Ten oz

Sure you can add one to the speed of light but the number would be a fictitious one as it isn't possible. Knowledge references real things right?

Good post!There is difference between "impossible to measure or calculate" and the mathematical meanings of "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"; "able to be continued indefinitely". I feel like this discussion has treated it all the same. As humans we are finite. Both in numbers and mortality. Knowledge is a human concept which in my opinion makes it as finite as we are. While it is true that knowledge is beyond our ability to measure or calculate; it is also true that we don't have all the variables. We can not account for future knowledge. It is not provably because it is greater than any assignable number or continues indefinitely. The math example posters are using of 1 + 1 = 2 and that repeats indefinitely doesnt work in my opinion. How do we know it continues forever? Just as speed has an upper limit perhaps numbers do as well? Again, not having the information to assign or measure doesn't automatically equal infinity.

So there only needs to be a benefit to an action. Intelligence and curiosity are not necessary for exploration or rather dramatically expanding ones habitat? That I am aware of there are no birds which fly higher and higher. All life on earth has evolved per earth's characteristics though. Another planet may have useful chemicals or mineral in its upper atomesohere that provides life there a reason to fly ever higher? What if another planet had life but then lost it atomesohere. Life there then survived moving underground. Like fish once took short forays on to land to grab resources this underground life may have done the same. Short forays above ground subjected to no atomesohere conditions. Could they have then evolved the ability to move off world? If there planet had moons and large debris rings containing resources.

I think most truly religious, or rather humblely religious, people already see it as sinful. In my opinion the problem is that many people who claim to be religious do so as a form of culture expression. Their true faith is to the way of life they are accustomed. Race, language, economis, politics, and so on playing a larger role than any written scriptures. Asking people to change cultural things like driving less and using public transportation more somehow gets twisted into challanges of faith. It is bizarre.

High intelligence give us high curiosity? Very interesting statement. The more I think about it the less clear I become that high, intelligence, or curiosity really even exist outside of human perception. Did high levels of curiosity drive the first amphibious creatures to evolve? Surely dry land was foriegn to those creatures as space may seem to us? A fish out of water dies. They can't breathe air and even if they could navigating would not be possible. Yet they left the ocean all ths same. Developed lungs and muscles to manipulate their fins. It may sound like science fiction but much like fish left the ocean could life naturally evolve to leave a planet? Perhaps if the planet had a ring of resource rich material? Like birds driving under the water for fish or like seals who evolved thick fat deposits to handle the cold could life on another planet have evolved to burst out into orbit to collect ferrous metals or what not then return back to their planet? Perhaps these questions seem silly. Your post just got me thinking for a moment.

In my opinion intelligence is not something we can easily define in a way that allows it to broadly apply throughout the universe. Finding life similar to our own would be easiest but we have no way of calculating if it would be the most likely. As to your question about insects attaining technology; they do problem solve and many colony insects build structures. Is a Beehive a technology achievement? What about honey. Is honey proof or a form of insect agriculture/farming? "University of Sydney have shown that the humble ant is not only capable of solving difficult mathematical problems, but is even able to do what few computer algorithms can - adapt the optimal solution to fit a changing problem." http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=6165

Lets apply proportionality to your example. Hamas does not pose a threat to all the world. Hamas isn't killing millions of people all over the world. Hamas isn't more or as militarily powerful as its enemies. Even to that; war stopped when the Germany surrendered. Germany was allowed a seat back at the table and today is again a powerful country. Whom in Gaza would Israel like to wave a white flag? Which Hamas "leader" can end this by executive order? After that shall Palistine be a soveriegn state with its own military and a seat on UN counsels?

I am not sure what would qualify as "witnessed god" but I know and have known many people who claim a variety of supernatural impressions or interactions that they insist are proof of God. I don't waste my time asking them anything.

False Dichotomy - The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced. Hamas is a terror organization. They are grade A bad guys. I am not arguing otherwise. However everyone being killed are not members of Hamas and regardless of Hamas' call for the destruction of Israel they lack the fire power to destory Israel. Meanwhile Israel has the power to destory Gaza when ever they are ready. Israel is in a superior position of power regardless of how evil Hamas is. This whole debate is like a use of force police video where an unarmed criminal, who has been cornered after commiting a crime, gets beat senseless by well equipped police officers; they taser him, pepper spray, hits him with night sticks, but still the criminal crawls and says obscenities so the beating continues. The whole time the several small children stand just off to the side watching in horror. If only the criminal would stop resisting via empty obscenities and weak physical movements the police could stop pounding him into the dirt? Why won't the criminal just stop. Israel is killing Palistinians at a rate of something like 20 to 1 or better. To imply they aren't being allowed to defend themselves is an exaggeration. I agree the world community, NATO specifically, should be more directly involved but Israel ignoring U.N. cease fires and blowing up U.N. facilities in Gaza makes it difficult. Yes, Hamas acted first and Israel was responding. Hamas is a terror organization seeking to instigate violence, of course they acted first. Of course they ignore cease fires. Israel, in my opinion, needs to stop following them down that rabbit whole. Hamas as an organization does not have control over its own members the way Israel has control over its military. No one person or counsel of Palistinians can just say stop. The Israel govt can. It is a huge difference.

As I previously posted you are creating a false dichotomy. There is more than one way to respond for bothsides. Saying that Israel is "responding the only way they know how" relieves them of any responsibility to explore anything else. Israel has responded the same way for decades and it hasn't worked. The only way they know how obviously doesn't work. Smart people learn from past mistakes. Pointing out that Hamas are the bad guys here doesn't make Israel's appoarch anymore successful in hindsight. My point about Israel being the adults here is that they are the ones with the stronger international support, stronger military, better educated citizens, better economy, and the most to lose. I rather see the them, Israel, lead than merely respond to a terrorist influence failed state with nothong to lose. Israel could incinerate Gaza tomorrow if they wanted to. They are in a much stronger position here. With great power comes great responsibility right?

