Unity+

This may be far fetched, but It would be interesting if they actually came from a different planet. It could give a conclusion that if other planets that show life-like features related to Earth's produce similarly resulting species then it would show that the primate-like features are a very common achieved effect of natural selection for efficiency and advancement in a species while containing their own unique features related to the conditions on their planet. Of course, the species may have just originated from Earth and would make it a mystery as to why a species would have a need for an elongated skull. EDIT: Had to correct a massive grammatical error within my post.

There may be ways to decrease the time it takes to run such a test, but there might not be.

Forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but I think it is the information that is lost within the black hole. The Hawking radiation(I think) is the result of such lost information to account for such a loss.

Yes, that is similar to what studiot brought up earlier, where there are infinite real numbers between two real numbers 1 and 2. It is bounded, but infinitely large.

No need to get all roused up in this discussion. Both of you were right. If he made a mistake or needed clarification, I see no need to make such a comment that is unneeded because even if it is widely known doesn't mean people, like me, know it as well. Making such an assumption is not a very good teaching characteristic. Just my opinion.

For both notations, wouldn't you have to denote that you want only the real numbers between those two values for x, or is that implied within the notation(especially since whole numbers can't be located within the set anyways given the condition)? Once that question is answered, that will be all for this topic. Thanks for the help, again.

Therefore, there is the existence of bounded sets that contain infinite members with the example of all reals that exist between 1 and 2? If this statement is correct, then I understand the idea now. Thanks for the help. EDIT: Would this be the correct notation to denote this kind of set? [math]M\ni \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \left ( 1< x< 2 \right )[/math] EDIT2: I don't try to ask too many questions because it may show some "laziness" in figuring out logic that may be obvious. I usually try to figure this stuff out on my own, but sometimes I hit those barriers of my finite knowledge. I know the common phrase is "No question is a stupid question", but I feel it better to use use known knowledge to figure out more knowledge(though sometimes that doesn't help).

It does help in a way for me to clarify my question. I am referring to set enumeration(I think, it might just be related to the values of that member. I might need this clarified first). For example, let's say I have an array list(or matrix) of an infinite size(not "outward", but having a bound)(I just realized that this statement is nonsense). [math]C=\begin{bmatrix} C_{x_{n}}& 0 &\cdots \\ 0& 0 & \cdots \\ \vdots &\vdots &\ddots \end{bmatrix}[/math] Which is contained within another set that is finite. [math]F=\begin{bmatrix} C & 0 &0 \\ 0 & 0 &0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}[/math] I apologize for the confusing question. The reason why it may be hard to explain could be because it isn't logically possible to do this. EDIT: Would this question be more aimed at the magnitude of the element or set enumeration?(Sorry if am asking so many questions).

But, then that must mean a fractal that only takes up a finite area of space is infinitely large because it has infinitely repeating fractal "tails", and therefore by definition has infinite size, but this is not the case. The analogy must not work well though so correct me if I am wrong. EDIT: It can also be argued with the idea that the width of an array of elements could be infinitely large, but its height is finite. The same type of concept can be applied to sets in the case that there is a bound within the subset that may contain infinite elements in one "direction", but in the other it contains finite elements. Therefore, this "direction" determines the finite or infinite property to the subset, which then defines this property to the set that consists of this subset.

Let's say you have a set A which consists of a subset B. Now, let's say that subset B contains infinite elements within it, but within the bounds that it would be finite in order to fit within the constraints of the finite of A. Would this be possible? I am trying to get me head around the idea that something can be infinitely small, like how there are infinitely many branches within a finite area of a fractal and yet it can't be infinitely larger than the set that contains it because it would seem a paradox would arise. I might need to clarify, so if it is confusing just ask me to clarify this.

It is weird how people will go to such lengths just to piss people off. Sometimes I question humanity...

I was looking at the ban list and I noticed that many of them are sockpuppets(different accounts of same user) of original users who had been banned. Couldn't the IP simply be banned or are the users simply using multiple access points(I am a customer of IP.Board so I am assuming that users can be IP banned)?

Arc and I are currently looking at the data in relevance to the first part of the evidence, which is required in order to give the hypothesis ground though it will not be complete evidence that the hypothesis is true. The conclusion will be made and posted here(with the data that shows how the conclusion was made and giving why the conclusion is what it is).

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-accidentally-capture-ball-lightning-proving-it-to-be-a-true-natural-phenomena-not-an-optical-illusion/story-fn5fsgyc-1226806565419 EDIT: I forgot to include my input on this topic. I think it is quite interesting how science can be seen as constantly improving as sometimes we begin to realize that there is a difference between fact and truth. Truths are always facts, but facts are not always truths.

