Unity+

Doesn't quantum entanglement have two particles having the same information with each other? Doesn't that require some form of communication?

Well, as an abstract concept it does exist. Without it there would be difficulty describing many numbers. Without the existence of 0 there would be many problems in mathematics.

Well, there is a new tool called UrtheCast(I'm not going to link it because of forum rules) which is going to allow users to be able to observe the Earth from space. And, this gave me an idea. What if a community was formed(either on the Science Forums or on another website) where people could form groups dedicated to certain areas where the Satellite would have live feed of the area, where the groups would be dedicated to carrying out research, whether geographical or other research, in that specific area that is assigned to them. These groups, when collecting their data, would present their information to the other groups so other groups can get more information that would be useful for their own research. I think it is a good idea so online communities can carry out research and be dedicated to sharing research with others, with the other groups or to the public. What does everyone else think?

It wasn't a sarcastic remark. I am openly stating that what I previously stated was nonsense and I am admitting that for later, if I do, I would provide evidence for the response before. If you want me to put it in other words, I have accepted defeat in this scientific discussion.

Yes, everything I said was pure nonsense. It is best just to ignore every post I made in this thread. I apologize for posting in this thread.

If you read the post I just posted, I said I would do more research to answer the questions you asked. I want to confirm with more confidence that my answers to the question were correct.

Allow me to do more searching for articles for the proportions of the magnetic field to energy emission. That will allow me to provide better answers.

I may have to redo the calculations because I think I made an error when calculating for the range of the magnetic field of the Sun. I'll edit this post(or post another post) when I finish redoing the calculations.

Using deductive reasoning, I think we can assume that Endercreeper is.

I may have unintentionally reversed them when I was explaining this, but please don't post if you don't know what you are talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt It is because the magnetic field of the Sun is produced through the following ways: http://ibex.swri.edu/students/How_does_the_Sun.shtml These interactions are caused by the particles within the Sun. Because, on average, a majority of the particles in the Sun are producing this magnetic field this means that the output, which is caused by all these interactions, would be in the form of the magnetic field, which means that the magnetic field would contain the energy that is being outputted by the Sun a majority of the time. If I were to be using the whole energy of the Sun, the amount in the Sun and the amount emitted from the sun, then I could see why you would be questioning this. However, this is not the case. Does that answer the question? EDIT: Sorry if information is slow coming in. There is too much news about the "Sun's poles getting flipped", which makes other articles hard to find.

1) I was being sarcastic, especially with the unnecessary attitude that you were presenting. 2)Thank you. Your welcome. Down votes help determine the reliable posts from the unreliable ones. Do you want me to explain the energy density of the magnetic field of the Sun based on the output(which is just a portion of the energy from the Sun) of energy from it? EDIT: Here is something to put into perspective of what I would be including in my explanation if this is the question you are asking: http://www.gravitynotes.org/GravitationalEnergyDensity.htm EDIT2: Oh and yes I have heard of the inverse-square law. I accounted it in the calculations when dealing with the electromagnetic field involving the distance of the Sun and Earth. EDIT3: Adding on to this, the calculation involves the distance that the Earth's magnetic field goes compared to the Sun's magnetic field. Here is more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere(Not an orthodox source, but for simplicity) Also, there is something to be noted about the heat of the inner core of the Earth, which suggests something else as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core My calculations merely were for a completely iron inner core. The following will make things clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth Therefore, there are many variables to account for that, in fact, would mean a need for less energy than calculated before.

I am going to take your comment with a grain of salt because you clearly need to do more research on electromagnetic fields and the emission of energy from stars(Oh yes, the Sun is a star). Also, I would be interested in the paper you spoke of.

I was referring to...never mind it doesn't matter.

Why would there be a need for a "large" volume change if there is instability with pressure at the core of the Earth? Even minuscule volume changes would cause plates to act in the fashion that they do.

I forgot to mention that the graph was a result of the function aleph of n.

I know that they aren't, I can agree, but the name of the electrons relates to their position in the atom.

The mistake happened in step (ai-b)/i = ai-b because they are not equal. You removed a term without even removing i from the top portion. And what do you mean by distributing the division? Do you mean simplifying?

Well, I mean the heat from the core would increase the heat of the mantle, which would cause the expansion.

It doesn't take much to cause plate tectonic events because of the amount of pressure that is already caused(which is one reason why the temperature of the core is already so high). Under such higher pressure circumstances, event the smallest change in thermal energy would cause changes in plate tectonics. Now, if the pressure was lower than estimated and predicted then my post can be dismissed. However, from current theory it would apply. Well, if the Earth as a whole were to expand then it wouldn't cause much. However, if only the core were to expand because of the immense thermal energy then the amount of pressure would cause tectonic activity, if that is what I think arc is trying to say.

Well, I don't know if Moontaman completely ignored my post or not because I provided the mathematical proof that the amount of energy needed from the magnetic coupling of the Sun and Earth is enough to fit the idea.