questionposter

That's pretty possible, but then again, futurama.

We have been seeing these effects before at least in a core sample, its just that most of the global climate change takes a while to really happen. Plus, it's already even known that mere water vapor is one of the main greenhouse gases.

Well, I think a photon can already be the virtual particle itself, hence "virtual photons". There's virtual particle pairs, but there's also virtual particle force carriers.

You mean infrared light? Yeah, some infra-red light escapes no matter what thought, but the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough to trap some of it for more than just a few seconds. So I mean, there will always be some cooling, but the atmosphere in general is heating up, there is a greater amount to cool down from as years pass. I'm not sure what your referring to. The sun? Water vapor? The sun radiates energy onto Earth, water absorbs heat, water evaporates, water traps more heat and make's air expand, expansion of air makes more room for water to evaporate at an accelerated rate.

It seems like they have changing relative mass, not actual physical grams of matter I would hold in my hand, which still only results from the mixed measurements of the 3 different generations of neutrinos who interfere with each other. In other words, its not just a single particle, its a culmination of different types of neutrinos existing in the same relative location, and depending on when you detect them at what angle, you will get a specific measured mass generated by the interference between those neutrinos. This seems just like how you can't distinguish between two different electrons in the same energy level so you only write one equation to describe both.

Are you suggesting that a photon's energy get's very slowly siphoned from the creation of virtual particles?

Clocks measure time, clocks speed up, therefore the difference between the clock's speed and speed of time's flow must be less.

I mean if it was a better planet, you probably wouldn't be eternally board or depressed so much after all that time.

So your saying a single neutrino and leave the surface of the sun, then for no reason gains and loses mass upon its journey to Earth? I'm not talking about different generations of neutrinos and electrons and protons, I'm talking about the changes of a single neutrino over distance.

Scientists who agree that something is a scientific law always know there could be some small sliver of wrongness for a new theory, but we only know what we know, and after much evidence for a theory, there's not much room for any other inference other than 1. The universe has no observable boundary, that's a fact. Even if it does have a boundary, you can't see it, you can try looking in your telescope if you want to test this out.

Well, we have equations to describe just how much a specific mass will bend light, and when we try and solve for the equation of mass in something like a galaxy when starting with the degree at which less is bent (as well as distance and stuff which is already known), there's more mass than what's visible. There has to be mass we aren't seeing, or you have to disprove relativity.

Nope, the universe has no observable boundaries, this is what astronomers and cosmologists have agreed on. Even if there is infinite room, the light could be so thin and/or stretched out from so far away that we just can't measure it.

Wait, so neutrinos change types when traveling over distance, but does the mass actually change? Will one neutrino change into another neutrino with more mass, then change to another type with less mass?

I guess that's a better point. If it was a better planet, then you probably would want to live despite how much time has passed.

Something about your description of consciousness doesn't make sense. It isn't necessarily something to do with feeling pain, even though its been scientifically proven that even fish feel pain based on how they react, brain scans and the fact that endorphin are in their bloodstream only after they have been hurt. In any case, the good and bad is relative. If you hate your life, then I'd imagine it's a bad thing, and if you like your life, I'd imagine its a good thing.

If something doesn't have genes, then it probably doesn't operate based on natural selection. The only other types of life forms I could think there possibly being besides DNA are plasma based life-forms, since plasma is very easily manipulative in a magnetic field, and plasma is like 99% of the visible matter in the universe, so if there's only a tiny amount of solid liquid and gas matter and it still made life, then imagine what the chances are form a life form made out of plasma. I'm guessing that since it wouldn't reproduce in any way similar to us, it would just have to be "created", and if it dies, then that's it, plasma based life no longer exists until it pops up again.

A large amount of error was already made by assuming galaxies rotated as though there wasn't dark matter and saying there's more visible mass even though there wasn't.

Even though the water vapor rises into the clouds and cools, the energy that carried it there doesn't disappear, it tries to form an equilibrium with the surrounding air and get's dispersed, so the upper atmosphere is actually slowly heating as well. Clouds can reflect light into space, but they can easily reflect light at an angle onto the surface of the Earth as well and also help to trap heat below them.

From the way I understand it, wouldn't this "motion" make electrons and protons give off energy as accelerating charged particles makes them give off photons? And I also thought that the magnetic fields were generated by the spin of sub-atomic particles for some reason, even if they aren't classically spinning.

I don't think there should be or not be limits, if it happens it happens. I wouldn't condone cloning for labor or anything like that, but it's not just the DNA that makes up something, its also the experiences and thinking, otherwise since 99.99% of all human DNA is the same, most people would think almost exactly the same. This is why I believe a clone is a whole separate living thing that is virtually in now way connected to the thing it was cloned from. With humans you'd have the consider all the psychological impacts, but with animals, they don't seem to care if they aren't being treated poorly. Plus if something is about to go extinct, why not?

I wouldn't blame people for being ignorant, but I would blame them for making up stuff up because they don't have an answer.

Well the good books by good authors, like Catcher in the Rye, are realistic and do good at emphasizing points in reality that are otherwise not seen, which is why books like that are so well known. It wasn't really meant to be a discussion, just a quick thought.

Well I don't really want to do a lot of research right now, so all I can do is just infer that because there is heating, more water evaporates into the atmosphere to trap more heat, and since there's more heat, more air is moving which will allow water vapor to enter the atmosphere more easily.

Sorry, must have been thinking about Of Mice and Men. Anyway, it's about a kid who essentially does have a pathological lying disorder. Throughout the book I kept thinking "wtf, why did he lie about that?", and it seems accurate in trying to portray a real person. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that character was reflective of the Author's own childhood.