Lightmeow

Hello, I have a question. So we all know that, in the real number system, you can only have positive and negative numbers, right?

Because

The numbers cycle twice because there it is one dimension. And you can only have right or left.

1*-1=-1,

-1*-1=1.

Then you have imaginary numbers, right.

i*i=-1.

-1*i= -i.

-i*i = 1

1*i=i

They cycle because on the complex plane, there is four quadrants, thus can cycle four times.

So, now, lets go to three dimensions shall we. Is there a number that cycles 8 times?

Please answer... And if there isn't one, lets try making one up, shall we?

Oh, and when we make it up, how would it be used?

Josh

Hello peoples,

I have a question for some of the older scientists here, who I assume are doing something other than reading about science. Let me tell you what I mean...

So, I love science, so I read. Over the past month, I have been reading a bunch of science papers and stuff, trying to fill my brain with more knowledge. Now this is all fine and good, but with reading, I'm not actually doing any science, am I? I'm just reading...

So, I want to figure something out. I want to help the world, and be one of those people who actually does something other that know a lot of stuff. So how did you guys start your first project. How did you know what you wanted to do it on...

Any answers would be AWESOME!!!

Thanks in advance,

Lightmeow

If Putin sends troops into East Ukraine, will Obama declare war on Russia?

Why does the United States care about other peoples wars?

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

Was Newton wrong because he didn't thoroughly explain gravity? I don't think so. Same thing with Einstein. Sorry, but I don't think one person can do it all.

Oh, I was talking to another one of my friends, who goes to a catholic church. But she just goes because she is curious about it. I was talking to her about this, and she says she asks questions she knows they can't answer. She said she almost got exiled because she was talking about the corruption of the Catholic popes back in the day.

Just don't get why I got exiled when I was so young...

Either nobody goes to hell, because it doesn't exist, or we're all screwed because Christianity isn't the only religion with a concept of eternal damnation for non-believers.

 

If you really want to irritate a Christian, just remind them that they're heathens to someone too.

Or(let me whip out my Hitchhikers Guide), God says he is based on faith. Now man says, if god was true, then that would be proof. Then, proof denies faith, and without faith, there can be no god. 'I hadn't thought of that' says god as he promptly disappears in a puff of logic" Next, man goes to prove that dark is light, and gets himself run over in the next zebra crossing.

I love that book, it is probably my Bible...

@Moontanman

That is something that you need to copyright, then send to the science community...

That's not the way it goes.

It was much easier for the Universe to randomly produce a living planet with intelligent primats and one of them creating the works of Shakespeare. It did happen and took only 13 billion years.

What is asked in the monkeys example is something different. It consists to reproduce randomly twice a very specific result by driving another route.

This is a real hypothesis!!! Its in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, the first time they got onto the heart of gold(Infinite Improbability Drive is on), and Arther says, "Ford, there's an infinite amount of monkeys who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they worked up". What is this called, does it have a name?

Well, I don't know if this was meant to be a serious answer, but let me take a nab at the question.

 

 

I remember talking to someone about this(being religious and all) and I tend to take their perspective on this, which is "It doesn't matter what the name of a song is, all that matters is what it sounds like."

 

Many people may disagree with me and I also take concern with the idea, but I relate the millions of religions that exist to "The Tower of Babel", where afterwords everyone at first seemed to understand each other under one common language, but then began to not able to understand each other and soon many languages were spoken(and this is not considering the truth of the story, but the main point). The idea is though people may believe in a different name of deity doesn't mean they don't have similar morals. Even I take concern on the philosophy and am careful with it because it can lead to certain issues, but at least consider it.

 

Also, I would like to tell her "He/She who has not sinned, cast the first stone."

 

If he truly were a priest, he would have said "The material world does not apply to what is not of material." Though I do not know what heaven looks like(whether or not you do believe in an afterlife), I can use the logic of a separation from the material and non-material and can assume that nothing is worn in heaven. That is the best I can answer.

He didn't say that about the clothing... And he was a priest...

Yes, they all go to hell. In fact, because there is more than one religion that considers all non-believers fated to go to hell, everyone goes to hell.

