Baby Astronaut

Oh that is all wrong. The bullets stay in the werewolf, and can't hurt it. The reason is simple: where a human bleeds internally if an object pierces them, werewolves are either kind of undead, or their body system differs greatly from ours -- enough that bullets cause little (if any) harm. Silver bullets on the other hand, they are vulnerable to because the metal element is their weakness and bane.

I'll bite. A gluon can't be its own antiparticle because the glue holds it firmly in place. No, why?

Here we go again (but for older PCs). Microsoft warns of serious computer security hole Microsoft Corp. has taken the rare step of warning about a serious computer security vulnerability it hasn't fixed yet. The vulnerability disclosed Monday affects Internet Explorer users whose computers run the Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 operating software. It can allow hackers to remotely take control of victims' machines. The victims don't need to do anything to get infected except visit a Web site that's been hacked. Security experts say criminals have been attacking the vulnerability for nearly a week. Thousands of sites have been hacked to serve up malicious software that exploits the vulnerability. People are drawn to these sites by clicking a link in spam e-mail....

A wave of 2 coordinates is easy to draw, I suppose. How about a wave of 3 coordinates -- how might I draw that? Google has 3d wave images, but I'm not sure what I'm looking at. (Heyy..I still got the bottom half of post #44 to get answers for Thanks )

I heard it doesn't even have to be a living observer. It could be just a mechanical detector/observer that collapses the wavefunction. But I'm not entirely sure it's true.

Excellent. I hope you can Do you a have a preferable time slot, or anything between 1 and 5 pm will do just fine? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedObviously I'm going, but I just voted in *officially*. Just forgot to pick "any time", but I'll get there early regardless, so any schedule is good for me.

Thanks, Severian. I understand half of it a lot better. Now to elaborate on a few points, and things you didn't catch what I meant. I am not sure what you mean by this. We live in 3D space (4D if you include time), so I presume you mean 3 dimensions? The wave exists in 3 space dimensions. The way I'm visualizing the particle waves, each one stretches horizontally to infinity, so that it resembles the ocean waves above. But the height of each is limited: there's no infinite height. So each ocean wave above is 3-dimensional too, but it only stretches "infinte" along one dimension: horizontally. And its length is just as limited on the frontward-rearward axis. If particles are similar, I'd visualize them like the waves above, except off-camera their height dwindles rapidly...until infinity (but only in the horizontal directions). Yet even if the particle/wave resembled those caused dropping a stone into a pond (examples below), they would still have a limited height. The only alternate scenario I envision is for the particle/wave to have infinite height, length, and width. I don't see it as weird, but there's a part that still doesn't fit. But, only if the particle wave's infinity occupies more than 1 dimension. However...if the particle wave stretches infinitely on 3 dimensions, and if tampering with any part of it makes its wavefunction immediately collapse, then here's the problem: the wave exists in all parts of the universe at once (being infinite), and so it's always being disturbed -- even by us just waving our hands midair, anywhere. Thus, if disturbing even the most remote part of the wave collapses it, then how is it any non-collapsed waves exist at all? They'd be disturbed by practically all of existence interacting with it. I just meant that since each particle is really an infinite-length wave, I can therefore just illustrate the *bunched* section of those waves (the actual particles) as residing on Earth, with the infinite parts of each tapering off into space -- and which quickly dwindle away -- so that each wave going off to infinitity is seen (by the viewer) like a barely noticeable wisp that quickly fades into non-detection.

Fellow members of the boards community within a reasonable distance of NY City. I've found that a good many of us live near enough to the Big Apple that if we'd like to plan a gathering to meet others who post on these boards, it's doable. And so...here's a call for just that kind of meeting. A simple pot-luck in the afternoon or later in Central Park, on August 30th (a Sunday). If you're interested, please "sign in" below. Or, vote for option labeled "I'll be there -- anonymous" in the poll at top. Also check off an ideal time for you. The schedule most voted for becomes the time we start the picnic. If you have any ideas to offer, please do. They're welcome! On Aug. 1st, the meeting time will be finalized to give people enough of a buffer for adjusting their schedules. Hope to meet you there! P.S. In case of rain, we should have a back-up meeting place that's indoors. I'm not familiar enough with the city to know a good place, so if you such a location, recommend it! Thanks

Ok then, minus the forces.

You're correct, thanks. rephrase: Would this be more accurate: every single thing in the universe -- minus the known forces -- has energy? Is giving rise the same as having?

Would it be accurate to say the entire universe -- minus the known forces -- is all energy?

