically is mathematics folding, but there's still not enough evidence even for the existence of manifolds.

So if there's very high gravity and neutrons can't exist, does that mean that matter is basically one giant neutron/proton or that the bonds between quarks are close enough together to be pretty much random?

The image seems to represent fractal symmetry and suggests that if it describes everything that there is fractal symmetry throughout different dimensions and manifolds, but I don't think we really have any evidence to support that, I think the manifolds are just manifolds, although I suppose there are only specific patterns in which things in the quantum world can build up from, but that's more wave mechanism and polar graphs. Actually, I could have swore I saw an image similar to that before when trying to build how higher dimensional shapes would look when they are truncated through our 2-3 dimensional perception, but I think it was just random math, not a real thing.