 

Also, considering that heaven isn't real, there's no point in speculating about what they'd wear.

Yes, that is what I meant. And the question I asked the priest was when I was 7. What Unity said did make sense though. Maybe some Christians aren't smart enough to know this.

So I just have a few quick questions about things that never quite made sense to me.

First, I was talking to a friend about what is wrong with homosexuals. I said I had nothing against them. She, also said she had nothing against them, but she didn't like the idea that they were going to hell. I replied to this, "Well, if they believe in hell". Then she says, well, if you don't beleive in hell, you will go anyways. I wanted to ask her, do all of the isolated tribes go to hell just because they didn't believe in god.
Do they?

And the next question that I am going to ask actually got me kicked out of church.

What do people wear in heaven? Then I asked the priest, are they naked. He said no because that was the first thing adam and eve figured out when they ate the apple. The second thing. Do they wear white robes. The priest said no. Then I asked, do they wear what they were wearing when they died? He said no. Then I said then what do they wear. He said he didn't know. I said a few remarks about how stupid that was, then he exiled me from the church. Thus my hate of religion.

Any one want to sheed some light on this????

I'm sure there is. Hey, there are animals that we observe in the wild, and the animals have no clue we are there. Or ants, do you think ants are aware of us when we are looking at them.

Speaking of ants, do you think trees could be higher than us???

Good work!!! I love listening to artists that aren't mainstream and listening to music that means something.

I am trying to figure out how to make a function for this wave. I drew it terribly, but I think it works:

So, how would I make that? I tried but I can't do it. This is not for home work, I'm just curious. If you can't understand that image, basically you have a sine wave on a sine wave.

Sorry, I'm not good at explaining things.

 

I think you have to be sociopathic to get that one.

No, I should of said something else, but if something is falling down an escalator, and the escalator is going up fast enough, then it will never stop falling...

This might be cruel, but: baby falling down an escalator.(You have to think about it...)

I have always admired Carl Sagan, as he was a big avicate for science, and tried to spread the word of it. He is the reason why I love science, let it be known. When I was little, I always looked forward to watching his cosmos series.

My spell check isn't working, FYI

Words are not natural because they are a human creation. They may be made by natural means, but the word-product itself is unnatural, a human creation, not like a child or tears, an opinion against that of the natural world-- that the sound means anything other than a sound.

What you are saying is half vallid, but we have done studys to show that animals can cummunicate to each other using certain sounds and gestures. Therefor, by your argument, their communication is unnatural.

I don't think it is evidence to say we were meant to use words, maybe it's evidence to say we were meant to speak, but not using words, using our instincts.

Who are you to say that the sounds that we use are words. All our words are sound. Who are you to say we are more evolved.

Not true, we could be peaceful, we can follow a greater good. And even if we were more wrathful at times, it would be for a greater good like for food or again, family or village.

What greater good would we follow. There would be no greater good if we couldn't invent anything.

Sound may be a part of our evolution, but as I said earlier, words are a product of rote-education. Is Xbox One part of our evolution? We evolved opposable thumbs, clearly to hold the controller.

There have been studies with dolphins that say that they do stuff for fun, i.e., sexaul intercourse; for enjoyment and pleasure, not to procuate. Dolphins have "hobbies", why can't humans. I assume you have a computer because you are posting this, so you are a hyprocrite.

When it is being used for non-survival reasons (I.e. reasons that do not coincide with the family objective: survival). And I don't have an answer for the other questions, unless by agent you mean rotary education.

So, what is your difinition of survival? Living naked, eating raw food, and procuating.

But then you keep forgetting the fact I say "use words to the EXTENT of humans". And I think the evolution of the word and our own evolution are separate.

How?

If two people are focused on the same objective, a simple grunt can suffice for yes or no, or serve as a reminder for something that happened prior. All you need is synergy between two or more people. We are here to survive, and you can understand what my grunt meant because we have the same objective, and it's related to that objective. How do you know? You just know because we have built synergy between us. The evidence you provided is not 100% proof of anything, what I'm saying is 100% true, and my evidence is in the back of everyone's mind who reads this-- you all went to school and learned words through rote education, or from your parents rote-education. That is not natural because it does not come naturally, it is forced into society, and it separates us from the natural world because we are more consumed by the word than we are the world.

