SamBridge

Instead of arguing about the existence of god, why not just say that it doesn't matter if god exists because the universe will continue to work how it works? That's what Buddhists do.

You guys don't really seem to understand how nature works, most animals are worse, you think most animals want to be friends? Cause they don't, go watch a nature documentary or just get out of your house and into reality, most animal species are definitely worse than developed human civilizations, many are extremely racist, selfish, greedy, or just kill things for fun, like lions or tigers and even kill offspring of their own species which is definitely not better than more primitive human civilizations. Humans at least have the sense to say "we can do better than that one day" and in some places are making progress. This isn't to say all animals are bad, especially since "bad" is an arbitrary term, but things are a lot uglier outside of civilized society. Some selfish animals aren't going to protect the Earth from giant meteors, it will be advanced technology that does, forged by generations of humans working together.

Exactly, they were stopped for "hours", not months, not years, "hours", that's how fast the heat builds up. If they can't introduce any more neutron moderators into the system, it will heat up too much and the reaction can go critical.

Yeah what you're describing isn't evolution, it's just part of the fusion process.

That has little to do with the existence of higher dimensions and more 100% to do with mathematics, your statements don't even make sense. They don't fall off at all, regardless of however many dimensions there actually are, we observe that gravity and electromagnetism have an inverse relationship relating their strength and distance from whatever's emitting them, we can't even completely explain why that even happens in just 3 dimensions.

I'll get a picture for you if you have trouble imagining the equations without any sort of reference though https://www.desmos.com/calculator For the first graph, type "1/x", then press enter, then for the next box type "2/x" and press enter. Now, you will see that near the "x" axis, the graphs start to converge with it. Let's say that "2" represents twice the energy that system 1 had, which is modeled by "1/x", there y is energy and x is time. It doesn't matter if I start at a higher energy, they eventually just approach the value "0". What you're describing seems to be the tendency that matter naturally wants to occupy the lowest possible potential of any system, which is essentially what I am trying to show an analogy of with the graphs. You can skip the graphs if you want. But this pattern that we observe of matter just doesn't seem to really fit exactly with what you're saying. So what? That doesn't explain why electrons exist the way they do, that just says that naturally they will move to lower energy states if given the opportunity, that doesn't have much to do with why electrons combine and form one system, that just says that they probably will.

Look, there's more than one expert saying you're wrong, If you really think you're right get your idea patented and send it to some university or national scientific committee so they can dismiss it already.

The phenomena that you are referring to is called "superpostion", but I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Superposition is just the property of a field. A field such as a gravitational field automatically exists in every location that it has propagated to at the speed of light, there is no physical motion involved in this, and particles can be described as fields in quantum field theory and so are predicted to also possess this property. Everything else you're saying just seems to be more like fringe extrapolations, the universe has no scientific need to observe itself and with our current physics the universe would have had to existed prior to the existence of any life in order to create conditions to form life, and the universe doesn't fit under the current biological definition of a living thing. Quantum theories don't need you to support them, there's many tests that speak for themselves.

Ok, so 65 million years. What happens to all that rubble if it's not left over? It get's recycled and the heat from the interior of the Earth breaks down many of the man-made materials and through volcanoes and ore veins as well as ocean-floor vents and tectonic movement get's put back into the top of the crust and/or dispersed into the ocean. The only problem is that it would actually take a really long time for that to happen, so say we did use up every natural resource. It would be available in the future once it's recycled by the Earth, but it wouldn't be recycled for any species for at least a million years, but after that critical recycle time is up, everything's good to go.

It's just "n", we don't know what they mean, it's just that if you have a 9 dimensional object, then you can mathematically make a 9 dimensional cube of 3 dimensional manifolds as surfaces, things like that, or instead of time existing as a line it could exist as a plane in higher dimensions, ect, what it really boils down to is geometry, but there's no clear visual representation for higher dimensions.

Yeah? So? Why wouldn't there be?

I still think most of what you're saying isn't really scientific, saying "for some reason it seems to synchronize" especially doesn't make sense at the atomic level because there's no in between orbitals or frequencies for electrons to transition with, with the pendulums what's more likely is that there is a value of oscillation that is very close to the system being at equilibrium which both attain, the energy lost from a system becomes so much smaller compared to initial losses that eventually they just both look like the same value. If I have X^5+bx^4+cx^3.../ X^5-3x^2-1... vs x^3-5x.../ x^3-X-1..., even though x^5 will always yield a higher value, both systems will asymtote at y=1 and eventually you could set the windows of the graphs so that they both look like the same curve.

Math doesn't equal the universe, we say physics is the same everywhere because that's what we observe. So far in our entire observable universe, the laws of physics are the same, that's not a tangible object, that's just the consensus we have. There is no way to determine if the physics aren't the same in a location that we haven't observed, so it's pointless to speculate about that.

