SamBridge

I see your point about the consumption of resources, but those materials aren't leaving Earth, matter isn't destroyed in chemical processes (which I'm guessing you know), many different elements could be re-isolated with the appliance of thermal energy and filtering techniques, using different acids, ect. Let's say a civilization used up a bunch of copper, had some big war, no one left. But, there's still copper barried under all that rubble. Using fire or thermal energy from volcanoes or possibly even the sun if they figured out how to do that, they can separate the copper out from whatever it's chemically combined with. I'm guessing they would probably do experiments by mixing different chemicals with whatever is left of our civilization, eventually they would find some chemical that combined with the copper and took it out of that material it was joined with and hooked it to some H ions, and then applied heat to break those bonds, that's essentially what people did already do discover different elements, like Bromine with Salt. Bromine is definitely more rare than copper, but with enough messing around with chemicals, we eventually just gathered enough sea water to make visible amounts of bromine from chemical reactions and heating.

The double slit isn't a mis-interpretation of facts and has been scientifically tested over and over, but I still have no idea why I was marked down twice, I used logic to prove that math is not logic which was my point,many people use less like in the first post of the topic and I don't see them getting marked down. Do people really hate logic on this site or something? Or what is going on? Because it makes no logical sense. Or like the above post. Even if the entire world was waiting, so what? What does that have to do with the science of the discussion at hand? That has nothing to do with confirming a theory or hypothesis, it's a meaningless post, this site doesn't make sense.

Just to make it clear, there's many many people who think they have some universal theory, but they all fail the test of scientific testing, even string theory, so it likely doesn't even matter if somehow anyone is right because it could never be tested and therefore never be used for anything.

it's not exactly hidden variables in the traditional sense, its more like a wormhole. Two different higher dimensional coordinates become the same coordinate when particles are entangled. Otherwise the only explanation is "that's just the way it is". There's multiple theories that use higher dimensions than 3 or even 4, even quantum physics can, and different aspects of particles can supposedly interact in those higher dimensions. Of course you can take the non visual Heisenberg route and just treat everything as mathematical matrices, but that doesn't always work.

But the "truths" as you call it are based on those fundamental axioms, exploring something doesn't make it more connected or disconnected to reality, it will always have whatever correlation it always has. Numbers are all things we assigned meanings too, we don't know exactly what they mean on their own, and perhaps they have no meaning, but we didn't define "i" to have no meaning, it means something because we assign it to mean something, and it appears to pop up in equations describing patterns of reality.

Look at the equation for when the wave functions of particles become combined. Do you see the strength dependent on distance? No, you just see the correlation of position. This is the mainstream concept, as far as mainstream theories go I suppose you're right that it's not mainstream yet, though I have seen it mentioned on a couple pop-science shows like nova and one of brian greene's movies.

Drilling to many holes just makes too much pressure come out at once, which is basically equivalent to an eruption, otherwise if will leak it too slowly to matter if the holes are too small.

In order to stop it you would have to add energy to binding energy between nucleons which increases the field strength or range of the gluons making it harder for them neutrons and protons to split off in a chain reaction. But, there's no known way to do that, you can create gluons from energy in certain particle interactions, but shooting a powerful laser at plutonium doesn't really stop it from reacting.

Strings I imagine still have finite frequencies. Since they are the smallest possible energies if they exist, then their energies can go in between the states of particles such as electrons. The energy of a string shouldn't fluctuate that wildly over time, and frankly it doesn't make sense if it does, it's more likely that it's just a small quantity of energy that it has many many different energy states or frequencies that it can attain which when plotted right next to each appear to be a continuous line.

But hold on, that "mammals are to bats" still applies. Humans are only one species of mammals, and there are still other intelligent animals. Birds are one of the only direct descendants of dinosaurs and look how smart they are, what if like humans, there was another dinosaur that would have become just as intelligent? It could easily happen in 65 million years given there's proof it already happened with of type of species. Perhaps birds aren't the maximum intelligence that dinosaurs could have achieved. Birds have ravens, mammals have us, cold-blooded reptiles have the monitor lizard, fish idk, probably some type of shark, invertebrates: the octopus with its 8 brains, ect, but what about dinosaurs themselves? I guess we'll never know.

Euclidean geometry makes sense if you just add an extra dimension to a plane. You can modify equations to equal the same answer. Can you really think of a reason why they wouldn't be the same everywhere? What would be altering the fundamental forces of nature? Or all of a sudden making them exist and not exist in different locations?

But, didn't they make it across in the form of birds? That was the point earlier in the topic, and this is where it starts to get fuzzy with whether or not it pertains to the topic, because we need some way of getting a general sense of how intelligent they are to see how they have evolved, but how do we know for sure how intelligent they are? Based on research I did I would say and other zoologists many birds have emotion capacities equal to younger humans, so in some ways they did come a long ways.