 

You know what this means.

What is your point? Then why do humans have free will?

Words and speech are not the same, words are defined, whereas speech can be undefined. Interpretive dance is a good example, as is grunts, I could simply grunt at the correct time to convey a picture that tells a thousand words. We could create speech that was only understood by a family, like with certain tribes. The point of the matter is that we use words to an extent greater than any other known being. And I'll repeat one more time, speech may be part of our evolution, but the reason you speak using words is because of rote education. If we cut out education, there would be no words, but speech would remain. I remember the film Jurassic Park when the Rapters talked to each other using high pitched sounds, and that's the type of speech I think you're suggesting we evolved to have.

 

Other animals kill things with their teeth, and live happily. Your opinion is, again, egotistical. You are obsessed with the human ego, you love the fake character you put on and you love to upper-converge. You like human reality, and I don't think your opinion is just when we are comparing the natural to the unnatural.

I doubt it. I wouldn't be able to talk to you. People would be isolated, and their would be no far cummunication. Speach saves a lot of time. And the way you're preaching, I feel like you are doing everything you are trying to say is wrong. LISTEN TO YOUR EGO!!!

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional. It's stupid to compare it to a giraffes long neck. No tool should be the dominant factor of someone's life, unless you are seeking a profession, a hammer is a dominant part of the blacksmith's life, a word is a dominant part of the word-mammals life; and the tool is too destructive, so much so that in under a thousand years the Earth will be a desolate wasteland, or at least too unhealthy to live in stability. We cease to be natural when we start using words, a tool which we let dictate our lives. It is not part of our evolution, it's something teachers invented and taught through rote-education to the populous. Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young, or in school, but our parents were educated, so the source is education. Why do we let education dominate our lives instead of the purest natural world with a natural untouched mind? Animals bark, or grunt, or send messages that relate to prey, food, or things which are important for survival. A human can, and will, become obese, waste lots, and many other stupidities, primarily because of civilization, and the word and what it allows us to accomplish. Do we really accomplish anything if the accomplishment kills us? I don't think so. You are unwise to think the word is not deadly, you are too lost in pseudo-science to care about the world falling apart around you because of the education you support-- so highly.

Yes, and this thread is fictional. We are in this reality. Take it and be productive, or go naked in the middle of nowhere and I want to see how happy you will be.

It's not only unnatural, it's also anti-nature with waste output. We only waste as much as we do because we adapted so much with the word. I imagine it was dragged along by the rich and people were educated stupid to be social androids who hold the word, and education, in high regard. We don't have the resource to live in this luxury, and it's unfair to enslave humans under the enmity between the rich and the poor just to satisfy wants. You're wrong by thinking words are part of the self, and that it's natural to use them, because I'm sure they have to be forced through human effort into the mind-- it does not come from thin air, and it began at some point, it hasn't been around since the beginning of time. I assert that your idea of a high-intelligence is diminished by your love for the word and egotistical hate for the natural world.

Lightning that burns down trees is anti-nature, all the oil is anti-nature. You froget that everything gets recycled eventully.

To begin I would like to announce that I do not believe in God, but I believe that Nature is more significant than myself, and I worship our bond. I am all the small things, I prefer to be alone, I tend to associate with one or maybe to people; I like to see how things interrelate, and often find cool representations like fire, it's effects, being related to anger and it's effects. Did humans inherit what relatives left behind? Can I be angry because fire is possible, do these two states connect? Reality, to me, is evil-- if I had my way a lot of things would change; for instance, I would be kinder to nature and prioritise it; being wise, I don't want future humanity to perish due to global pollution. Everything in our world created by us is unnatural (i.e. not created by nature); these inventions are not only different to nature, but they are against nature-- in the light of humans being greater. Most unnatural things plunder nature and harm the environment either by waste or poison (and a lot more I'm sure). Are humans progressing in a different direction to nature, and could we be more natural for our own prosperity? If this is the case, then I would like to assert that the entirety of nature existent is one thing and life is experience orientated, a part of the meta-consciousness that is nature. Where nature comes first, there should be no unnatural. Humans are egotistical to deny their natural roots, and the respect it deserves, and continue to build an unnatural world, that kills them. Are humans educated stupid? Are humans evil (in accordance to what is wise)?

