cameron marical

I know that the title is badly worded, sorry. Is it possible for the big bang to still be happening and that is the cause of the expansion? Also, off topic. Could gravity be a result of a fourth dimension? I know this is kind speculation, but it is more of a question than a speculation. But move if you must.

Id encode it in a geneticly superior life form itself, so it would pass it down through all generations. those have lasted obviously for more than a million years, im thinking that there could be a million more in store for it, depending upon states of the universe.{expansion}

I know that japan has actually done this,just recently, and it works as an air purifier. I beleive that it worked better than normal plants by a great degree in purification. I think that it would be really cool if you or anyone here made something like this. Maybe ill try it out.

I read somewhere that It was klystrons, but It lacked a description on the page and I could not find anything online. If a Klystron{Klystrons?} do indeed acclerate particles in things like the LHC, the how exactly do they work? If not, what does the job then? Thank you.

If your story is true, then i would think that you would be relatively famous, or on the news of some sort, though i may be wrong. Who have you seen exactly? Im not stating disbelief in your words, I am simply speculative due to the nature of your descriptions. If this is true, then i suggest that you try to contact a news of some sort in your town and tell them your story, I am sure that someone would be interested. I am. Are you on any websites? Interviews? Any other form of relative validity in your statements?

I see. I read a page on the Fermilab Particle Detector, i understand now. http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/virtualtour/index.html Although, once found what is inside quarks {if there is anything} than wont it eventually just get too small for things to be detected and the odds of any particles that small would hit anywhere other than in the giant empty space of an atom be too great?

NO, i dont want to drop out and get my GED. The reason i want to finish high school fast is because i want to go on to more school that teaches more stuff, college, and i dont want to have to wait all this time to get to it. Another thing, i would take many more courses at my school that i want to learn, but regrettably, i cant becuse of my age and math, and ive tried to get math teachers to teach me advanced stuff, but they all refuse wich is quite frustrating becuase ive gotten A's the whole year in almost all my classes{2 b+'s last report card, the rest A's}, so im clearly demonstrating that i can advance at a faster rate than most are trying, and ive tried to talk to my counseler and everything about it, im going to summer school to get ahead but i can only take 2 classes. The internet and the library are my last learning tools. In class, we go over a thing for a week, when i can learn it in a day. we learn in semesters what i can learn in a month, its all just too slow, its frusterating. Since a like all the stuff im being tought, i take it in better, making me learn faster than the people who arent intersted as me{everyone else at the school}.

i dont see how any device we have today could do such a feat, everything that we arent experimenting with and use in our technology is too big of particles to detect such small amounts of mass, so how do they detect thge collisions scattered particles after the event? Thanks.

how would you ionize hydrogen atoms to get just protons? Is that what people use in particle coliders when using proton to proton colisions? thanks.

But energy is dispersed from the atom when the atom gets smashed by the partice? How much? Can it damage the machine itself or is it such a small amount of energy that it just doesnt matter? Thanks for the reply.

Wouldnt smashing particles into atoms instigate nuclear fission? Obviously not, AFAIK no particle colliders have gone a-bomb, so evidently im wrong or there is something they do to prevent it. Any help?

Not distinct Universes inside the Multiverse?

Just a question man... The distance between the galaxies is increasing, could that mean that the curvature of space is decreasing?{if space is indeed curved}

What makes photons travel in wave-form rather than straight?

Not according to the M-theory.

Whats wrong with Hawking Radiation?

If the universe isnt having its contents moved away from each other, does that mean that something externall is coming in to our space and creating up that extra space? Whats blowing up our balloon?

If im right, theres only a set amount of things to learn in the universe before you learn it all, and i know theres alot of time until so, will we or any other civilization learn it all so science is no longer science and it is just learning already recorded things? I hope im wrong.

They have tried to use retroviruses for gene therapy i think.

Ive made my decision. I started off when i first came to science at physics, that was my area of main interest and i thought almost exactly as what mr. skeptic said, that all science was helpfull, but most helped individuals, while physics helps civilizations. that may be flawed, but anyway. I then later got tired of only physics and moved to engineering and teeter totted them for a while till i migrated to biology, now ive kind of touched chemistry, though know barely anything of the topic. Im now kind of everywhere. What i want to do is major in physics but also take classes in other science classes as well, and maybe major in them also. thanks for your guys help!

Isnt electron sharing what atom bonding in molecules is? If my above question is true, then does that mean that only ionized particles can bond with other atoms?

Oh, right. You already told me that. Sorry. I just got it from google images.

ok. i understand now, thanks. what about the lines inside of the hexagons and at a couple other places too? their 2 lines right next to each other, to the left or right of the other one.

I dont see a necessity for theorys to have mathmatics to back them up, i dont even see how math can back up a theory an any way other than helping to show what the theory explains. Im probably really wrong, and i dont mean to sound stupid, i was just wondering. Thanks.

is it that there turned into a gas and mixed up or something? Im guessing it varies for different atoms, so, lets say hydrogen. What would i need to do to get one hydrogen molecule to bond with one carbon molecule? and then, how would i make it so it was something like 3 hydrogen molecules and 2 carbons? thanks guys. sorry if this is a stupid question.