No it's not limitations, it's because in order for matter to travel at the speed of light it would have to possess infinite energy, so going twice the speed of light is definitely impossible, and you can bet Einstein believed his most widely-known equation that has been used for all sorts of technology.

If the equations aren't predictable everywhere then you must find a location where they aren't and prove it. Furthermore equations aren't think you "believe" in. They either yield the same result on both sides, or they don't.

Hmm, I can see the asymtote at the boundary, I'll have to look into it.

Again, when comparing the energies of different types of systems you can, but for those respective systems you can't. An electron individually doesn't have non-integer multiples of Planck's constant to create it's enery level, and it's the same for any other particle. A gluon has quantized energies, an electron has quantized energies, a proton has quantized energies. Even though those energies when compared to each other are different, they can't go in between their respective energy levels.

It happens instantly across distance because distance isn't a factor, the correlation is the same regardless of 3 dimensional coordinates, which means that the connection exists through higher dimensional coordinates.

Well I don't know, the topic is the intelligence of dinosaurs, and everyone here seems to be debating how intelligent they were or how likely it is that they were intelligent.

No, look up Kurt Godel. I can also attempt to prove it right now. Logic is logic, by the reflexive property of logic. If math=logic, and logic is always logic, then math is always logic, and all math is math. What this essentially means is that I can use only one system of mathematics to describe all the logical statements of the universe because all mathematics is all mathematics which equal logic which is suppose to equal logic, which all logic is logic, which if you are educated above high-school algebra, you would know is wrong. Fractals aren't algebra, even though they follow logical patterns, polar coordinates are different than Cartesian coordinates and you can find the roots to complicated polynomials in polar coordinates but not in Cartesian coordinates, because what I was saying is true, and bot those systems are logical mathematical systems. So you can only conclude that mathematics is not itself logic.

I suppose in a way you could describe composite strings as mathematically equaling non-integer energies compared directly to electron energies, but otherwise no, matter and energy only exists in quantized amounts, and it can't exist in other way.

Why is it improper to experience weather that can kill you? So what? If you think something, then you think something, that's it, you can't go back in time, and besides, your definition of "improper" easily various from other people, so there is still no "universal" improper way of anything. No, frog's and many other animals definitely perceive the outside environment and have "vision", even plants can experience the outside world to some extent. Metaphysics isn't really real physics, its essentially philosophy, and you don't need to consciously count something every time you do something. If you walk up stairs without thinking about the stairs, you're counting without knowing it. Animals have their own perceptions, but logic is logic regardless of who's perceiving it, math is math regardless of who's perceiving it, the universe is the universe regardless of who's perceiving it. Frogs likely aren't geniuses, so they have a unique view that is the property of them having their view and no one else, so does every other living thing. A lot of animals have at least some memory capabilities, they can reflect on the past in some way, a great deal probably can assign certain feelings to certain other objects or living things or assign vocalizations to other living things, but it seems it usually isn't as complicated as it sounds, many things do that all the time and without thinking. "The sky is always blue" isn't a true statement, unless you'r a certain type of jungle cat, then it is always blue. But anyway, it's still true that "when sunlight shines upon the atmosphere, certain particles in the atmosphere reflect light that has a frequency equal to the range of blue optical light". A lot of animals are also colorblind. When animals cooperate enough with us we can measure their intelligence to some extent, and combined with observing them in nature we can get a clearer picture. Many animals even though they probably do consciously experience the physical world, do not appear to consciously think and reason through most problems. It doesn't mean they can't or don't ever do it, but based on the level that we see this, we can extrapolate that in general humans have a greater cognitive ability than at least most animals.

Your idea is to make a sort of "inlet" or a tunnel that leads to the ocean right? Yeah, that could release the pressure too much and accelerate the eruption, and in fact using any large amount of water might make it worse because there will be even more pressure due to the vaporization of all the ocean water. The best thing we can do is prepare and some ways and try and contain the gas as best we can if it's possible, there's no easy way out of it.

It is logical, and what you're saying could have been applied to the curvature of the Earth. The Earth was always curved, but we didn't discover the methods to logically conclude that until at least complex mathematics was invented. We could have assumed that the Earth had any shape: a cube, a sphere, a plane, a hyperdonut, and the same principal is true right now for the creation of the universe.

I said it should be moved into philosophy a while back, but what I am saying is true, it is a fact that mathematics has it's own set of axioms and is not directly equal to physical objects or logic itself whether you like it or not. What does the value "1" actually mean? If you say there's "1" of something, define what it means without using the value "1". It's not going to be easy, and that's because it's closely related to an axiom, and axioms by definition are not provable entities, they are assumptions of which to base other logical conclusions from.

That's what many people thought, and thousands of experiments proved them wrong.