SamBridge

Ok well I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth" then. So some of the later ones were rather smart which I agree with, but do you think a human would win in a fight with them? It's still 65 million or more years ago too, there just maybe not have been the time to develop such advanced thinking. If you only consider my logic and not the time, intelligent life should have developed almost right away, but it didn't because there's very low mutation rates for those specific things that actually lead to a better survival as a species, so even with environmental pressures, at that long ago it still could have been that no dinosaurs needed to be particularly smart because no dinosaur was that particularly smart of a hunter or that even with the environmental pressures, because of the higher temperature and larger abundance of plants there was enough resources to disregard that environmental pressure (to an extent), or that the mutations just didn't develop because they needed more time.

I thought you mentioned a few things that emphasized that birds weren't dinosaurs by saying "dinosaurs have no direct descendants", but anyway, dinosaurs still had probably better claws and wings are definitely an advantage both for cold temperature and aerial technique, not to mention what their brain power was being used on. Dinosaurs were particularly capable with smell and probably sight, it takes a larger amount of brain power to have better sight and small to pick up more and more faint particles and objects, so there's not a particular reason why they had to have better developed cognitive abilities either when they wouldn't need it to survive. Hominids on the other hand when compared to other animals don't seem particularly physically specialized, and since there weren't many physical advantages developed, the only ones that survived would have had to be particularly smart ones to make up for their lack of physical advantages, but this is not necessarily true for dinosaurs.

Ok, let's say we don't know then, I don't see how it's particularly likely though. Birds are smart, I thought this before this topic.

What you're saying can make sense based on the context, the probability distribution of a particle in a particle location approaches 0 as the multiple of planks constant for the frequency approaches infinity, but of course at nodal surfaces themselves the probability actually is 0, and such mathematics could be applied to gauge bosons or higg's bosons (but not in exactly the same way), but based on my knowledge there is no consequence of gravity's field strength with distance by adding another dimension. All a dimension is, is a geometrical way to describe the location of something, the correlation of gravity and distance will be true in d dimension space even if you had 100 dimensions. I could be wrong about that though, but I haven't heard of anything like that. Perhaps different dimensions at some point would have to imply a change on the locations of other dimensions that would cause measurements to differ, but as far as I know, gravity is still gravity, as long as 4 dimensions are in consideration, gravity will still do whatever it does with those 4 dimensions. But perhaps there is something I don't understand, I'm pretty sure I"m right, but perhaps adding dimensions can change on the coordinates of particles can change when traveling through "n" dimensional space. I think what it more has do to is with what will make the mathematics work. All you need for the mathematics of gravity to work is 4 coordinates to describe how space-time warps at any specific point, so it shouldn't matter if there are more dimensions. You should look into it more though, because perhaps there have been more recent theories that predict that gravity needs more than 4 coordinates to describe how space-time warps in order for it to work the way it currently works, but that's really the only time I can think of where what you're saying would be a valid point in any way.

There is something that was recently brought up called a curl. Even if the field doesn't physically rotate, it can still mathematically be oriented in a specific direction somehow, though it is unclear what the mechanism for this actually is. This probably doesn't answer anything, just more math to try and understand.

Heat death is only assuming the universe is a closed system. But on a yearly basis we keep discovering objects more and more distant than what we had previously discovered, so it's quite possible that the universe is infinite in size and we don't have to worry. Besides, this will take trillions of years, with that much time who knows what technology will be invented.

I agree that mathematical systems are logical, but I know they are not logic themselves. In order for numbers to work, we have to assign our own arbitrary meaning to them, the universe obviously isn't going to do it for us, we didn't have mathematics before we invented it, we have to assume what the term "1" or "2" actually is, because without us to distinguish it, it has no meaning whatsoever. However, we do not have to assign meaning to gravity in order for gravity to continue to pull things, we don't have to assign meaning to rocks in order for them to be placed where they are, but we have to assign meaning to numbers in order for them to work at all, we have to invent them for them to work, and this tells me that math is not the universe, because the universe will work however it work regardless of if we assign meaning to it, but this is not true of math, so math cannot be a real part of the universe. That's just what my point is, but I think numbers in some way have something to do with reality, but I can't quite explain it because of the dilemma I mentioned above. The math is obviously useful, it can make predictions, but it still wouldn't exist unless we decided to invent it, so how exactly do we nail down how involved it is in reality?

