questionposter

This is sort of new to me how scientific this is because I don't think I have as much of a problem seeing negative things, and I know that that statement can be thought of as bias, but at the same time I can also feel "outside" of my own thoughts and seeing them. I think the truth is you can be bias if you want, but you can also look at other possibilities if you put the effort into it. That's actually probability what it is because when you look at a negative impacts or consider possibilities you think you don't want to, what's really going on is more of a complex subconscious "security" or feeling of safety violation, but as it's been shown before, you can ignore whatever instincts you have if you want to. Have you seen that guy in 128 days? Well, he really put the effort into making sure he'd see his son again even though it hurt unimaginably.

There's different types of love though too. One is sex, and another is consciously being with someone or cnsciously wanting someone else to be happy. Both the loves and hate are desire. Hate is the desire to hurt or express anger, so the opposite of both love AND hate is indifference because if your indifferent you have no desire, and if you have no desire you can't love or hate.

If the goal of an organism is to live and it cannot die, why would it be sad? I can easily imagine people being fed up with living long boring lives, but if all these living things fight to survive, why would immortality eventually make you depressed? I guess if your life is boring you'd get tired of it, but I can also imagine it equally likely that people who always have things to do and explore new things constantly probably wouldn't be so tired of life. The only explanations I can think of is that there is some inherent mechanism in DNA and in your brain that you should want to die after living a long life and creating offspring, or that your conscious is very separated from your subconscious, even more than previously thought.

Interference is basically where parts of different waves meet. If you drop a pebble in the water, you see those circular waves. But, if you drop two pebbles in the water at the same time, some of the ripples run into each other at different points, and that's what interference is.

The reason for this is because particles' aren't just particles, they are waves. If you know mathematics and calculus, you should be familiar with a sign wave. Because a particle acts as a wave, in order to describe it's momentum, you simply have a sine wave. However, that sine wave is all over the place, and the distance from the x axis (or 0, which represents distance from the nucleus) could be anywhere. So, in order to find the relative area a particle is in, you'd need to add up the sign waves of other possible momentums until you get what looks like a huge spike in a relatively low region. Because if you think about it, a wave doesn't exist as just a point does it? No, so your trying to make a particle act like what it's not by trying to find an exact position, which is a point or a ball. What you do when you add up the sign waves of multiple energy levels is you essentially cause interference or or places where a particle's probability adds up to be more near 0, since in quantum mechanics, probability itself acts as a wave.

Is there any piece of data that suggests there "HAS" to be higher dimensions in order for an abject to be the way that it is? Like does a gluon really need to have 11 dimensions in order to keep atoms together? What suggests that?

This is basic stuff you should have learned in high school. The only reason things wouldn't fall at the same speed from the same height is because of air resistance, such as with a feather and a bowling ball. Your sort of semi-right with the force thing, but it's density, not just force. I could launch a feather out of a rocket launcher and it still wouldn't necessarily fall at the same speed as a bowling ball on Earth. What's happening is the same force of gravity is being applied to both objects. Since that's true, in a vaccume, both the objects fall at the same speed. Why would the Earth pull on a bowling ball with more force than a feather? There's more atoms to be pulled on, but those atoms in the bowling ball are being pulled with the same force as the atoms in the feather.

This is sort of a tricky subject, because if you watch a lot of violent things, then your subconscious becomes violent or more likely to take hostile action whether the violent actions you saw were in a functional movie or real life, so I think the recording works in much the same way that magnetism or gravity or sound waves work, which is that they get weaker and weaker as time goes on, but they don't disappear completely. Like right now we are being affected by the gravity of Pluto, which isn't much because it's so far away and at that distance gravity gets weak but never reaches 0. But, if there were 10000 Pluto's at that same distance, even though the individual gravity is weak, it's total effect would add up. So if you watch only minor violent things or see them spaced apart greatly, your brain's ability to remember get's halved more and more as time goes on, but that never reaches 0 like with radioactive decay. I think Cornell discovered this process.

You should email an admin. I thought I saw an update that said you can debate religion somewhere, but I can't find it.

Well, I asked someone who teaches biology, and they told me it's possible individual cells have consciousness, but they did not say it's been proven either way and continued to say he taught as if they didn't because the data is not of much use right now and it's not proven. I googled some stuff and it seems like there's reasoning and research supporting the consciousness of cells, but it seems there isn't anything that the biology community is safe to call "proof" as it's such a touchy subject and there isn't a concrete definition of consciousness. I don't and know if my question is answerable. The only thing I can really say at this point is that based on the articles I've read, there could easily be minute consciousness due to the fact that the brain does not work as a single cohesive thing, but rather that data and information is almost "debated" over by all the individual cells and parts of the brain and that even something such as a "though" had been forming in your brain's subconscious for hours and being processed by all the different parts. And then there's also emotions, and that's sort of complicated how all the cells know all the data from that and how your subconscious acts.

So your saying the roots are irrational numbers like e, and since the decimal places go on forever, you can't have an exact numerical answer? But aren't there exact things that generate irrational numbers and instead of writing out the irrational number you just keep the simplified version of whatever generates them? Like the square root of 2 is irrational when written out, so don't you just keep it as "sqrt(2)" to make it exact?

Maybe scientists already figured it out and I don't know, but is it possible that he's just so big that his body generates too many immune cells at too fast a rate for all of them to be destroyed, or at least it would take the AIDS virus so long to completely infect all a lot of them that his body had enough time to figure out an anti-body?

