EquisDeXD

I suppose that's possible, but didn't he work in a patent office before being exposed to Lorentz works? He would have only encountered Lawrentz either in college or peer review and debates. I think Einstein could have encountered Lawrentz' work and Maxwell's on magnetism prior to the patent office, Einstein was originally fascinated by magnetism, unless I am confusing a different Lawrentz for the one that created the relativistic Lawrentz transformation... His works on relativity though were inspired from his days at the patent office, and his later works such as solving the Ultra-Violet Catastrophe were after relativity when other great scientists were working on formulating quantum physics.

Maybe I'm mis-interpreting you, but wouldn't that prove that god would have needed to exist because there existed matter before there was any living things to measure it and god would need to exist to constantly measure particles so that over time they could form living things? That seems like bs to me, particles of course exist independent from measurement, in fact they exist in a specific state called superposition. I don't think particles are "just" particles and most certainly have wave-like characteristics which there is direct evidence for, but they also most certainly have physical manifestation, they would have had to because matter would have had to exist prior to life forming for conditions to be met that formed life, they propagate physical forces that have real measurable effects even when we're not looking which his why we can see light form stars that's thousands of years old.

Yeah that was a real mess, both disagreed with each other, Schrodinger just couldn't be satisfied without a physical explanation and the two were bitter towards each other even, but it is pretty astounding that they took completely different routes and ended up with essentially the same mechanics.

So I know that as a photon approaches the event horizon that it's wave-length stretches as it moves to a lower energy potential, but relative to the observer while inside the black hole this happens as it approaches the singularity doesn't it? So if matter get's compressed into light, but light's wave-length becomes larger, wouldn't the singularity essentially be composed of radio waves? How can photons be compressed if their uncertainty increases? It seems like a photon at the exact position of the singularity would have infinite uncertainty, assuming I'm interpreting it right, but I guess that would explain the thermo-dynamical effects of black holes and how they would evaporate if the uncertainty of the interior energy of the black hole can extend beyond the event horizon. Also, does this mean that currently my theory that matter compressed belong the point of degeneracy can be treated as a single wave function is no good? Unless you can treat a compost of light waves trapped in a space as such... Are you sure those photons just aren't the byproduct of the energy put into accelerating the particles in the first place? Because last I've heard scientists made a "quark-gluon" plasma, nothing about annihilating quarks.

All you have to do is accept the fact that your initial assumption is wrong and that there is a possibility that an atomic explosion can happen by means you didn't expect. I can accept that some of the links weren't as credible, but it still remains that I did in fact provide at least some evidence form those sites. Icke only supported the conspiracy that aliens were involved in the past, the atomic explosion was merely a motive, he literally could have used any motive as evidence. Ok, first off that's why I said IN THE FIRST POST that a lot of it was subject to interpretation, but Nova is also an entertainment channel but that doesn't mean Einstein didn't formulate relativity just because that was stated on Nova, when they say "it looks like a UFO in an old Christian painting, it's possible aliens were involved", that's skeptical, but actual documented cases of something I visually saw and can see and can travel to and can measure myself isn't subject to interpretation, it's a real physical object, you might as well say the sky isn't blue because it was filmed on an entertainment program. Who in the right mind would ever target the demographic of bums? They have no money. Well to tell you the truth, there's a hell of a lot more support for the alien conspiracy on the internet than the History channel, and physicists at lecture raise interest themselves, are you going to say they are all wrong too? I went to some Brian Cox lecture, what he said was vague, that there exists a possibility of dark matter, but that doesn't mean that just because he was using that as a method to draw people in that there isn't the possibility of dark matter, you essentially can't make money in the media industry without giving in to something. So since your qualified, you can go to India and Libya and approve the evidence yourself. It's not irrelavant, "reputation" has no scientific correlation, an arbitrary view, and nothing more than an opinion, which most certainly isn't scientific. First off you don't have scientific evidence that quantifies the smartness so that you can say that either one has a particular greater quantity of it, and second, Icke supports the alien conspiracy theory of aliens in the past and merely uses the Trinitite formation as evidence. Says here in my book called "Great Scientists" that Newton faced great doubt from the entire scientific community when presenting his theory on the the composition of white light, and he actually kept calculus a secret for around 20 years because he knew his reputation could easily be damaged and didn't want to deal with it. And really? Your going to criticize me for using unreliable sources then use wikipedia when I can read in multiple books that he didn't do well in school and even had mild dyslexia? He even failed the entrance exams when he applied to a college in Switzerland. If you go to the site in Rajasthan, India, you WILL see a field of Trinitite and along with an excavation of a large number of highly radioactive corpses, I bet my entire reputation on it. There's credible links that say Trinitite can easily be the by-product of an atomic blast, that's essentially DIRECT evidence that an atomic blast of some sort is possibly responsible. Also, since your not posting any more, I guess you won't be able to prove that http://www.scribd.co...s-Produce-Glass isn't actually a credible link, because I don't see evidence it isn't.

