questionposter

So to make it clear, so I don't think "just" more clever predators killed them if that was even the case in any way, especially since there's hardly any evidence for that. Dinosaurs were dominant at the time just before they went extinct.

Now the universe is 46 billion light years big? Why don't they just say they don't know instead of changing it all the time? They are always goign to find weaker and weaker sources of light, why bother saying there's a precise size? I was kind of thinking this theory was more legitimate because it actually has the potential to be tested at all. In all the other universe theories there's some kind of parallel super-position that we can never touch, or we have to use a wormhole, or they are in some other dimension and we can't get out of this because space just folds back in on itself. At least in this all you need to do is travel distance, although I guess, how would you know when you've hit another universe if it would look like all the same matter we already see? Maybe there were already multiple big bangs which is why you can't trace everything back to the same point, you can only trace everything back to a denser and hotter state.

Ok, I don't even know much about the methematics about spin and that's exactly what I thought would happen, there has to be something classical about this whole spin thing, or there has to at least be something physical about it.

I thought about the shape of the universe, and it seems that when you start out, like on Earth's surface, it's a big cluster of stuff, then you zoom out, and it's a point, then you zoom out, and it's a cluster of solar systems, then you zoom out and that solar system is a point, then you zoom out, another cluster of solar system clusters, you zoom out, that whole thing looks like a point. I think that because of fractal symmetry or at least the nature of the patterns of the structure of the universe, this happens infinitely, and there's either infinite matter and energy or infinite space in which uncountable number's of big bangs happen, because if we zoom out enough, our entire universe that we can see would look like a point, but based on the patterns that made up that point, we should expect the pattern to continue and see a cluster "universes" and zoom out from that so that that looks like a point, and zoom out so that that has more clusters of clusters of big bangs and that would continue infinitely, which means all we'd need to do to prove this is send a probe a very very long distance and back. Actually now that I think about it, the distance between universes is a fractal like this: I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I.........I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I.........I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I...........................I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I.........I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I.........I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I...........................I.I.I...I.I.I...I.I.I and so on. Do you see that that structure of 3 columns and the structure of the distance between them upholds no matter when integer of scale you see them in? That's what I think it's like when matter being spread out and the distance between universes, so if you think 14 billion light years is a lot, wait until you see how far away the next universe is. I don't know if this belongs in speculation because it's sort of the question, and the question is "is this a legitimate theory?"

Dinosaurs weren't killed by just 1 thing, it was a combination of things. 1 thing was the impact, another was the climate change, and another was the lack of food. There's probably even other things ocean level changes.

Wait, if those like, calabi-yao manifolds are always fixed, what's actually expanding when the fabric of space expands, and why do some scientists suspect the possibility of a "big rip"?

The best theory on why this happens so far is that when the particle's come close together in an isolated and undisturbed manner, their wave function's overlap and become combined so that the system is treated as a single particle-wave, and this is suspected to be caused by the particle's overlapping in the same 4th or 5th dimensional coordinates while moving in different 3 dimensional space coordinates.

I think that matter is quantized, and electrons/positions are sort of the limit for matter formation in atoms. I mean there's also neutrinos, but those don't have any internal structure either, they are the limits of how small mass-particles can get and after you go past those points one interval, you just reach nothingness or no matter. Even the comparison of electrons being waves is a classical description because the waves we compare them too are only from the classical world, in reality these little particle-waves are their own things.

Ok how about this: I can't seem to find a link explaining in detail how carbon dioxide levels normally rise in periods of 100 years. I see some graphs which measure ing 50 million years intervals and seem to follow a periodic cycle, but I know that since the 19th century that Earth's CO2 level has increased by about 30% which has been confirmed by multiple sources, so I just need legitimate links websites with .gov or .org or .edu that aren't wikipedia, explaining how CO2 levels normally rise in 100-200 years so I can have strong evidence point either for or against climate change caused by humans. My current evidence for either isn't concrete, but this would make at least one argument more concrete if I found the answer and it would allow me to have a good endpoint. I mean I know it's similar to a sine wave, but by what percentage does carbon dioxide normally increase when it has increased in the past? Surely many scientists have looked into this and taken core samples, but I can't seem to find that exact data online.

Well, ok, but how does that make a proton charge? How do those emit something that I say is a "positive" charge as opposed to a "red" charge?

I think that just because something has the numbers "3, 1 and 4" in it doesn't all of a sudden mean it has anything to do with Pi. Pi is a very special and unique number. Although I wouldn't be surprised if light's speed had something to do with Pi because the properties of light mimic that of a sine wave which uses Pi radians to create cycles and phases and etc, so it's possible that the wave (or circular?) properties of light make light related to Pi.

So I have a question... So there's 3 different charges of quarks, does that mean there's 3 different gauge bosons to carry those charges or they all emit the same one? In either case, how does the 3 different types of gauge bosons add up to make one type of attractive force (proton's charge) in what way, or if they emit the same one, why are there different charges?

