EquisDeXD

Religion, especially at a church gives a very positive social feedback (usually), you spend time with other people, you act nice to people, people act nice to you, and without some god to say "you go to hell if you do...", it seems harder for non religious people to have a reason to do something like that, not that you always need to be nice, but I think it's an explanation.

After looking at all the posts and after weighing all the evidence at points at once, I still stand by that it's not impossible, but it seems improbable to the point where I might as well be defending that aliens did it, so I'll drop the case.

I'm a little thrown by your use of the word "oscillation" and the word" speed". Units of time arbitrary progress one at a time to the next number according to whatever unit we use, time doesn't oscillate any more then the dimension of "width" oscillates. Which brings me to my next point, which is that not all oscillation is the intuitive physical motion you'd expect. We have no physical knowledge of a photon before we measure it, it's oscillation is only modeled in terms of it's probability or the uncertainty of it's field, a photon by the dimensional analysis of it's mathematics does not have physical components which oscillate with any sort of velocity like rippling a piece of paper, and neither does time. Things can oscillate, but the oscillation doesn't have to take place with physical dimensions, other properties of particles can oscillate as well, properties that are not as physical. Contituting time as motion doesn't make sense, relative physical motion is modeled as a change in position over time, so you'd have a change in the position of time over time, when time doesn't have any spacial position to begin with. Also, with quantum statistics takes care of all this "memory" and determinism business. Essentially, no observed result that occurs can be though of being based on previous results, which means you can't mathematically have the future be determined in any way, and it more or less supports that there's no memory of the past since the direct results of the locations of particles were not based on those previous results. Instead, you have the probability of particles, and the probability clouds of those particles can change or transform different spacial coordinates, but where you actually see something end up is still randomness. I can see that you think of time as a coordinate that, when it changes, other matter changes in response to it, which is true in a way, but there's still properties of time that make it different than other dimensions and make it so distinguishable that we give it it's own name, so that it doesn't change exactly like other dimensions. So when you mention that "all things exist currently in all points in time", or base assertions on it, I just think of the quantum statistics. With all this in mind, I think you need to revise the theory and distinguish between boundaries of physical dimensions and non-physical ones.

Because after processes of the the ends of Chromosomes shortening, the aging process happens, and over time the body functions less and less at it's optimal capacity. However, this only becomes a problem at ages 30-40+ in most cases, and humans reproduce before that, so the genes that cause the aging process survive. Nature isn't some mystical force, the other animals aren't any more aware of a point to anything than you are, nature is just the culmination of our physical world. Nature is not a conscious thing, therefore it cannot have the capacity to care about anything or have an opinion about anything.

Light still has relative mass, and energy distorts the fabric of space as well. A photon has energy, energy is effected by curvature, and energy is a part of determining the photon's frequency and magnitude.

Well I wouldn't suggest it unless to me they didn't seem right from my perspective. The responses to my posts on one or maybe two topics I suspect, I doubt you'd make the same assertion if you actually analyzed the total posts in all topics I've posted on. But if making a sock puppet is against the rules, and you have evidence for it, but I potentially have evidence against it, what's suppose to happen?

Horn shape? I've only heard of a torus in 4d. How does a horn shape come about?

Maybe I wasn't understanding the point you were trying to make. Were you saying that scattering from gas would cause certain objects to not be visible, and thus we wouldn't measure as much mass because the light didn't reach us? Because there's also different frequencies of light which filter through different materials gas. Infra-red light for example passes through most of the interstellar dust directly to the telescope, which is why scientists use it to peer into the center of the galaxy and look at Saggitarius A. With different combinations of light filters, they can determine the amount of stars using infra-red rays, and determine the amount of stellar gas using optical and ultra-violet rays, but despite that we still don't have an explanation for the apparent mass and lack of visible matter, there has to be matter that exists which is not made out of the same stuff as stars or gas, like singularities and neutronium at least, and/or dark matter.

I think there's two sides to this argument: At the current population, would it be more unethical to let many people starve to death if we didn't farm animals? But at the same time if people hadn't been doing it in the first place, society would have already been based on getting a food supply from not mass-producing meat, and the population wouldn't be as high as there would not be as many resources for the population to expand it's use to.

Well, I didn't see a mod-warning, it's it's probably because no staff with the ability to put a warning has a strong enough case for it, and if he however doesn't have that ability, then he didn't fit under the definition of who I thought a staff member was. I thought staff members and people who had experience in a particular area were separate, but I guess there's the term "moderator".

Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such, your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain. That's already a given, if the oxygen wasn't a problem the critical density would already exist and there' be no point discussing it. Well if you support the fireball theory, then you need to accept that a meteor can have just the right mass. How do you get "it definitively happened at location x" when I said "I don't know"? You can have 15kg of 235, but it doesn't have to all be in one chunk, the critical density can theoretically be formed after compression which allows the super-critical mass to travel for quite a bit, and there not being a hole like typical meteors or nuclear devices in flat terrains in no way kills the idea. If you can base from my knowledge from what your perspective is a lack of info specifically on nuclear physics, I should logically be able to say there's a lot you don't know because it doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of computer science or graphic design and so I could say there's a lot you don't know by the same exact standards. Either everyone knows a bit because there's always something that someone else knows that you don't, or no one knows a lot because there's practically infinite information, and no one could ever attain that amount of knowledge.

