SamBridge

How exactly does a particle not lose any angular momentum from all sorts of small interactions?

I don't know how they would acquire matter capable of repelling Higg's Bosons since they do not carry charge, but the concept makes sense, you are basically just constantly cutting the distance between any two given points, but I still don't know about the relativistic effects, because if something was getting from point "a" to point "b" faster than light, we'd see some kind of like, negative length and negative time dilation, which doesn't make sense, at least for an observer in front of the space craft at point "b". Btw, I thought this concept was thought of many years ago...

I agree with you to an extent, but if I do an experiment and find y=x and repeatedly do the experiment and find y=x and can predict results using y=x, there's no debating that, whether people like it or not, it is a fact that the relationship can be modeled by y=x. There are of course periods in Earth's history where it has been cooling, in fact even in recent history, but it's also been warming too. This seems to contradict itself, but there's an easy explanation. From February to July, Earth was warming up, global warming already? Not quite, but we'll get there. Now we look at from late July to late January and it's cooling. Now it's global cooling? Well, this brings up an important point which is that often graphs will be manipulated. You could argue that Earth is cooling OR warming by saying "hey, look at this graph", but what's important isn't the look of the graph so much as it is the scale or how much time it shows. When I see graphs manipulated, it's usually over a period of a few decades or even 1. Both sides sometimes use one decade as a few to say what's happening. Even though only 3% of climatologists say the Earth is cooling compared to the 97% that say it's warming, they are right, but they are only right during smaller time intervals, and they will often say "look at this graph, Earth is cooling obviously . But if that graph is scaled in 7 years of a typical 10 year cycle for Earth's climate, that's all you'd see. Now, if you look at the average temperature increase over the last few HUNDRED years, you will find that the average temperature is in fact increasing, but that increase is only a small part of an even larger cycle of cooling and warming, as seen here. So why is it that 97% of climatologists think the Earth is warming up? That spike which starts at around the 1900s not only corresponds to when humanity started heavily industrializing, but that increase is a lot greater than a normal temperature spike, at least form what I had gathered by comparing the slopes of graphs at different points when looking at a 1 million year timeline of temperature increase Oh yeah, that also reminds me to research that much of Earth's temperature increase corresponds to higher or lower CO2 levels, but I'm too tired to research that right now, this will have to suffice. Whether or not it is man made is somewhat of a debate, I would have to research more specific information, but based on my recollection, it is not entirely nature as this is a particularly large temperature spike that corresponds nearly exactly with the amount of green-house gases that have been dumped in the atmosphere since industrialization and even heavy farming. Personally, I think it's a little bit of both. On one hand it seems we are in fact caught in a natural cycle of temperature increase, but on the other hand it's happening too fast and it's never happened this fast before (except during the very early stages of Earth of course), and recent temperature increases correspond with the CO2 that has been estimated to have been generated from man-made complexes and technology, what's happening is the temperature of the Earth is increasing too fast for ecosystems to naturally adapt, which is why we see them failing. If we had more time, ecosystems could adapt and evolution could at least have some benefit for animals adapting to things such as rising ocean acidity and deforestation, and in the past ecosystems did have that opportunity, but now that humans showed up, they don't, so at least some of the active effects have to be an-made.

And as I've said before this point is invalid because you can simply change the units to make the math correct. I could easily say "2.34*10^78 moles + 2..41*10^78 moles" and that would account for the mass, and as for the genes I could say "probability of x base pair pairing with y = z according to the molecular model of Dirac's equation to model atoms because the carbon bond could be replaced by...ect".

..............what?

Yessssss

But the fact that there are numbers which can exactly model phenomena in nature would imply that nature can in fact in some way count or recognize quantities, at least if I am interpreting your context of nature as not super literal.

Yeah I know that, but why? Nature obviously works in some manner that has to do with values or qaunties, but why does 1+2=3 just because I mark 1 as a' and 2 as a'' and 3 as a''' and draw some correlation between them?