0 doesn't count never ending-ly. Perhaps there is some process where things with 0 can yield the result of infinity like maybe in 1/0, but otherwise 0 by itself is just nothing, not infinity. It's kind of weird how you can multiply by it or use it like that at all and mathematicians look at it as just any old number, because 2*0=0 0/2=0 2/0=? Whereas in normal numbers 2*4=8 8/2=4 8/4=2 It's the same problem with infinity. When do you ever multiply something by nothingness in nature even?

Oh wait, NOW I see what your saying, your talking about that triangle where 2*4=8 8/2=4 8/4=2 But, I don't see how that works with infinity because infinity isn't a single number and there aren't some single things that you can multiply and divide to get infinity other than infinity. The only way you can do that is with infinity itself, so maybe like ∞/∞ can equal 1 in some cases, but lets look at that. 2*∞=∞ ∞/2=∞ 2/∞= forgot how that works, but probably ∞. Actually I think it's currently undefined or that we have no idea. If two numbers multiply to make a product, then the product can be decided by 1 factor to make the other factor, but there's no way you can make two when you do 2*∞, and that's mostly because infinity isn't an actual number.

Just for a minor research paper, so wikipedia isn't good. But I'm looking for things like how the temperature has risen in the last 100 years vs how much the temperature and rises normally, or how the same things happen with CO2, or core samples and their meaning from legitimate scientists. It's kind of a shame how so much information people research isn't public-ally available, like just the research that even local universities or weather stations do. I don't know why, maybe the only way they can is to hire a web designer and that costs too much. Any legitimate links would be appreciated, thanks.

I haven't really seen any harassment though, and also infinity isn't a number or even a variable, it's a term for the existence that is instantaneous a never ending counting of numbers so I don't see how it could equal 1 except if you do things like divide infinity by infinity but and even then it depends on the context. Otherwise what it seems your trying to show is some kind of number theory or properties of numbers themselves and then determining logically what that means in reality related to light.

But why do you have stuff like -∞< x < ∞ instead of -∞ = x = ∞ if you can actually count to/at the speed of infinity?

The event horizon I just the point where light can't escape. Sure you can't see past it, but what's so special about that? Why does time have to stop there? Why does stuff have to infinitely stretch or get frozen there? It's just another random distance form the singularity like any other distance, which if you went past the event horizon would have an even greater escape velocity. Also if a singularity is infinitely small, how can there even be distance from it? It's sort of like trying to measure the exact surface area of something like an eroded rock and running into that fractal problem where there's an infinitely smaller level of area to measure from since like a crack would keep having cracks inside it, and then cracks inside those, and etc.

Wait a minute, people are talking about that stretch dilation when something moves nearly the speed of light, but why doesn't that happen in particle accelerators? Why doesn't a proton stretch to be 20 kilometers wide or etc?

Wait, why does there even need to be gluons for single protons if the quarks respond to each other's color charge attractively and always have attractive charges? I guess two are down and one is up, but its still a lets say Xcharge and Ycharge and Zcharge which are all attracted to each other, so why does there need to be a gluon then? Maybe a gluon is there but it's not doing much. Perhaps eliminating gluons would allow quarks to flow in a current or at least be attracted to each other more freely making them more manipulate-able. I think this might have been done in a quark-gluon plasma http://en.wikipedia....rk-gluon_plasma where the gluons are not confining the quarks due to the high energy level, similar to how electrons aren't confined in a normal plasma because of the high energy but if there was some kind of magnetic field with quarks, you could probably get the quarks to follow a path like a magnet with normal plasma. It seems like the property of charge attraction and repulsion is the same for particles smaller and smaller in the atomic realm, and the only thing that seems to change is the amount of charges, so with that in mind it might be possible.

Exactly, it can only absorb radiation, not emit it, except in a really really really really really really slow evaporation. If the Earth could keep all the heat it started out with, it would still be boiling and have flowing lava everywhere.

Well it says that things like time dilation wouldn't apply, which I guess makes sense since it's different than just kinetic energy which would increase an object's relative mass. I think there also might be quantum teleportation, kind of like that thing that was in the Douglas Adams books where the ship went through every possible point and ended up somewhere, but there might be a way to control it like creating a narrow dumbbell shape in the same relative region for all the atoms of a ship as to cause it to appear in one of those regions, and if you don't appear in the right one, just try it again till you get in the other, there's a 50% chance. I think it would require more energy depending on how far away something was, and it would need to be fast.

Here's a link with some info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_superconductivity I think quarks also carry something called color-charge, which is that they have 3 different types of attractive/repulsive forces as opposed to two.

While I don't think singularities are actually infinitely small (which means they would have infinite density too, but would that also mean infinite gravity since density can make gravity bigger?), I don't think it's a neutron star or anything like a neutron star because the gravity is so strong that the elementary particles of matter than we know can no longer function as we know them. How could a black hole be dead and cold with so much force putting strain on matter and all the random light it absorbs?

What about traveling faster than light but not by using kinetic energy? Maybe there's some unknown force which allows matter to accelerate faster than light, like dark energy, which I assume is different than the energy we already know.