Ok, well, I can't deny the possibility, all I can say is that with our current evidence, dinosaurs likely were not technologically advanced even to the stone age at the time they went extinct. You could make an argument for anything being possible, but we use science to show just how likely those possibilities are, and so far it is unlikely dinosaurs were that advanced.

No I see that whole part of the argument that people want the site to be interesting and it can really only be interesting to the layman if they can explore things they don't quite understand by opinions being asserted, but if this site had enough advertising it may not have to worry about the amount of traffic dropping too significantly. In any case, it doesn't seem like the site will make that dramatic of a shift so a new site will have to be constructed, I am sure I can find people who would want the same, in fact php already creates forums for you, so if I had members all I'd have to worry about is finding a server to host the data on, which is pretty cheap, not that I'm saying getting professional Ph. Ds on board will be easy.

Or instead of being pompous you could just be logical and try explain in greater detail with a higher clarity what you meant in your post

Although I do advocate that numbers are merely axioms (which when logically boiled down you discover they are), that point isn't valid because you'r not considering different units. If I say "1 apple + 1 apple", that doesn't actually make real sense, but if I say "10*10^23 atoms + 2.3*10^34 atoms", that expression yields results which model what is observed distinguish ably in reality.

With the capability of machines you'd be surprised that running and designing the site would be rather easy, the only hard part would be getting enough people involved in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I think he term "expert" or "moderator" implies they have a high likelihood of being well versed in a variety of sciences or highly versed in a particular field, but still, opinions are not science. I'm not saying the site is overall bad, I just want there to be a site where everything is really strict and formal as a place people can turn to when they can't get confirmed answers, because as you know both mass media and the internet can have a tenancy to manipulate data, and if this site can't be that site, someone else or I will have to get one designed. This site does a good job for science beginners, but there's many topics I see where if people start talking about too complex of mathematics, no one even attempts to post because no one is experienced enough to confidently answer.

I myself would not trust mass media as it has often been used for the wrong purpose. Instead, I would being by asking other experts what they think and at least having some of the claims assessed by another expert in that field, and this is where diversity in the site would help. If someone was spouting nonsense about history, and there was more than one history expert, it would be pointing out easily. I am abhorred to see that a person with the title of a moderator is so deeply and willfully making the very assertion that they themselves claim to abhor. Which you only stated after I did a bunch of complaining that you were being sarcastic and unclear as opposed to being logical in the first place. In fact, I said in a post just before you went on wild rants "maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought, but there should still be diversity". You could have left it at that and things would have been more at an equilibrium, but because of your obsession with public representation you chose to continue in hostility. Your point is still invalid, the purpose of science is to investigate the physical world with certainty regardless of if it is interesting or not, and there are plenty of people in the world who want to do that, and probably could without some forum to help them The issue has nothing to do with any personal discussions, there are multiple instances where I retract a statement or where I clearly agree that I am wrong about something, that is not what the issue. Once gained I am abhorred to see someone who is called a moderator do the very thing they claimed to abhor: a despicable straw-man. Anyone is free to say anything they like within any set of establish rules, but I suppose if the site wants to risk credibility and efficiency for opinion and appeal I can't stop that. I see what you are saying, but there is still a concise conclusion that can be made about data. Most contemporary physics is theoretical physics. Such physics have tests with confirmed results, however what ends up happening is that mathematical extrapolations get made without tests to prove them (string theory), but this is not to say that contemporary science does not have concise conclusions on data, and I don't think that's what you meant. The relationship between variables after repeated testing is not a debate. What is a debate is speculation on why that relationship exists and to what extent that relationship applies, though both of those things can still be confirmed with more scientific testing. For instance, I could model the temperature increase on a scale as mx+b, such as Kelvin, and the relationship would show that there is a value of -253 kelvin. Then after that relationship, people hypothesize that you can't have negative kelvin or that you can, and then they did testing to confirm that almost always, you can't. I can see what you're saying, but really I'm talking about something very specific, I'm talking about people with the title of experts or moderators to only post what has been scientifically confirmed or is credible in theory, if it is a debate of the scientific community, they can share that debate. There can be, but just like with the whole diploma dilemma there's no guarantee If you want, you can run a test to see if religious people can do math faster or if non-religious people can do math faster. The result should be that they do math the same "assuming both groups had the same level of education), because religion does not impair cognitive ability. If they assert religious claims into scientific procedure or consensus, that's where the line is drawn. That age of religion being viewed inherently evil towards humanity is ending in much the same way that the period where science was viewed as evil for humanity had ended, much of modern physics and calculus was made by people who had assumed the universe worked in a deterministic or "clockwork" manner, due to Newton's discoveries that yielded highly predictable results, but as time went on, people discovered that the universe could not be thought of as a well oiled machine, and that there was plenty of room for the unknown.

