SamBridge

Ok so the chemical is released into the blood, but how does the chemical being in the blood give you a certain feeling? Wouldn't it be some kind of change in brain state or operation to do that?

No idea what you are talking about and that's not right. Even if you were around at the big bang, atoms still had the properties they have now, or at least that's what the conjecture is. There's not an infinitely small chance particles will hit dead center, that's why particle colliders like the Fermi Lab and Hadron Collider are still funded. What you're taking about sounds more like computer science. You can't exactly program a computer to be random, so there can be a random number seed where it uses a formula to base the next number off of. Also you misunderstood the purpose of Schrodinger's cat. There's no evidence that all possible "realities" are being played out at once, the purpose of Schrodinger's cat was to point out that the properties of particles in the quantum world don't make sense in the macroscopic world, Schrodinger's cat would never happen because the cat and the cat's brain and body cells are constantly making measurements. Mathematics has deterministic results but reality doesn't necessarily have that because reality cannot be put into terms of any single mathematical system.

Well the electron path can be described of not as dots but as Feynman paths which involve a summation of the different phases an electron can posses, which are extrapolated by what you'd expect the particle to have in order to localize the probability to a region that travels over time. The dots most likely represent measurements of the particle and not the path.

Thank you for the immaculately well cited knowledgeable post. A lot of posts don't have anything to do with knowledge content, some I merely ask a question and no no apparent reason it's negative like "is it possible stars are alive?" or "is the universe in a loop?". I didn't even say I directly supported those theories yet I got negative marks for them, just for asking a scientific question on a SCIENCE forum. Well just look in those topics anyway right near those post numbers, there should be examples of what I'm saying, I'll keep that in mind next time I need to link posts.

"Why do people disbelieve god?" Why not?

Ok but the way anatomy works is sometimes only certain things make sense. It doesn't make sense that if there are scratches that matched a claw mark that the bone was destroyed by a rock, it was damage by something with sharp edges, and if those edges are relatively parallel and close enough together to fit a claw, there is a high likelihood those scratches were caused by some kind of clawed animal, possibly a predator Well, is there evidence that dinosaurs were as intelligent as chimps and used tools in this manner? If not you can't just go and assume they are without it being basically a 50/50 of being wrong. If there is so much uncertainty as you claim would would in fact support that we can't say it was any particular thing for sure, including what you're saying . Yeah I don't think you were just flat out saying they are wrong, but we can't go around assuming any random thing we want for an answer and call it a discovery, and I opened up more to dinosaurs being in the same intelligence capacity as humans possibly around when they went extinct, but there's still not enough evidence for it. As I've said before, "it's somewhat possible" is as good as you can get without more evidence, I don't know why you are still debating.

I think there was also some 300 year old problem that Newton braught up with calculating the trajectory of a projectile considering air resistance To me I don't see why it's so hard exactly, there's air pushin back on the ball reducing it's velocity by what seems like no more than a 3rd degree polynomial with force equal to on an atomic scale equal to how much force the atoms of the ball are carrying in individual collisions at any given second. The way I imagine it on a calculator it would be a parametric equation with x= k(.dy/dx)(ax^2+bx+c) y= -ax^2+bx+c where a is 1/2 the gravitational acceleration ad b is the initial velocity and c is the starting height and k is some kind of friction coefficient that models how the air pushes back on the ball according to the ball's velocity over time probably in some kind of difference formula where the variable has a negative coefficient. Normally you'd want the vertical and horizontal components to be separate so I guess maybe I am on the right track but the real answer would be a 3 or 4 variable parametric equation which would have to be modeled by a computer. Which reminds me: are certain great physics achievements only not figured out simply because it takes a lot of processing power to test them since they involve things that cannot be controlled in reality? On my calculator in standard view it's almost how I want it to look, I just need it to be flipped around, The way I hypothesize that it looks is that it starts off looking like a normal parabola, but then it falls short before it should have if it were a normal parabola, it's x=-.5t^2 and y=-t^2+6t+3. It's almost the way I want it except I want it to flipped about a vertical axis, I use to be able to make that happen when I was playing around on my calculator but I don't remember how to do it.

A dimension just describes the location of something in n dimensional space, sometimes the way the location of something changes cannot be described with an equation that uses only 3 dimensions, like the hypercube for example. You could say the cube is somehow magically expanding and shrinking at random angles, or you could go for the mathematically simpler way and just use a 4th dimension.

