EquisDeXD

I know it's bull, but there's still no other explanation for it that I found. Essentially on the history channel they were exploring possibilities that aliens were involved in the past, and a lot of evidence was subject to interpretation, but there was a particular one that got me, which is that in India, there is a field of glass that nearly perfectly matches the type of glass that was produced in deserts in the US where nuclear bomb testing was done, in fact atomic bombs specifically melt rock as to have formed that type glass, so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? Because there was scanning of the radiation in the area, and it was higher than usual, and on top of that it was recorded in ancient Indian hieroglyphics that there was a create explosion-like scene that injured and killed many people that was found near that region.

We get scientific advancement, we can investigate technology to mine resources off world or build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large, figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently, figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better, figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation, a bunch of things, and even much of the US modern-day projectile weapons and some communications were created by NASA and organizations like it during the cold war. There's also just exploring the universe and seeing just what's actually out there.

I don't really remember saying that it can happen without a previous experience, so can you clarify?

It doesn't exactly say that, it just says with our current data we can model things as if there was a fabric of space-time, and besides, if the universe contains every thing, isn't it only proper that outside of the universe there is no thing?

The HUP isn't completely wrong, in fact Dalton wasn't completely wrong, there WAS in fact a finite amount of which you could divide matter into, but science doesn't just throw previous models away with new data, it builds off of them, so even if the older HUP doesn't work in every situation, new models of it can be created to fit our current data which still utilize the old HUP.

Well I can agree for something like sin(1/x) that after a certain point you can't really get a good integral because of the infinite number of sign changes, but even if you have some weird polynomial that goes all over the place can't you just break it down into separate limits where there's just one maximum or minimum and add them all up?

Like, say you had a memory if someone meeting someone 2 years ago and they told you their name, shook your hand, told them something about themselves, but you just see them on the street and your brain makes the connection of the specific geometry of their face to a past even, but it doesn't bring up the information on their name or their personality. Someone would have arbitrarily said your brain was "suppose" to make all the connections between neurons that stored the name and personality, but really your brain isn't "suppose" to do any specific thing, it just exists and makes the connections it does, there was just somewhere down the line where the information was lost or that it was stored in a memory cell too far away from the main stream of neural connections to be triggered by the information of that person's face alone.

I don't see a question in there. What I mean is I'm trying to get an exact number that perfectly matches the exact area under a curve which IS possible and I've seen it done in front of my own eyes before, but it was so long ago and it was somehow different from conventional integrals, in fact I think there was a specific symbol to represent infinitesimal, since technically you could achieve infinite accuracy by using an infinitely small delta x. Now your putting up a strawman, it's not the site that's a problem, it's you, your not helping the discussion in any way, your just dancing around an irrelevant problem. Who cares if I need it. If you look in the engineering section I posted how you make electricity from scrach if you were stuck on an island with every element. That's never going to happen, but regardless of that people answered it.

It does seem like errors, but in the ways I've heard of deja vu it was more like your brain was simply making connections to past experiences, even if it didn't make connections all the way to what someone arbitrarily would have said was "suppose" to be the end conclusion.

Every department and company is trying to keep as many jobs as they can, but that doesn't mean everything they do is fraudulent in any way, if they can be accused of such, they are just taking their sweet time. There's also politics, saying things like "saving life on Earth" is often associated with hippies because some hippies did advocate much peace and environmental awareness, which are then associated with drugs because many hippies smoked drugs as they did not view it as being wrong, so somehow for some reason traditionalists which still make up a large chunk of the voting block make the reasoning "all those things are automatically said by hippies, and are therefore all completely wrong because they smoked weed" or something like that, but with a mission to Mars, it's "We're expanding America's influence and then secondly trying to ensure humanity's survival in the cosmos.

What matter "is", as Feyman put it, depends on how deep you want to go. If you want to go all the way down, we don't have an exact answer, but if you want to go part of the way, we can say matter is the constructed of many particles which propagate the 4 fundamental forces of nature in various ways.

This is what I'm talking about, with the exception of ajb, what are you guys doing on this thread if your not trying to answer the topic question? It doesn't matter if I need it or not, what matters is a scientific/mathematical question was asked so the scienceforums.net community should try to answer it as best they can as per the purpose of this website existing. If you can't/don't want to answer it, that's fine, I don't think any less of you, but if you don't want to answer it or help answer/ask any of the topic questions, there's really no point to be on this thread.

But you don't need to say "weak measurement" then, that trade-off of accuracy was already invented by Warner Heisenberg. If what your saying is their reasoning, it seems like a petty excuse to get in the headlines.