Except not only will it be hard to isolate, then transport, but that will create an tremendously bigger explosion than an atomic bomb itself.

Faith in humanity -2 Did you see a picture of his diploma with his ID? You obviously care more about public appeal that being logical. If you read my post, not only did I say "99%" certainty that they have some base knowledge above a high school level, but I did not say that anyone said that degrees were worthless, it was a comparison to an extreme to establish the poster did not advocate that extreme as I also pointed out in a later poser. A few nutcases may be frauds, but that does not mean that a greater of majority of people with high-end degrees have a high likelihood of also being frauds, all you need to do is just be watchful. Go back and read it, I asked if you think it's appropriate to mix science and opinion as you please, but instead of getting a logical answer you decided to be sarcastic. Learning science does not come from random opinions, it comes from investigating relationships between variables that represent things in nature. Whether or not it would be interesting is beside the point, science is not done to be interesting, it is created to investigate our physical world with certainty. Read up on "Madison Mississippi University", it is not a credible college, that is not my decision, that is an observed pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_University You are obviously not a scientist. If I do an experiment where there is a controlled variable, lets call it distance, and a non-controlled or dependent variable, let's call it potential energy, it doesn't matter what opinion you have, if you plot the data, you will for a fact see that as the distance from the ground increases, the potential energy increases. That conclusion is in no way shape or form dependent on any opinion in any fashion, it is purely dependent on what is measured, and many tests have redone the experiment to confirm it, that is what science is, it is not an opinion. Saying "Well in my opinion I still don't think it goes up even though the data says it does" is called a state of "denial". Fact: Opinions are not a part of concluding the relationship between variables in scientific data. If you can model data under the equation y=x^2 with test-ably predictable results, any opinion from anyone is worthless, no matter what, the relationship is "y=x^2" for whatever the testable results extend to. "Why" that relationship occurs without testing is called "speculation" or "hypothesizing", and such things are not science, but with mathematics derived from tests and if necessary extensive number theory, you can prove that a certain phenomena is in fact the cause for another thing. I think you should learn proper scientific procedure. Not only that, but you mentioned a list of scientists who are creationists. However, religion in no way impairs your cognitive thinking ability. Believing in any religion is fine as long as it does not interfere with conducting scientific experiments and as long as you do not use it as a justification of a scientific conclusion, science is not connected with religion, your list is meaningless. If this site refuses to change then that is why one of my goals is to create an accredited official science website where people who call themselves experts must show their diploma with an ID analyzed by a group of other experts as well as always asserting what is their opinion from what they have 99% or more confidence in is true, as well as trying to stay out of personal conversations when responding to inquiries of scientific matters. How do the first experts get on board then? That's why I approach professors I know at relatively near-by colleges or universities about it first. If you really wanted to have a person chat with experts, you would send them a private message.

Now I'm just starting to think you're obsessed with looking infallible to the public eye. Let's imagine some scenarios: "Yeah Nixon was pretty bad" 'Yeah but you don't think he was bad as Hitler do you?' No one said that person A said that Nixon was as bad as Hitler, but person B clearly did not say that if you just slow down and read it. "I don't like jean shorts" 'But I'm guessing you don't hate them as much as leather shorts' "oh yeah, leather shorts would be horrible" No one said that person A said that they hated jean shorts as much as leather shorts, and we can clearly see that. I'm trying to setup that you generally do not have to worry about that if the degree is from a credible source. If it's from something like Madison University of Mississippi (not Wisconsin), then that's not credible, but if it's from an Ivy League college, you probably don't have to worry about that person being a fraud. That wasn't a strawman, that was an actual point, it is absurd that you think you should mix opinion and science as you please., doing such defeats the purpose of science. Based on everything you've said in this topic, I think you should reconsider calling yourself a moderator, what you're saying is frankly one of the most absurd things I've seen on this site so far. "Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought"

No actually it isn't obvious because if there was literally "nothing" before the universe existed, not distance nor time existed, but if time never existed and there was nothing keeping track of time, that means the universe has always existed when it started to exist, and there was literally no amount of time that the universe wasn't in existence because time can only be created from the universe.