If they annihilate, what do the composite particles compress into? And what happens to the energy? How is it "compressed" into the singularity? I was wondering what happened after the point of degeneracy, but have we actually observed this happening? Can we actually test this? I know degenerate matter can be made on Earth, but can we overcome the strong force?

Yes, that would be exactly correct if it was rare and there wasn't a literally endless number of cases where you could in fact find the exact value of an integral, and it's exactly correct that I don't care that it isn't encountered often. I'm never afraid to explore something, I'll give it a try, though it seems like they already have hired math experts working on it. The concept as usual is simple, the cause for the water doing that is a composite of the force at different angles, gravity, air resistance and attraction between molecules, but proving the equation takes testing. I think there was some mathematician a year or two ago that also solved Newton's 300 year old math puzzle about a projectile and air resistance, I think he was from India. But, this link sort of contradicts what you said, in doesn't show that things are impossible, it shows that things are in fact possible and still being worked on.

Why? And how do you know?

Einstein's "later" work was inspired by others, but a lot of his first ideas come from when he was sitting in his patenting office imagining what relativistic effects the you'd see as the train past him in front of his office, essentially he spent all of his time thinking and reasoning and imagining, much like Newton and Galileo and many other great scientists.

Actually, I guess that does kind of make sense because gluon fields do seem to get weaker as you get closer to the source, but at such a small scale you'd have to probably describe the singularity as one equation since you wouldn't be able to distinguish between many particles, but conventionally you don't need field weakinging to explain the black hole size, if it has more mass, it's bigger, gluon fields don't need to weaken. The more mass that's added, the larger the distortion in the fabric of space, which means there's a greater boundary for the event horizon. No, the exchange of gluons is analogous and quarks can't be isolated, they can't "stray away" unless you put high amounts of energy on them, which when you do the energy get's converted into more quarks making it so that no matter what a quark is always paired with one other quark, and in order for that to happen there has to be an exchance of gluons. Really? I thought it depended on the relativistic mass of a gauge boson. Well energy does have a relative mass equivalence, but it's pretty hard to create a black hole out of light, even the strongest light beams in the world don't distort the fabric of space too much. Or you could look at my theory which merely states that the wave functions combine, thus creating a more massive particle that has an unbelievably small uncertainty, which allows mass to constantly be added and a singularity to always become smaller.

What you need to do to prove that everything is one equation is enter it into a computer and see if the simulation perfectly matches reality, although that sort of creates the paradox of "what if that already happened?". Though, amybe you could get away with trying to just solve for any variable of any law of physics.

Ok, I provided multiple links, and I don't see a degree that says you can determine their credibilities, but I also said to go watch the history channel, that's what this whole topic was started from, unless the History channel is completely un credible, even though it never actually stated aliens were actually here in the past anyway. Go watch the f'n history channel like I said. Also, religion doesn't impair cognitive thinking, I'm atheist and I found his religious notion absolutely crazy, but I don't think that just because someone believes in a particular religion means they are in any way stupid or mentally retarded as believing in a religion like I said does not impair cognitive abilities. Religion isn't about how smart you are, it's about how connected you feel to an idea, and that's why even scientists can be religious. If you have evidence that maybe he has mercury poisoning, then I'll re-consider his if he's crazy, but other than that there's some bad people that claim to be scientific. Generally the democratic party supports things like evolution and has a larger percentage of non-religious people, but you know Ed Schultz is basically the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and then there's those neo-evolutionist psychopaths who definitely don't believe in the kind words of Jesus and would probably be categorized as atheists. The reputation game to me doesn't have a place in science, it's politics, if something has evidence then it has evidence, if something's logical then it's logical. Before Newton was famous he himself was the laughing stock of the scientific community, and Einstein failed high school.

We can't see a black hole, but we can directly observe its predicted effects, saying that your imagining your here also doesn't make sense with our evidence because there's plenty of evidence to suggest you couldn't have been here without constituent materials that created your body before you started existing. And if this topic doesn't matter to you why are you posting on it?

But I've been saying this whole time I DON"T CARE IF ITS RARE.