No I'm saying they possibly exist as more than 3 dimensional objects.

I don't think a being could evolve into pure energy because DNA itself is not pure energy, and if it somehow created something that was pure energy, then it would die instantly because it would be made out of photons and instantly fall apart at the speed of light. Evolution is the process where genes show up in organisms which are better suited for whatever environment those animals are in, it doesn't seem to apply to stars.

You could argue that anything has an infinitessimally small probability, and in fact there are an infinite number of infenitessimally small possibilities, but that doesn't mean we should consider them, because if we did we would never get anywhere.

I can guarantee you that no credible scientist has "theorized" such a thing, a theory is not a hypothesis, it's build off of scientific experiments. Hypothesis' may have been extrapolated from exploring the quantinization of matter and energy (which makes sense without a computer universe) and nothing more.

Arrow heads that are sharp enough to hunt animals would imply one of three things: other people found the bones and buried the arrow heads there, probably thinking it was the relic of some kind of god o mythical being of power, Humans were around, or dinosaurs had arms fingers and coordination as well as the knowledge to manipulate obsidian using other rocks which depending on the number of them would imply they had advanced communication skills. The third one is a pretty big leap, and the second one is also a bit of a stretch. If the sediment had been disrupted such a localized region and arrowheads were found, it means someone dug there, most likely humans.

In a way your tuning fork analogy makes sense, because you treat both the electrons as one system, but the analogy with tension doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, electron field strength is directly proportional to the energy state, but the repulsion isn't caused by any sort of "movement", and there's nothing that "builds up", it's caused by the exchange of gauge bosons.

"Laws" aren't materials like Swan said, they are observations that we observe from matter, they are not "generated" from matter, it's what we scientifically see matter doing. If we observe matter acting a particular way all the time, and find no evidence that it acts differently, then scientifically it is safe to assume it's the same in every location that those laws can describe. For locations such as outside the universe (which don't really exist) or you're imagination, scientific laws cannot describe what happens there. But, there's physics for space and distance, and as far as our observations are concerned, those equations are true for whatever there is space and distance, which we assume based on other observations is the entire universe.

Oh wait, for a second I thought that force field was real and I was like "god dammit they beat me to it and I didn't even know", but it looks like I still have time, though I wasn't planning on it being a weapon. Just read it, there are materials that can absorb neutrons better, but don't you think they are already using those in nuclear reactors? But if the reaction becomes unstable and there is no neutron damper, then it doesn't matter if they can absorb neutrons will, it will heat up the neutron absorber so much that it will melt.

I don't think they have names, after 4 it just becomes too complex to give dimensions any sort of visual name, they just call those dimensions "dimension n" of a "n" dimensional manifold in "n" dimensional space. With our current framework, light can travel as the way it currently does in 10 dimensional space but not in 3 dimensional space, which explains why the lighting always seems off when I do 3-D modeling. or at least according to the string theory model, I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Essentially the way you just have to think of higher dimensions as just something parametric equations. As one coordinate dimension changes according to a certain equation, the coordinates of the lower dimensions change to sustain the correlation of the position of the object in that n dimensional space. What these dimensions actually are is just unknown, if an object is higher than 3 dimensions, all it means is you need "n" components to describe its location.

Well, perhaps not a nuclear reaction like in a nuclear bomb unless you had some kind of gauge field that only interacted when the process took place, but for some things like a nuclear reactor such as with the recent meltdown in Japan which are slower, neutron absorbers could temporarily handle the problem, but all the heat being trapped in a container would eventually melt it, which did happen in Japan.

The the cutting edge is definitely testable which is why its the "cutting-edge", because it's the most recently confirmed knowledge. If we assume things are true just because they are hypothetically logical then we might as well assume the Earth as wrong because we can't see that it's found from standing on it. Besides, you are trying to define the universe, but in order to have proof of what your saying in regards to the universe only being manifested in whatever specific manner, you would have to be there at the beginning of the universe to confirm that, because then you would know that because there is nothing outside the universe (because it wasn't created yet) that it is the only possible explanation, which isn't going to happen unless you found time travel, which is also impossible because it violates conservation laws.

It doesn't make sense that this site mixes opinion and and scientific facts as it pleases, that is not very scientific, and I don't see how it helps people, I myself haven't marked one post up or down since I've been here and I never will and my reputation is neutral and on more than one thread I said I was wrong or retracted some statement I made, so that's clearly not what I have a problem with, what helps people is answering questions and asserting evidence for things. This whole "I like how to talk therefore you're a good scientist" or "I don't like how you talk therefore you're a bad scientist" system is not a good model. If something's right, then it's right, if somethings wrong, then it's wrong, it should be left at that. I gave a logical proof of what I'm saying, which by the looks of it is rare on this site (for non-moderators). I understand that the reputation system is "meant" to be used for purposes of gauging trust in scientific judgement, but I think it is seldom used for that purpose.