If you think about a unit circle, you can use a single direction essentially to create a wave. If you move counterclockwise you can create an "upwards" sine wave or cosine wave, and if you move clockwise you can create a downward sine wave or cosine wave.

Well, I guess it may not be as bad as I originally thought, but there should still be a greater diversity.

Well then read my post again, I didn't say anyone said it was worthless, I used it as a comparison to point that a degree is still valid even if a few nutcases have some. His point was "nutcases have degrees therefore degrees don't mean much", if he did not mention that nutcases have degrees as a point to degrade the validity of a degree, I don't know why he bothered posting that. So let me get this straight: you do think it's a good idea to mix opinion and science as you please? Because that sounds insane. If you don't, you need to be more clear and less sarcastic. To some people adding opinions are interesting, to others they are more annoying, and some just don't really care either way, but many members of those different groups still want one thing: credible answers. As I said more than once, I am not saying any particular moderator or expert does not have a valid knowledge in science or maturity, but observing the site as a whole, it seems to be an occurance, if you take all the times where moderators/experts get frustrated and/or tired and just stop trying, I think it adds up to at least something.

If you have rotation control it can sort of act like a loop hole, but not really, you can alter the probability and trace only a localized trajectory, but definitively not the exact trajectory. You seem to be hinting at those very small dimensions, the 6th dimension I believe, which is supposedly wrapped up in very small regions of space. The "feed back" as you mention is moderated by gauge bosons, which are also used in string theory, though their transmission can be potentially be described without extra dimensions, they do have a property of a rope where they are predicted to "snap back" to their parent particle upon interaction. But spin is a pretty hard thing to describe exactly, it doesn't really have a physical meaning, it's not a physical rotation of any sort. Essentially what we know is that other spin states just can't exist, their existence just isn't supported by the mathematics we use to model them, if they tried to exist with any other spin they just wouldn't exist any more, there isn't enough evidence to support that it's exactly like a rope, a lot of quantum physics isn't really physical at all.

I keep thinking that I've decided how the universe began, but there's just so little confirmation about it that I keep changing what I think the beginning was. I don't see how there could actually be a finite "boundary" of the universe, even for a 4 dimensional hyper-donut where space runs in a loop, it can still be modeled as having a boundary if you represent it's surface as being 3 dimensional space because "distance" is a thing and it does not exist outside the universe which contains everything, so therefore there cannot be an infinite "distance" of nothingness outside the universe. But it doesn't really make sense that it has always existed either, time didn't exist before the universe existed, and what would have caused it to exist in the first place? We can't seem to answer it with any certainty.

Read his post, he said "a degree does not guarantee knowledge". If it's from a credible college or university (which is why they should upload a scanned picture with their name and ID like they do on websites like istock for photography or music), then unless they forged it, there is a 99% guarantee they have some base knowledge necessarily for correctly answering questions above a high school level. Honestly I am not very entertained when moderators put their opinions in science topics, when I ask something I want the scientific answer, some evidence for it, and that's about it. If I personally wanted an opinion I myself would ask for it. This idea I think does have some likelihood of having much participation, after all, there's some national genius association, and there's non-science websites like the one I mentioned (istock) which requires rigorous proof that you can do what you say you can do. While opinions may be fun and interesting, they don't belong when describing what is scientific consensus or theory, it should almost be like a separate section, and not everyone is looking to hang around, some people are looking for answers, just look at the homework section, some people don't probably want to chat around with a mod (in that topic) they want to actually get their answer, and fast.

I think the best way to explore quantum physics is with a metaphoric fishing rod. You jump to a really complex object, and work your way back using concepts you understand, gradually learning new ones that give you enough understanding to finally reel in the idea.

Well after doing some research it seems like a good way to go.