I created one or at most two spec topics, and commented on many more. If it's lasted this long, then that means people care about it, though I don't think for the right reasons. I still don't understand exactly what it measures, if peopel can agree that it doesn't measure accuracy, what is it doing here? and why hasn't someone banned me yet to see if I can unban myself like I said I had the capability to do?

"Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper". "Any impurities" implies you need 100% 235. The critical mass can exist well before the event, 235 has a half life of over 703 million years, but the critical density necessary to sustain the reaction could in theory be formed by chance through compression if enough 235 isotopes were in close enough proximity to each other for the reaction to sustain. Perhaps there's more ways, but I theorized such compression could happen in a meteor or through tectonic movement.

I've thought about that, the neutrons would end up hitting extra oxygen molecules from air pockets or that they would hit non-235 isotopes, but that's when there isn't the critical density, you don't need 100% pure 235 for a reaction to occur, and I was actually researching this myself before I mentioned compression, you don't need 100% 235.

Try banning me right now, and let's see if you can do it. It's a pretty good deal for you, because if I fail you won't have to hear from me again, and if I do it, I don't gloat. Also, evidence for the topic right here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69026-theory-if-everything/page__pid__702434#entry702434 Someone got marked down for some misunderstanding probably due to pop science shows exploring string theory and saying scientists are trying to unit the 4 fundamental forces of nature which is an understandable, and then someone makes a joke and get's upped.

Tectonic compression isn't part of the ore deposite. You have crystals that form, like diamonds in a volcanic eruption, or from when gas cools, and in those situations, there's higher disorder to lower disorder. Are those isolated systems? A proposed mechanism is the compress from kinetic energy outside the ore deposit, or in the case of the meteor, from out space. You can get a changed landscape, but you don't automatically get some nice circular hole that seems to exactly fit some kind of semi-sphere when the shockwave wouldn't necessarily be transferred to create such a formation. If the ore compresses enough, the isotope doesn't need to be "filtered", the 235 isotopes are in close enough proximity for a neutron to happen to strike a 235 isotope which is close enough to other isotopes that are close enough to others for the reaction to continue. The site documented it? The site got footage showing it was a fireball? The site sent a team of scientists to analyze the area? The scientist conducted experiments with meteors and compression showing it was impossible? What is documented on the site about it being impossible? He may think they are impossible, but his evidence only shows the event is improbable. And the ones that can't still have distinguishable characteristics of a crater, such as some kind of basin, and there would be lines running down from the lip to the center from the shock wave spreading outward and the rock resisting the shock wave and buckling after a certain point to create those little "streams". There's craters that look like lakes now, but they look like lakes because of hundreds of thousands of years, not because of 14,000. You can say it's improbable all you want, and I'll agree with you, but not that it's impossible without some kind of concrete evidence that shows physics needs to be violated.

I have no previous account on this site, and if I created multiple accounts I would change the ip address every time, so you wouldn't be able to match them up with any existing account. I can prove this to you if you want, I can make another account with a different ip address and pm you, assuming you'd let me break the rules to do it. There's point #1, and not only that but if I got banned I should theoretically be able to unban myself using a slightly different method, so I don't think would ever have that problem unless the account itself got deleted. How about this: Any staff member, ban me right now, I'll see if my theory on unbanning will work. If it does, I have some evidence for my case, if not I don't care and I'll stop bothering you, I have 4 other places that I debate random things in-between assignments.

"High degree of purity" so we've established pure doesn't mean 100% 235. But your not even understanding that that's what the problem with your point is, the point is that density isn't entropy and doesn't have anything to do with it in this situation, just because heat likes to spread out doesn't mean it's impossible for matter to go from higher disorder to lower disorder. Yep, in order to leave a "crater", there was no crater, but that doesn't mean an event couldn't have happened becvause A, there's rough terrain, so essentially anything that doesn't look like a nearly perfect semi-sphere that a meteor would leave wouldn't necessarily be distinguishable from the landscape. There is no reason to expect a naturally occurring nuclear blast would create a distinguishable hole, unless it was on very flat land. No, it means tectonic movement can compress the ore, it doesn't mean an Earthquake can occur in the air, I don't see how it does, it doesn't in any way imply that an earthquake can happen in mid-air. That's weird, because you sure like to bring it up. Ophiolite suggested it here http://www.sciencefo...ty-in-the-past/ post number 4 October 10th. It what manner am I going against documented facts? Ophiolite brings up a good point, what he's saying matches up with the fireball theory, and if that's what he was referring to, then I apologize to him, though I'm still not clear on his mention of the impact crater. There's no impact crater, no basin, the Indus valley isn't a very flat place, so if there was a naturally occurring explosion, we shouldn't expect it's shockwaves and thermal energy to be directed in a a perfect circle that would create a distinguish-ably perfect semi-sphere. As far as the radiation goes, what he's saying makes sense too.