There's nothign to make up my mind about, I NEVER said I wanted evidence that an atomic explosion happened, I already assume it's a possibility. I don't know who David Icke is (and there's more than one site suggesting the atomic blast theory anyway), but I'm not setting myself up for anything because you can go to India and see the physical evidence for yourself, and so far NO ONE has offered ANY evidence to suggest my speculations are even impossible, just that it could only rarely occur which by the way this field of red trinitite doesn't occur naturally on it's own very often so the probabilities match up anyway, let alone that there isn't any evidence from anyone that suggests raw uranium materials in certain ores or meteors can't be compressed to create critical density of uranium 235. If someone can even prove or provide a lot of evidence that uranium in ore can't be compressed to create a critical density of uranium 235 which seems pretty plausible to me anyway, all that does is rule out that specific possibility, it in no way rules out the general possibility of some kind of atomic explosion. Other than the links I posted, sure, find an episode of the History channel called something like "Aliens in the Past". I don't know if most of you claim to be scientists in any way shape or form, but something caused highly radioactive fields of red trinitite in an area where many highly radioactive skeletons were found which match ancient depictions of a big explosion and there was no documented nuclear testing in that region and on top of all that there was an ancient tablet that matched a catastrophic event from the same region whether people want to admit it or not, there's clearly some evidence that an atomic explosion could have happened. I think actually nuclear explosions can also produce green trinitite as well. http://www.scribd.co...s-Produce-Glass Wikipedia says its red, this site says its green, but neither site rule out the possibility that it can be red or green, so... Also "Faced with these findings, scientists consider the mine to be a "naturally occurring" nuclear reactor" "V" I don't want to jump to ahead, I don't know how credible this source is, but I don't really expect anyone to say "it's not credible just because of some aspect of the site I arbitrary don't like" either. http://www.bibliotec...oindian%20Times Some action in North America and Egypt too? Could have been a normal meteor in some cases too, not saying it's impossible, but there's no impact crater.

It's a complex system of information. Essentially, the US is so technologically advanced that people have the ability to pick and choose their own sources of news from essentially every possible outlet, whether its TV, facebook, twitter, radio, ect. When this happens, people generally only listen to the sources they either find appealing or find common grounds with, and sometimes those sources have skewed information, but survive because so many people agree with certain parts of them.

Mutualistic behaviors weren't already in evolution? What about all those symbiotic relationships? It still all completely random anyway, the genes that develop what the environment is at any given time...

But see, not only can we not use classical assertions but we don't have scientific evidence for what forms when the compression is too high, all we know is matter has to move to higher energy levels in order to not violate the Pauli Exclusion principal, not to mention the relativistic effects of time actually stopping after the event horizon to an outside observer.

In order for liquid water to exist, there has to be a high enough air pressure or at least high enough of some external pressure, and Mars has a much lower air pressure than Earth, which means water evaporates much easier. There is however ice water underneath the ground on Mars, which makes sense because there's a higher pressure.

They were common, but how many records depict this? If you look at ancient christian or hebrew accounts for the lost Ark, it's one of the only accounts in which people suffered what appeared to be the exact symptoms of radiation poisoning, uranium lasts millions of years, and it's not the only radioactive material, it's really not impossible for ancient civilizations to have contact with it in some way. There's no evidence unicorns were involved, there was no ancient piece tablet that depicted a heard of unicorns in the same area, no documentation of hoof marks, no horse hair, no evidence that unicorns exist or even that they are radioactive in mythology. Not just a big explosion, but a big explosion that leaves a field of a distinct radioactive glass that is normally seen as the result of an atomic explosion as well as highly radioactive corpses and one that makes survivors severely sick afterwords. Volcanoes do leave glass, but not high levels of radiation and normally never red trinitite, and by normal I mean an average amount on the surface of Earth, most highly radioactive materials are in labs or buried deep underground. I would think that, but it's not the only instance in in the world, there are other places in the world with a very similar circumstance such as in Libya: large field of red radioactive trinitite. It doesn't really rule it out whether you want it to or not. The fact is, there is a distinct pattern that normally only atomic bombs leave that was dated back to before atomic bombs were created, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that it couldn't have possibly been an atomic blast of some sort. Enriched uranium is a concentration of a particular isotope of uranium that can cause nuclear reactions with enough mass of it, I haven't any seen evidence to suggest that it is impossible to compress raw uranium materials either in the form of ore or specimens from outer-space to create the critical density necessarily for such an explosion in a random pocket or that it can't be filtered through some other rare natural process. I can agree that it may easily be highly improbable, but this event of seeming atomic bombs detonated in the past hasn't occurred too often either, it's not a typical meteor explosion if it was one.