Yeah it's angular momentum, but as we've established it's not really a physical phenomena. It's something to do with how the vectors work, but at the same time the electron isn't physically rotating in the direction of those vectors. So where do I actually see it occurring?

Ok, I will admit I may have been wrong. What I was saying that is that I thought John was saying that if the reactor material heated up too much, the critical reaction couldn't take place anymore because the material wouldn't be dense enough for neutrons to have a high enough probability to hit other nuclei. So I assumed that if it did become dense again, that the reaction would take place again, but now I see that I was been because I forgot to think that you would need something to start up the process again, and if the reactor is just broken or shut down, there wouldn't be another neutron generator to bombard the material and break it apart again.

So in other words you're saying that after it becomes less dense, it doesn't matter if it isn't dense because even after it goes back to it's critical density the reaction needs to be in a way "ignited" again, and after becoming less dense the reaction rate slows down to much to enter a self sustaining reaction at it's previous density?

In a way it makes sense, often when biologists try to describe it, as far as I have seen, they try to describe it as the processing of information itself in neurons. But does that mean that at an instantaneous moment that something is not alive, that it is the continuity of time that makes something alive? Although, treating everything as information instead of what we scientifically observe isn't really scientific, I think that aspect is kind of bs.

But why is it independent of man, and what makes it a property of nature? If it's a "definition", doesn't that mean it has to be defined by someone?

Time is often treated as dimension and is used pretty frequently in the dimensional analysis of most fields. It changes coordinates in and effects other variables and outputs just as other dimensions can.

Well I don't know if it's true that other dimensions couldn't exist without time. Mathematically if time was stopped, other dimensions would have no problem existing. The thin about true nothingness is that it can't exist because of the problem that I had just described, true nothingness can't exist because it can't even have distance. I suppose you couldn't say there's an infinite number of cubes filled with nothingness that have a total volume of "0" units 3, but that's as far as close to what you can get to nothing.

No read some of the answers, I'm sure what they are saying doesn't make sense in reality but it should make sense mathematically, if there's two solutions to the coefficients of the equations that describe matter fields then basically the difference is more in how those types of matter oscillate rather than actually how they travel in time.

Thanks for the link, by the way what about the integral thing? Was I right that it always equals 1?

Hmm, well I've seen the experiments where spin was discovered or extrapolated, but I still don't see exactly where it comes from. Is there a specific equation than you can use for a 3-D modeling software in either cartesian or polar coordinates where you can actually see some kind of relation between variables that would cause those values?

I don't know if it was spectral lines specifically, but it was calculated by modeling some kind of diffraction and interference of light.

The way I had interpreted it, that's the way I use to originally think about it, but after looking at how its used in diffraction, maybe not so much, the 720 degrees thin would make sense if it was the coefficient of function modeling the oscillation, but then again I don't see any particles with a spin of over 1.

What actually makes something logical? And why does that does that thing make something logical?

We have no way to test the standards of life beyond our own reach, but it still remains that according to the definition we have now, stars aren't alive.

But that's what I'm saying, the range of the solutions that you categorize them are limited by that, I guess to nail it down I would have to see the process in actio Well I haven't seen a particle with a spin greater than one, and it makes total sense because the spin is to do with the angle of the vector, and if you go around in a circle of all the different angles you eventually arrive back at the start, 360 is the same as 0 or 720, so spin has to be modular at some point, it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.

I see what you're trying to say, but abiotic materials in no way undergo the process of evolution. Elements become more complex, and can within a star's lifetime be broken down, evolution applies to the notion that the DNA which gives an animal successful adaptations to it's environment will be passed down for as long as that environment can be sustained.

I've done a lot of driving through and in and down mountains and sometimes a straight enough incline to go fast, and I'm pretty sure my ears popped sometimes but there was never any pain at all. What you're describing sounds like "the bends" which isn't in air, but in water, and it's because water is denser in air that changing pressure too fast would compress or uncompress the air in your body too quickly and it will damage joints and tissue sometimes enough to cripple you if you're not careful enough.