We do have some evidence actually, because as we other data about the universe, if you play it backwards the universe appears to become hotter and denser. While this does not directly lead to the big bang of course, there are conditions created in labs which have temperatures equal to temperatures that were predicted to exist in the early universe such as quark gluon plasma which takes more than millions of degrees to generate, so we can study those materials and make inferences about the past and say that those materials existed when the universe was at a specific temperature, and when the universe was at that specific temperature, it had a certain predicted density and effects on matter. There's no way of knowing if it's totally accurate of course, but it is some evidence.

Ok thanks.

In reference so the length of time, yeah we can still see some markings on bones that have been fossilized, that makes complete sense because damaging a bone removes calcium from it, and you can't fossilize where there is no bone to fossilize, so scratches dents and cracks can still be visible. There could be some erosion that smooths it out sometimes, and in those cases it's not always clear what happened. Chimps use a few sticks sometimes, maybe even stones, not exactly the mark of a spear-hunter. A lot of animals use sticks, birds use sticks to build nests, even otters use rocks to break clam or oyster shells. I also never denied that dinosaurs lived in packs, in fact I may have even said they do in a few of my posts, but we don't say wolves have as complex of a social structure even though they have packs and communicate with their young. There's more to it than that. There's also the supposed intelligence we can trace back. While it is not totally accurate, I don't think hundreds of scientists would be completely wrong about something studied so intensely all over the world.

Yeah I know what limits mean but that's not how we orally interpret them from an outside view of math, it's literally when h=0 that we find the exact derivative the old fashioned way, it's literally when n goes to infinity and what value is exactly on the actual horizontal asymtote that we treat as the exact integral. I'm well aware that the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0 and that 1/infinity itself is not proven to equal 0. But as it says on my calculator, the answer is "undefined", but that doesn't mean there can't be one, we just have no idea what it is, or I guess we have no idea how to prove what it is, but conceptually the concept makes sense, the math doesn't. It makes sense that nothingness can go into a bottle an infinite or never-ending or indefinite amount of times, and it conceptually makes sense that something broken into infinite pieces would have them yield a quotient of 0, but infinity just isn't a number that uses the same systems of axioms as arithmetic and algebra, it's more of a concept in of itself, so shouldn't the answer be more conceptual? I mean we don't use actually proven math to say infinity-1 = infinity, it's just a concept we determine by looking at evidence like how I did. Unless maybe is there some way to use cardinal numbers that proves infinity-1=infinity?

There's no easy way around it, if you want to become an expert in whatever profession you need to spend much time at it learning everything you can, and you can't do that well with the internet or a couple books. I guess if you read tons of books you could in a way, but you wouldn't know how to interpret everything unless someone told you.

It's a cool idea, really nice poster, for future ideas maybe perhaps make them into fractals, some kind of timeline, or a definite shape like a tree, like the base could be made out of fish swimming in water, mollusks and invertebrates could be crawling up the side and along with bugs they could form branches which birds and leafy plants sprout off of. From a distance on the T-shirt it looks like a bunch of flowers and vines just by itself, perhaps you could more definitely shape it into flowers and ferns with details of animals making up some of it's components in some kind of abstract fractal time-line.

Sometimes I know there was some topic I posted in but I don't remember where it was, I looked in my personal posts section in my profile but it's limited to a handful of recent posts. I think you should be able to view every post you've ever made or at least every post in the last week.

Well hominids weren't aren't for millions of years for their ones to become fossilized. But otherwise we do find preserved groups of humans and we can extrapolate their lifestyle. For instances the hominids that created Stonehenge and I think there was some volcanic eruption near the Mediterranean sea than almost instantly buried a whole village but we had enough to extrapolate some of their culture. If we didn't find evidence of things like that in humans, why do we know things about cavemen? We absolutely find humans in groups and we absolutely find markings on their bones that have specific apparent causes, even over hundreds of years. If we find groups of humans buried in a large pile, we can say that it was some kind of burial place like a graveyard, possibly from a war, if it was organized and there were markings, could possibly be some kind of religion, though it would need to be investigated more. Of course as I said before it's not only based on fossil evidence but also animals which are related to their predecessors that are alive today.