But can't an electron have a definite variable position? A moving target, if you will, can still be determined where it'll appear down the road. I know once you measure or pinpoint, it changes the thing being measured. But what if there's a way around it? Look at my questions to Severian for an idea of this, below. 1. Ok, by "dies off rapidly" and having infinite extent, can I describe the wave as follows? You have the one part where all its energy is bunched up, the "particle" aspect of it. From that particle area, the rest of the wave quickly diminishes in magnitude/concentration, like so: by 1/2, then 1/2, again 1/2, until infinity (an oversimplified and mathematically inaccurate example, but I'm just looking for the gist of it). 2. If that's how it works, does the wave stretch in two directions only (as usually portrayed)? Or infinite directions (like a blast radius going in all directions?) 3. Now, if the wave's magnitude indeed tapers off quickly, why not attempt to measure it a good distance from its "particle" area? There it might be weak enough that if one measured a good distance away from the concentration of energy -- on both sides of it -- the results might be used to deduce the position/momentum of the energy between without disturbing the particle area. 4. So everything is a wave. Then, can I accurately illustrate the whole Earth as a bunched collection of those "particle areas" held close by gravity, and waves taper off infinitely from each particle (it'd resemble an image of Earth and wisps stretch and taper off from the planet). I'd like to try drawing an oversimplified example. 5. And on waves tapering off endlessly...isn't there a rule in Physics to avoid infinities (like a singularity)? So a wave is really a collection of smaller waves. A wave of waves, so to speak. And regardless if the wave's main thrust is going in one direction, the individual plain waves are going in their own directions within it. Or so I gather. So are gauge bosons waves? Or a form of energy? Or both/neither? Since you're so good at explaining the other stuff, what is a point-like particle, exactly? Couldn't quite grasp it from Wikipedia and online sources. Does that mean (using the example by Severian of plain waves going in various directions), the larger wave crest or "particle" -- once measured-- would then (consequently) newly adopt the position and momentum of one of its underlying plain waves? (Others can answer too ) Fields is another term I couldn't really grasp. But after this discussion, I might have a better idea. If wrong, please correct me. A field would be every part of a wave? From its particle area to everything tapering off from it? So if one traced the wave's shape, the result is the field. If so, I visualize it as having a bulky middle, and progressively getting thinner. A shape maybe a bit like the side view of a galaxy (if waves move in two directions only) Would a field be shaped like that galaxy above (yet more infinitely stretched)? Second that. The same reason it helped me understand. If really complicated or not intuitive, gotta be able to visualize it, then I'll grasp it a lot better. Would position eigenstate be analogous to coordinates (for example, GPS)?

I meant solving the inability to define matter, as I happen to think everything is definable. Just not always easily (or currently) but, ultimately definable. Oddly, I had assumed non-matter energy to just automatically have a flow with no kinetic energy involved. So to understand you, photons or massless things are simply kinetic energy. If so...how very counter-intuitive, seeing as objects can gain or lose kinetic energy just by switching reference frames. I guess a photon moving alongside something traveling at c has no kinetic energy and therefore would be virtually nonexistent....except for a tiny bit (I just now learned about invariant mass). But in other reference frames, the photon is whole again. Boggles the mind. Is someone able to explain this? Or did I get it all wrong?

Perhaps we can solve this by defining what non-matter energy is. As I see it, non-matter energy is continually a wave. Matter also possibly vibrates continually, unless I'm wrong (on both counts).

Thanks proton, your answers were indeed helpful. I totally didn't notice my using "energy" to describe a type of energy That said, now I'm wondering a couple more things. 1. When something is converted into matter, does it always form in pairs only? If not, what are the other possibilities? 2. Is there such a thing as "pure energy" (or something close to it)?

If you convert energy into matter, what does it become exactly? Complete atoms, or a whole bunch of randomly loose subatomic particles?

whatchamacallitium

Well I gotta say everything's more viewable at once, that's for sure. Maybe you have a point. I'll give it a bit of time to adjust. You do a great job usually in the rest of the forums though.

I think indexing the forums sections the new way doesn't improve or help all of them. The "last post" feature on right usually lets one know if a new post were made under Classical, Quantum Theory, Relativity, Modern, etc. But the new setup eliminates that convenience. Under the Physics heading, for example, it's less clear which section the "last post" belongs to. So in my opinion, at the very least you might want to revert Physics back to its original format, while possibly leaving the other changes intact. Just some points to consider.

"Teeka Lee Connor" sounds better probably John Sprinkler Will Liquor Gedder Pitt *Bad porn names* Gale Mann Peter Little

Taeka-Lee Connor (pee fetish movies)

Where shall I park it ma'am? Dick Cole Lemmy Adam (for orgies) Boy we're juvenille