! Moderator Note Merged with existing thread Some collider, I think the Fermi Lab or the Hadron in Switzerland said they found neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, but couldn't an explanation be that because the neutrinos were at such a high energy level that their wave function where the highest probability to be found was in the macroscopic realm? As in, a neutrino could "appear" past the point where it would appear as if it were just any old classical object?

But it's not like this is quantum mechanics where we can't even know a specific location, these are specific and definite numbers in a specific process yielding specific results. I just don't see how y=x couldn't always be the same as x=y even after looking at the abel-ruffini theorem. One way or another x has to = something in order for y to = 0, no matter what. Maybe we can't do it using the conventional methods as in starting out with the coefficients and changing how they are summed, but if x does = y and we can't find x even though it still has to be true that y=x, then there's probably just some way to change the look of expressions and equations that we haven't thought of yet. I've read about the Abel Ruffini theorem and it seems to state in multiple sources that the main problem is that we can't find the roots based on how we currently write them and try to solve them, which is still just how a value "looks", and as we have already found many times, changing the "look" is the key to balancing equations.

Well what if I don't use a single equation, but a process? Say I have x^7+x^6-x+10=0 And then in the calculator I find the intersection between x^7+x^6 = x-10? Or perhaps we me even need to use higher dimensional mathematics.

Even though it seems we do have limits to our current mathematical knowledge, isn't it true that in y=x^7+x+27 that x has to be equal to some number(s) in order for the equation to = 0 or even any number? And since that's true, doesn't there have to be a specific process that's causing that statement to be true? It's just a matter of finding it I think.

Well it can't be impossible because I've seen a graphing calculator that's been programmed to find the exact roots of higher degree polynomials, even the imaginary ones, which essentially proves that within our own knowledge is the ability to find the roots of higher degree polynomials. And then if I even type in a septic equation and also y=0 and go to 2nd --> trace --> intersect, it shows the number at exactly x=0. Regardless of whatever knowledge we think we currently have, septic equations regardless of how they are written, such as with x^7-x+57, will definitely have at least 1 x intercept. Doesn't matter if you theorize it's not possible because by the logic of graphing itself, its shown otherwise. Since we programmed only whatever knowledge we have into a calculator, and the calculator can know x intercepts, then there has to be something we know that can give us the actual x intercepts. It's just like how people say x/0 doesn't have an answer even though it does have an answer but it's just now what you'd expect. That's probably also true for generalizing polynomial formulas. Since y=0, and 0= the equation, something has to be able to be done to 0 in order to get x since both sides of the equation have the same value. In order for the equation to equal 0, x has to be at least 1 definite number no matter what, even if it's imaginary. Just like if 1+x=3, then 3-1=x. 1+x could not = 3 unless x was a number. Somehow, all polynomials have roots, whether we know how to find them or not, but I think that we do have the capability to find them based on the facts that x has to equal something in order for y to = 0, and that calculators can find them.

How about breaking down x^5-x+1 into (x^3...)(x^2...), how would I do that? I would make it solvable with the other formulas.

Ok, we can't find the roots using conventional methods, but why should innovation be limited from looking towards other methods like the one I mentioned before? Maybe an eighth degree polynomial isn't solvable, but two 4th degree polynomials are.

That's because if it's squared it's usually dealing with more than 1 dimension such as in a vector, which uses 2 dimensions. I'm telling you; there really is something imaginary about imaginary numbers.

Well I tried doing something simple myself, and I found that I can in fact find the 0s of an 8th degree polynomial. x^8+256 is an 8th degree polynomial with no real roots, but just by looking at it I can tell that you can get the roots by doing this [math](x^4+16i)(x^4-16i)[/math] So I'm thinking now that there can be a formula which factors a large degree polynomial into smaller factors and uses the lower degree polynomial formulas on it, like roots of (x^8+constant) = quint(x_to_the_power_of_(1/2)n)+sqrt(constant)i)*quint(x_to_the_power_of_(1/2)n)+sqrt(constant)i) quint=quintic formula It would be pretty tedious work, but you can probably just program the process into your calculator. Something tells me there's some way to find the roots if I happen to add another part to the polynomial like a 3x^7. Also the math thing is broken, it won't let me use complicated exponents.

You can't square an apple because an apple isn't a number or even a variable. We are talking about quantities and you can certainly square the quantity of apples. Numbers aren't a real thing in of themselves, they are more of a simple catalog of what you see.

That's correct. Having a complex or imaginary number in the denominator is sort of similar to having an irrational number in the denominator. You want to try and get rid of it if you can. So you have something like [math]4/2+3i[/math] And what you do to get rid of i is [math]((4/(2+3i))((2-3i)/(2-3i))[/math] It's the same as multiplying by "1", but it changes the look, and the result is [math](8+12i)/(4+12i-12i-9i^2)[/math] Which simplifies to be [math](8+12i)/(13)[/math] since i^2 is negative 1, which is a real number.

You can imagine the concept of them but they don't look like anything. You probably can't even imagine them because there's no real thing to compare them too, there's no visual quantity that represents them.

But it says right in that wikipedia article that the Abel Ruffini theorem does not state that higher degree polynomials are unsolvable, it just states you can't find all the roots using radical forms. How does a graphing calculator know where the 0s are if we don't? We programmed all our knowledge into a graphing calculator so there must be something within our knowledge that can tell us the answer, unless calculators are artificial intelligence...