Well isn't there some triangle propertly? Like 2*4 = 8 8/2 = 4 8/4 = 2 That's more what I'm thinking, but perhaps the inconsistencies come from the fact that infinity isn't really a number that we can mess around with as though it is a real number. I man you can't prove 1/infinity = 0, but wouldn't it make sense that if something was divided into infinite parts those parts would be of 0 size? Just like with an integral, the boxes get infinitely small as n approaches infinity.

For instance not only would we see them in tight groups, but we should be able to find evidence that they had adaptations for communicating such as bone structures to optimize complex vocalization which not every animal has, we should also find them interacting seemingly with each other such as they were cornering prey over large distances which would put them at at least near wolves in some respects, we should be able to see if the bones had blunt damage done to them which fit what could have been done by others of their own species or not while they were in a group for multiple fossil records, if so we can assume that regardless of fighting they continued to be in a group and also had social hierarchy if we found multiple fossils like that and if we found that the dinosaurs of the same species were usually found to have been eating or killed by prey outside of a group as it would be signified by much scratching and cracks in bones as well as them being more or less scattered but normally never of natural causes while they were outside of a group, we could say that they even "needed" to stick in a group in order to survive which through evolution would shape them to be able to communicate better to survive as a group.

I know I've worked out that whole scenario before, but I just don't know what else it could be at this point. Why does it break everything if all of a sudden I rotate a stick to 90 degrees? Reality doesn't care, it seems that math freaks out more than anyone. Although the math your suggesting would merely mean that it isn't a function, there are systems which can yield more than one result per intersection of a line at a given value. Although this situation kind of reminds me of something else, so perhaps there can be solutions in "higher" dimensions. If you have a plane, or I guess a square-like object, in order to inverse the plane, it would have to stretch literally infinitely outward to loop back around, but you can model the transformation of the plane using simple a sphere, something like this and a sphere doesn't not stretch infinitely outward or anything its a finitely bound shape, but the errors for using that seem to occur at 0 and 180 degrees outside of a sphere, something to do with the tangent line being vertically up and down at those angles, but on a sphere it doesn't matter it seems.

I didn't say dinosaurs couldn't be intelligent or eventually develop complex social structures, in fact I repeatedly said the opposite. The problem is that there is not a lot of evidence for it. Some dinosaurs like herding together, it makes them harder to be individually eaten, but we haven't found any dinosaurs with spears and we haven't found enough evidence that they had social structures that were as complex as human social structures. It's certainly possible, but at this point it would be an assumption at best to say that they did.

Religion can easily help build a cohesive society, but it can also be easily abused.

Yeah I omitted that because that quote didn't pertain to my point that I was trying to make. You Personally doubted a bunch of things and after a lot of time researching it you've decided it is a problem but maybe there's some other explanation down the line, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.

Not sure how to post links to individual posts, but where does it say in the forum rules that you must reference everything? Anyway it defiantly helps if any moderator posts a link to some kind of proof that showed if a number was irrational or not. In reference to the math section, Bignose said "most likely they are", the possibility that "they can be because <evidence>", but the assumption of it's correctness or incorrectness is what was an opinion, I'm not saying that at that point I knew that he was right or wrong. I'm also not saying every single post is some opinion based demagoguery.

Just because there's more than one possibility doesn't mean those possibilities themselves are opinions. If It is a possibility you assume is happening or to be true when it has not been proven to be the case or lacks much evidence, then that assumption is your opinion. It is not an opinion however if you merely state those things are possible based on your experimental evidence. It is the assumption of it's correctness or incorrectness that is your opinion and not the possibility itself. Of course, there all sots of opinions that are involved in the scientific field, but in actual experiments when do you just shove your opinion in? That would defeat the purpose of doing a scientific experiment if you could just shove your opinion in wherever you wanted. After the experiment if your debating what the results mean for other things or if you don't know why they are caused I could see how a conclusion could be related to creating an opinion in that context. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72047-gauge-symmetry-and-conservation/ post #2 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/ post #4 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry725728 #127 #122 You know I'm not like trying to say they are wrong or anything, but there's some evidence at least.

Ok, so let's test you're "theory". Calculate how much potential energy an S3 electron in a hydrogen atom has in a room about 72 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure of 1.0atm using the equations you've come up with. Make sure you show your work.