questionposter

I'm pretty sure like almost no evidence suggests we're falling into a black hole, it's a fringe theory and its very illogical because the hubble constant is relatively constant in all directions, and if there was a black hole massive enough to pull all matter in the universe, everything would be moving towards a single point. Furthermore, we wouldn't slow down if we were moving outward because of Newton's first law of motion, if the universe contains everything, then there's nothing stopping it from moving outward and slowing it down.

Actually, wait another minute, how could the big rip happen if force can only be carried at the speed of light?

For all of them its friction.

Congratulations, you re-discovered relativity.

How about the mere fact that we have all known living things on this planet have the same base pairs to build DNA as single celled organisms and we even some of the exact same DNA as many single celled organisms.

I don't think your quite understanding what I'm saying because I didn't intentionally use a straw man if I did at all, I'm saying things just aren't as concrete and deterministic as your saying, they just can't be in order for the universe to be the way it is. There's mechanisms that I guess seem to "determine" some of our actions such has breathing, and there's complex chemical reactions that can compel you to do something, there's no "mystical evolution force" that automatically says all life in the universe is a certain way or has to do anything, and it's this mistake that often makes nihilism just as bad as religious extremism. Your brain isn't a cohesive thing, it's a composite of many many cells, it's actually hard for millions of organisms to decide one thing. Usually what just ends up happening with a lot of people and I guess animals in general is they get into habits and don't realize they are into those habits, and that's largely what I think those "mechanisms" you you specifically are talking about are. Those habits could be as simple as typing or looking around in similar patterns, taking a shower, etc, but you can change them if you notice them.

If there's some giant super-catastrophe like maybe yellow-stone erupting and people with lung problems die even though you can use gas masks and etc, then maybe there would be a slight chance "medicating ourselves right out of existence" but even at that point it wouldn't even be half the human race. If you look at how things are already, most people who have severe genetic health problems that don't benefit them don't live long or don't reproduce.

What? Entanglement disappears when you measure it. I knew that bleep movie was no good.

But that's the issue, because if you know all of the factors of the relativity, you would always be able to trace it back to the same energy change no matter how you relate to the position.

Well I mean some neutrinos are more detectable than others, and since energy in a way = mass, higher energy photons have more relative mass, so...

I suppose to the source.

If you have multiple photons in the same wave, are some more likely to be detected than others?

Evolution doesn't "respond", things can happen that cause a species to evolve, but evolution as a whole doesn't respond, it's just genes being altered and some happen to be more successful for surviving the environment they are in making it more likely for them to get passed on. The evolution of eyes took a very long time, at first eyes were only exterior organs that told an organism just whether or not it was bright out. After a lot of gradual alterations through millions of years, we get the eyes we see today. Eyes help things survive by letting organisms know what outside of themselves, so better eyes having the ability to help organism survive will be likely to get passed on where they have a chance to get mutated into even better eyes.

It's fruitless to try to incorporate natural evolution into modern society because no matter how many times a civilization crumbles, it will rebuild because people want that, people want altruism and organization and etc.

Is it possible to create protons consisting of multiple types of quarks using this meson decay?

The Kepler telescope uses both.

This is actually describing how you treat non-entangled particles within the same system, such as if you have two electrons in the same energy level, their wave-functions overlap and you treat them as a single a-symmetric wave function How do you have more photons in a photon? Do you mean frequency? Amplitude? Light has those things and they vary.

So the frequency of a photon you measure is relative, but if you know the distance or and speed and angle you were traveling when you observed that photon, can't you just always work out what the actual energy change is that created that photon, in which case isn't the energy change of that object not actually relative, doesn't actually have to be a definite value in order for you to have measured it at the frequency and angle and speed you measured it at?

Ok, so a "meson" will decay, but then don't you still have individual quarks?

Maybe it's imaginary, in which case your not actually taking real energy, and that would make sense because when it interacts with an object it could multiply by some kind of complex conjugate to form real results and real consequences.

Is superstring actually science? How would you even make 3 and 4+ dimensional movements from 1 dimensional object oscillating? That's like saying that playing a guitar sends me back in time. I don't even think "dimension" is the proper term, it should be more like "a different way to exist", because dimension implies you can measure the units of the "dimension" of an object, and I don't know how you measure 10 dimensions of something.

This is going off topic, and besides evolution isn't a theory, its a sequence of chaos, of random changes on multiple levels simultaneously.

I don't think its a nice or not nice idea, I think things work more neutrally and that w/e. Everything isn't tied to some single thing, some things just couldn't exist if what you were saying was completely true. It is true that a lot of people are not so kind to other people because of some kind of competitiveness, but just as there those people, there are people who don't compete at all, don't expect to be famous, don't expect to make money or etc and are still altruistic. Really, there's no grand thing determining our every action, we can chose to do whatever we want, and in fact a lot of things seem to do what they want, which is why things might seem to work the way your describing at times.

Couldn't spin just be the pattern in which a wave vibrates? I mean if you just imagine a sphere of water and you drop a wave through it, the waves will vibrate in a specific direction and merge on the other side, only with real matter, matter isn't just a wave so it doesn't exactly go both directions and it doesn't merge on the other side, I suppose different locations of an electrons can repel each other in superposition?

But isn't the definition of a meson a "quark and anti-quark" system? Plus, if it didn't annihilate, wouldn't it have to be isolated or somehow form a more massive proton or take quarks from another system until there was only one left or etc?