*double post* I'll make use of this post: Here is something that would be interesting to know with this hypothesis. http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Volcanoes/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Magma-on-the-move From a wiki article(I know, a really good source. However, I just wanted to find more time to find a credible article). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_magma_rise_towards_the_Earth's_surface?#slide=2 Therefore, pressure seems to not be nonsense because it is the main factor in the eruption of volcanoes as well. EDIT: This is also very interesting - http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/earths-magnetic-field-mimics-solar-activity/ The scientific paper that talks about this is included on the page:

I never said it was a burden upon you. I am waiting for results from arc. And you didn't present why it is. If you are going to make a claim against a hypothesis, that evidence must lie on you to show or it relies on whether the correlation cannot be made, therefore making the hypothesis inconsistent and enviable. However, you never presented why it was a fallacy. We might have a misunderstanding of what we are trying to say. But the test(whether correlative or not) would show the possibility of such expansion being possible and taking place because of what is predicted to occur. I am also still designing another experiment that could be used for arc's hypothesis that would be definite proof of arc's hypothesis.

That is because pressure is a major factor within this. A certain amount of pressure will cause changes within the crust of the Earth due to the expansion of the iron core and other parts of the Earth due to the increase in thermal temperatures. You are also comparing apples to oranges when referring to the amount of expansion occurring to adding a marble to the core-mantle boundary. There is a much larger expansion than the expansion size of a marble, if that is your argument. Also, you just avoided the requirement of the evidence. If such trend is detected within statistical data of plate-tectonic movement then the hypothesis has ground. I keep reiterating about pressure because you keep putting it to the side as a "minor factor" when it is a major factor because if such high pressures are within the Earth then my argument applied earlier about the instability and breaking point applies. I presented a way of proving the hypothesis false. If you show that such a trend is not detected, then the hypothesis officially ends or needs reworking.

It depends on the pressure over a certain area. If molecules are more pressurized and have very little expansion then the force of one object will effect the other. I could link articles that state that there is very high pressures in the inner part of the Earth, especially near the core. Such larger pressures make forces acted upon by expansions more influencing on other parts of the Earth. I interpreted the analogy as when something is expanded by an inner-object's expansion then at some point the outer material will eventually begin splitting at certain points, especially when the material is not stretchable past a certain point and the brittleness of certain materials requires less pressure force upon a specific area of a material to make it cause fractures within the material. Again, it depends on the many factors that exist, such as pressure as I have brought up many times before. To put this whole debate to rest, here is a specific requirement for the hypothesis to be true. As many will know, the Earth's distance from the Sun varies throughout the year. This would affect the strength of the coupling of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic field. This would also cause the energy density to decrease between the coupling of the magnetic fields, therefore causing less energy to be within the coupling of the magnetic fields. As you had stated before, there is also heat lost over a period amount of time. This would mean that in order for this hypothesis to be accurate the thermal energy increase of the Earth's core would have to be larger than the thermal heat released from the Earth. Involving both factors, one requirement of evidence would be to detect an approximate trend of the above. In order to detect the trend, there would have to be an analysis of plate-tectonic(more specifically, Earthquake activity or other forms of plate activity such as volcanic activity) statistical data. If this trend is detected within this type of data consistently throughout each year, then this is starting evidence of the hypothesis. EDIT: I forgot to explain the equations. The first equation is describing the linear expansion of the material that is of focus based on the required expansion, where you take the coefficient of expansion(such as iron) and multiply it by it's original diameter. This is, then, multiplied by the change in temperature. Q2 and Q1 describes the thermal heat of the iron core at different times. The mass of the iron and the specific heat remains in the same range therefore it is not changed. http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html The equation can also be represented as [math]L=\frac{\alpha L_{1}\left (Q_{2}-Q_{1} \right )}{mC}[/math] EDIT: Of course, what also must be taken into account is solar activity within that year as well. This must be accounted for within the evidence. More specifics of the evidence, if this trend is detected, is to see accurate values from the equations above. Of course, more would have to be added to the evidence, such as equations for pressure upon the crust of the Earth based on the expansion of the iron core. These are still being developed.

What do you mean "strain increases with distance?" I am confused at what you are arguing. Please clarify and I will be able to see what you are arguing. How is it a misleading analogy? Can you clarify this? The problem with this analogy is the stuffing within a mattress is not pressurized like the magma or core within the Earth, by far.

Those greedy crackpots!