There could be instances as the one you described, but if you read my whole post, you'd see that there's also instances where someone could do something as completely useless as only make a joke, and get marked up. I know how to change my ip address to create different accounts so that staff members couldn't tell it was the same person, having use to design websites myself and studying server and client sided programming I think I can pull it off, if I thought the marking system ore reputation had a any value for anything, my reputation wouldn't be in the negatives, and if I did abuse it yours definitely wouldn't be so high, which brings up another point that someone could potentially abuse it. Also, "It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster." If they are newcommers, how can they judge past experiences?

And how exactly does what I said mean that uranium needs to that? Your a chemistry expert, you should know what entropy is, and since you probably do, that means you just aren't paying attention to my posts well enough if you suggested that I said such a thing. Show me the proof that I said that. I read every post and I can't seem to find it. You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked.

Well, it doesn't leave a very recognizable one unless it happened maybe in a completely flat area. Most people probably read more slowly so they can accurately analyze. So why are you trying to say that just because one explosion makes a perfect circle at a predicable angle that all explosions do that? But the oxygen is merely what inhibits critical density. If critical density of the isotope was achieved, there is a chance for the reaction to occur. You can't say they're wrong even about the aliens, you can only say that aliens are improbable, you seem to not like the word "improbable". "There's only evidence that it's improbable, not that it's impossible." in your other thread someone made the point that surviving a 25000 foot fall is improbable, but swimming across molten lava is impossible. You need to understand that the idea you are talking about falls firmly into the latter category. No,we're definitively not, a nuclear device has several processes to make it which I don't know if they can even occur in nature. I looked at it again. What of it? Yeah, I keep saying I know it's improbable. I don't know if it didn't leave any hole, it's a rough terrain, but it didn't leave an apparent impact crater because there's no lowered level of landscape in a circular fashion that has a basin. I'm not the one who's going around saying things like "there's a lot you don't know...", that's all you. Swan actually is credited with physics and not even he could definitively say it's impossible, you wouldn't get marked down because no one actually knows if it's impossible or not so no one could correct you, which defeats the purpose of your arguing because your not proving it either way and no one can back you up because there's no evidence to support that it would actually break physics. Such as...when I'm debating that science isn't a complete fraud? When I"m debating that beliefs don't constitute science? When I'm debating that in modern physics that particles don't have classical trajectories? You mean those ideas where the OP believes science is wrong? Topics where I'm discussing matters and concepts that only the smartest people in the world could hope to fully understand? Yeah, I have noticed.

I'm pretty sure I never said that, I implied that it's possible for there to by chance to be a higher mass or concentration of 235 because it's not determined that everything always goes from a state of order to chaos, sometimes it can go the other way around. There's also tectonic compression, and I still suggested it could have been a normal meteor in a way no one else even bothered to research, i.e. the fireball. Atomic blasts definitely leave glass behind from the melted rock, so there's a justification for stating it's possible to have happened since it isn't proven it's impossible to happen.

If you can mathematically prove that your mechanics yield the same results at least 90% of the time as the other equations do, you'll still have to get in line behinf Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Dirac and Hamilton and Bhom and ect. There's already wave mechanics incorporated into a large part of quantum mechanics. The main difference between your theory is that your trying to introduce a "causation", even though there's no observed motion for trajectories between energy states. By our statistical observations, we never measure the direct "velocity" of an individual electron in the nano-meter realm, it's physically impossible because we measure electrons at a point at an instantaneous moment in time, the only data we have for the physical manifestation of an electron is where it appears, and it never appears to move, it only appears as points according to it's probability.

The fabric of space can certainly bend twist, but there's no eddies, it's not a fluid, it's current description is of a network of quantized higher dimensional mani-folds.

I only have a few, but still neutral so I don't mind. In any case, your statement doesn't logically justify either that it shouldn't be on here because this is a science forum, if someone is a staff member it is already implied their posts are credible for their area, and your statement also doesn't logically justify that they aren't just emotional decisions. Someone could just make a funny comment, and it could still plus marks even though it in no way helps the OP and does it in no way pertain to the topic. If it was up to me, all of them would be 0. In short, the reputation system isn't a logical justification for the accuracy of it's holder. I make comments all the time that are accurate or can help the OP understand something better, no plus marks, and this doesn't happen with just me, but with most members, so I don't see what purpose they really have. They obviously don't measure how accurate someone is, they obviously don't distinguish between a staff member and non staff member because there's already something that does that, what are they doing here? What is a purely opinion based system doing being integrated into a science forum is something I don't understand. It also doesn't make sense with religious people either. I'm atheist, and I'm debating in all sorts of craziest ideas, but it still doesn't make sense to me when things religious people get marked down because of a misunderstanding or a belief. They obviously have a very strong belief in something, and some little debate isn't going to effect that much. I bet I could have a Ph. D in a subject and if I didn't tell the site, I wouldn't get as many plus marks, and if that did happen it would be strong evidence that the decisions are emotionally based, because actually that happens even with me, where I see a post and I want to mark it up because it seems to all fit well that a staff member said such a thing, though I never do, they don't really need any more.