I know that it was odd point, but the way it's worded, I don't know what else to concretely say because I might be misinterpreting it, I'm not very familiar with the Crisis of Modernity, and it seems the way it was worded perplexed other people as well because everything I research about it seems to conflict somewhat with other sources as well as lacking the ability to generalize the original information. But, it seems like it's pointing out some kind of conflict between following a path of pure reason which is what modern society is trying to do while the axioms for pursing the reason or I guess using any particular part of it are purely emotionally driven.

Ok, that's fine, there's many instances where you can't find an exact value as the integral and I don't have a problem with that, but there's still a theoretically infinite number of instances where you can. For some equations there's no summation formula to yield an exact value, but for some I know there are.

Even if a random given theory is highly improbable, I don't see how merely that rules out the possibility of the event itself, that's like saying that just because Dalton though atoms were solid objects with neutral charge means atoms don't exist. Even if my speculations were not in fact related to the cause, what your saying doesn't rule out that that atomic explosion could have happened, in merely suggests that what I am suggesting the cause for an atomic explosion is improbable. There's evidence that some sort of nuclear event happened, there's high levels of radiation, large numbers of skeletons, and the skeletons have much higher than usual levels radiation, and hieroglyphs or at least paintings of some sort from near the same location in ancient India that depicts a very large explosion killing many people and making survivors sick. As I said before, I don't know if it was an atomic explosion, but the evidence seems to suggest it could have been one, so I want to know how an atomic explosion can occur without nuclear weapons on Earth. I really don't understand why its so difficult to investigate physics on a science forum.

Where is it shown that those possibilities aren't plausible? I asked if it could be a meteor, and some people argued with good reasoning that it may not of been, but didn't rule it out for some reason, then then when I asked about tectonic compress people for some reason started debating the existence of the atomic explosion rather than if tectonic compression could have compressed an ore deposit to a critical enough density, no one said no to that, and on top of all that, there's still some evidence that suggests there was some kind of atomic explosion. I'm not debating the legitimacy of the existence of the atomic explosion, I want to know what could have caused an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons whether a nuclear explosion actually occurred 12,000 years ago or not, this isn't just about that particular instance necessarily. If you can find a legal site where the history channel has licensed all of it's episodes to the public to view for free, I'd be more than happy to bring it up. Other than that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite Trinitite, capable of being produced in atomic explosions, a large field of it was found where nuclear bomb testing was done in the US, and that same type of physical formation was found in Rajasthan, India High levels of radiation http://www.forbidden...nfo/?q=node/130 So your disagreeing with me...because I haven't put anything up to deny? Seems rather contradictory. The topic isn't "did an atomic explosion happen?", the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?". Do people just not like reading these days or what? This whole argument could have been avoided if people just actually put some effort into reading what I said. I asked if the causes I stated were plausible causes, not if an atomic explosion ever actually happened, because as it turns out, this formation has occurred in more places in the world than just India without documented cases of nuclear testing, and those formations didn't appear out of thin air, there has to be some kind of natural event that can cause those formations, and since there's evidence to support those formations can be caused by atomic explosions, then that means atomic explosions could potentially be a plausible explanation, but if they are, then there has to be some mechanism for how they can happen.

You downgraded mine and upped your own because I think I'm being mis-interpreted? How childishly despicable. I already stated in the first post that the use of a nuclear weapon is BS. But regardless of that, there is still evidence that a nuclear explosion happened whether you want to go into denial about it or not, I'm not asking about evidence for it, I already know there's some evidence for it that could be somewhat shaky, so given the undismissable fact that there is some evidence as well as NO scientific proof that it wasn't or couldn't have been an atomic explosion of some sort, there is plenty of room to investigate possibilities. I don't know for sure if it was alpha decay, but this was the same substance found at the site in India, but as an entire field of that substance covering an entire layer of rock and dirt, like where the nuclear bomb testing was done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite Also can't a large amount of alpha decay be the result of the decay or uranium isotopes? I know that's for uranium in it's natural state, but it would give a little more evidence to the compression of a uranium ore deposit as well as the fact that there is a fair amount of tectonic activity in India. Normally natural glass is found near volcanoes or hot spots, but I think it could also be a meteor impact as well. I don't know for sure if it was an atomic explosion or not, but more field of non-volcanic glass with high radiation isn't really a typical phenomena and there's no reason to think it's impossible for ancient civilizations to come into contact with highly radioactive materials, if you just look at the ancient biblical accounts, the Ark gave people who opened it or were near it all the symptoms of radiation poisoning.