Humans by that difinition are evil.

I'm passionate about nature, not angry, but my dedication to voice relatively similar concepts can make me come across as angry, or wrathful. The difference between human reality and natural reality is great; if we were like other animals, if we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality, nature would have been at optimal health, and we would have been in the perfect conditions for our own evolution. Because we don't hunt like other mammals, we don't have the capacity to evolve in special ways-- we halt our evolution with our less natural lifestyles. What is evolution to somebody? Why would we value evolution? Is it through what we could become, or is it just a insignificant natural process? What I'm suggesting is that there is a life long lost with the presence of human reality. The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living.

Basically what I think you are saying is learning is unnatural, as I understand it. And you dissagree with free will, and want no truck with it...

Regards,

Lightmeow

What are the rules for paraphrasing?

Probably not... Unless you have someone rage quit and hit a person when they throw their council out their window.

But serously, no. There have been many studies, and the results have basically all been biased. Hey, playing GTA encourages violence, but that doesn't mean that I am going to go out and do anything...

Deadmau5:Ghosts and Stuff

I used to not like deadmau5, but now I love him. His At Play albums are very easy to mix

To our state, we are the most stable. If there are multiple universes, there could be a universe with only 3 dimensions without time. Not stable for a human to travel to.

Now with the Multiverse, one of the paradoxes is that there could be a multiverse were any physics could be possible. Think of that. Thats what I mean by it is stable by our standards. They might have something different than our gravity, or their particles would interact differently with the world. Then you get into the multiverses that have 4 spacial dimensions, + 1 time, and that's were things get all screwy. Just think of how crazy that is!!! Still, to stable.

I know that if universes collide, they might be reborn as a bigger one, but I don't know that a universe would survive a collision.

I think that you are not thinking about it right. Time, as we know is relative. Because of that fact, we can assume that time does not pass the same for everything. Have you ever thought that our universe is just a cell in a massive body? But how long does the cell last? We know that some don't last long at all, but do you think the cell knows how long it lasted relative to us. That's were it gets cool. Maybe universes are colliding, but because our time span is so short relative to the universe as a whole, we don't notice it, because we don't live long enough. And your second question in the second paragraph is answered by the above.

And for your last point, I can neither confirm nor deny what you said. I don't really know a lot about virtual particles. More research for me...

HA HA HA!!! So Ironic!!!

And My cat meme of the day.

Peoples, we know hes trolling now.

That last comment, oh, the insanity!!!

You have no evidence against it and the mainstream scientific models are fake and have no evidence give me 1 piece of evidence for spacetime.

Hey dum-dum, I gave you some a while ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Yeah, except the lightning strike occurs for a few millionths of a second and we don't really know where exactly it is going to strike... so it'd be a tad hard! Hence Swansont's "just not practical".

 

- Perhaps a satellite to focus on an area of positive/negative Ions, condensed. Maybe with this we could "estimate" Lightning strikes however, being able to filter all the Amps and vaults and being able to "catch" the strike would be almost impossible. Luck and filters. That is the closest you would get. . .

Just my thoughts, soon, maybe someone will prove us wrong.

In my opinion, we couldn't do it. Like someone said, light is totally random. Due to that fact, it would be totally cool if you had a satellite, but, you said it yourself. It is random. So, you would have to have lightning collection centers everywhere. Then, there is the problem of catching the strike. Lightning has about at the least 10,000 amps, which for all purposes, is an insane amount, to be safe, about 700 times the amount of energy of a house socket(which is about 15 amps). But the amount of amps could go up to 200,000 amps. You would need a lot of resistance to slow that down. And resistance is essentially friction, and with friction, you loose energy, so by the time you could use the energy, there wouldn't be a lot to use.