I mean relative to an outside observer, time stops flowing inside a black observer, which shouldn't happen infinitessimally before someone reaches the event horizon, with my current understanding, you'd only have a chance of actually seeing an object stopped if it were possible after it's crossed the event horizon when it was inside the black hole. Of course, that's partly why this issue was brought up. Except it hasn't been seen from far away and it seems scientists know that it can't be seen but still assume that it happens around something of such complex physics that our own physics can't correctly describe it. Matter naturally tries to occupy the lowest potential state, and being any possible height above the surface that's not the lowest state, is not the lowest potential state relative to the black hole. Well that's the problem I have with the whole concept. Even if time does stop, from the frame of reference of the atoms they've already passed through the event horizon, and theoretically if there was an astronaut inside the blackhole, they could observe the atoms, but how could other people observe the same atoms from the black hole? I know there's superposition, but there's no matter particle that we know of that has an uncertainty that stretches hundreds of feet really. I suppose, I would understand this length contraction better if there was a visual representation of how the fabric of space changes the faster you travel.

What? Who gives a something if I "need" to know it anyway? Who is anyone besides me to determine what I "need"? And what do you "need" anything for anyway? What if I was stranded on an island and I needed that math to calculate something but couldn't find out how it worked on google? There's nothing wrong with just letting yourself starve to death, you don't "need" to eat food or drink water, it has no difference to the universe either way, but things do it anyway.

I suppose radius itself could be subjective, but I was referring more to the uncertainty of an electron as well as the principal quantum numbers. I don't see what your links have to do directly with the topic, if protons were larger, then you wouldn't have a negative charge on the outside of an atom, and your smart enough to know that so I don't get exactly why your disagreeing with me, protons are in the nucleus, electrons are on the outside. the diameter of a proton is around this before probability gets so small scientists consider it 0, http://hypertextbook...naMeskina.shtml and the approximate average diameter of a ground state electron in hydrogen is around this 5.29*10^-11 meters http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius An electron has a larger approximate radius by a factor of over 1000. Or you just don't really understand certain concepts and shouldn't be trying to use them. Density isn't really used in quantum mechanics because your dealing with such a small scale, an electron doesn't really have a visibly finite boundary in the nano-mater realm and it's in a superposition of constantly changing locations, so I don't really see how you can nail down exactly what the density is in a finite number of a few nano-meters, especially considering any measurement of a particle is just one point, it's kind of hard to have the density of a point.

Nope, I just look for whatever has the most evidence. Not a lot of evidence for god or multiple worlds or reality being a dream, but there is some evidence for matter being able to come into existence out of nothingness not just in experiments, but by the definition of the universe.

Nope, I just look for whatever has the most evidence. Not a lot of evidence for god or multiple worlds or reality being a dream, but there is some evidence for matter being able to come into existence out of nothingness not just in experiments, but by the definition of the universe.

There's not enough information to determine with much certainty that the universe will end in any particular way, or at all, there's just too many unknowns, we don't really even have physical evidence of dark energy.

You can ask in the biology forums, but I'm fairly 100% sure that knowledge itself can't be genetically passed down, but aptitudes for certain things like art or science can.

Einstein tried to do this but didn't come up with anything, then string theory tried to do this except there's virtually no evidence for strings, so good luck.

No, I'm pretty sure there's experiments that you can easily do, like let's say you have a light source. One has a stationary measuring device and there's another one moving away. We'd measure the stationary one has having no frequency change while we measured the moving away one as being red-shifted. This may also be due to the warping of space as an object travels through it, or the passage of time. Actually, based on black hole theories, isn't probably time. As light approaches a black hole, it get's red shifted since time slows the more you approach a black hole, but time moves more slowly the faster you travel, so that could be an explanation as well, since time slowing would technically lower the number of oscillations per second, but with the directional thing I'm not quite sure, because if you move towards light it get's blue shifted even though time is still slowing down. Someone with a greater knowledge of relativity should probably address this.

Time can begin because before there was nothing counting how long it wasn't in existence.

I'm starting to think you never know what your talking about because every post I've seen you make says things that don't make sense. Individual particles don't have density, density is the average measure of particles in a volume. Of course the size isn't solely dependent on radius, there's momentum, and spin and one other one that has something to do with electro-magnetism or magnetic moments or something like that, but mass is a large factor, it's the reason why an electron has a larger radius than a proton. In fusion in stars, the pressure in the sun is so great that it forces protons together to a close enough radius that their wave functions combine and they form a single particle or nucleus, not to mention that it happens without the sun in a normal atom within electron orbitals. You can't distinguish between two electrons in the same exact quantum state, and that's because their wave functions combine to form a single one.

I've heard of Lebesgue integration before, but I don't get what the point is exactly. Is it just for when you have more complicated functions so that you can switch between the two types? Oh yeah, this doesn't matter at all right now, I just want to know.