@ Barfbag, I don't believe hydrinos is legit thing. I believe they are taking advantage of excited hydrogen electrons loosing photons to move to a ground state. Electrons can either gain or lose energy in the form of photons to change orbits. However a ground state can not be lowered. "Each orbital has a specific energy associated with it. For an electron to be boosted to an orbital with a higher energy, it must overcome the difference in energy between the orbital it is in, and the orbital to which is is going. This means that it must absorb a photon that contains precisely that amount of energy, or take exactly that amount of energy from another particle in a collision. The illustrations on this page are simplified versions of real atoms, of course. Real atoms, even a relatively simple ones like hydrogen, have many different orbitals, and so there are many possible energies with different initial and final states. When an atom is in an excited state, the electron can drop all the way to the ground state in one go, or stop on the way in an intermediate level." "Electrons do not stay in excited states for very long - they soon return to their ground states, emitting a photon with the same energy as the one that was absorbed." http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-atoms.html

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. The only way to deal with Hamas isn't to kill their "human shields". Neither killing Hamas militants or their human shields has proven effective. Sure, Hamas is bad. Hamas has blood on their hands. Hamas are instigators but does that mean Israel should just keep killing? Does that mean Israel only has one option which time and experience says doesn't work? Regardless of who is at fault . Regardless of how terrible or evil Hamas may be it is Israel who is more powerful. Israel has the superior military and international support. That makes Israel the adults here.

45% efficentcy is considered record break for photovoltaic cells. They are not getting 100%. http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/6501/Record-Breaking-Solar-Cell-Approaches-45-Efficiency.aspx They only want light but they are producing heat which is why a heat exchanger is one of the functions they listed as neccessary. Heat is this case is wasted energy. It isn't collected. They are calculating it as part of what they can produce but it isnt useful if it isn't useable. They are using low volt high amp electrodes. Something like 12k Amps and are producing a lot of heat. That is at a millisecond. Replicate that a hundred times back to back and they probably melt the down their whole lab. They have some serious challenges. Nothing wrong with guys trying to develop new sources of energy.

The concept of God has nothing to do with a finite universe. Nothing is equal to infinity basically as time wouldn't apply to it. Nothing is nothing and remains nothing for eternity. Nothing is never converted into something?Energy is not gain or lost but matter can be transformed. To say our universe is finite is to imply our physics and laws are finite. For example if all the matter in our universe were inside a black hole where our laws no longer apply our universe would essentially have ended. It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that nothing exists.

@ Barfbag, from what I have been able to gather Blacklight in only producing millisecond events and then extrapolating out. They use high current at low voltage to produce a millisecond event that they then claim is consistently repeatable over time and the energy from it can be collected at 100%. Photovoltaic cells don't work at even 50% muchless 100% though. As for the heat being produced it takes energy to produce heat and photo cells don't capture heat. My general impression is that they discovered a means of producing a millisecond event that on paper appears to be producing more energy than it takes to create. Problem they are having is that there is not a 100% efficient way to collect that energy, it takes a lot of power to create that event, and they haven't figured out how to keep it going for any truly testable or useable amount of time.

Below are quotes from what I think is a decent article regarding Blacklight Power: "One ten-thousandth of a liter of water produces millions of watts of power. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Oh, but wait... how do we measure energy density of a substance? Joules per liter, or something equivalent - that is, energy per volume. But Blacklight is quoting energy density as watts per liter. The joule is a unit of energy. Watts are a different unit, a measure of power, A watt is one joule/second." "Gasoline contains, on average, about 11.8 kWh/kg. A milliliter of gasoline weighs about 7/10ths of a gram, compared to the 1 gram weight of a milliter of water; therefore, a kilogram of gasoline should contain around 1400 milliliters. So, let's take 11.8kWh/kg, and convert that to an equivalent measure of energy per milliter: about 8 1/2 kWh/milliliter. How does that compare to hydrinos? Oh, wait... we can't convert those, now can we? Because they're using power density. And the power density of a substance depends not just on how much power you can extract, but how long it takes to extract it." "Here's my guess. Mills has some process where he spikes his generator with 12000 amps, and gets a microsecond burst of energy out. If you can produce 100 joules from one milliliter in 1/1000th of a second, that's a power density of 100,000 joules per milliliter. Suddenly, the amount of power that's being generated isn't so huge - and there, I would guess, is the key to Mills latest scam. If you're hitting your generating apparatus with 12,000 amperes of electric current, and you're producing microsecond burst of energy, it's going to be very easy to produce that energy by consuming something in the apparatus, without that consumption being obvious to an observer who isn't allowed to independently examine the apparatus in detail." http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2014/01/14/the-latest-update-in-the-hydrino-saga/

I am not sure I understand the question? We impacted them in terms of possibly causing them to go extinct but I don't think that is what you mean.

@ Barfbag, I enjoy your perspective. You see things from a different point of view. Your post can be useful to certian discussions and are normally entertaining to read. However you tend to be hyper defensive and a bit combative at times. Needlessly at times. Over half of the OP was a defensive justification for who and what this thread is about. It makes it hard to follow and harder feel objective about. Rather than open the thread writing to the site moderators why not just say, " This guy Randell Mils has this theory about energy. What do you all think"? For me that would've made this conversation much easier. As for the energy, I am with Swansont. Easiest way to test that a power source works is to run it under load.

What religion should do or how it has been misinterpreted doesn't speak to the unseen benefits you opened this thread with. Are you saying that under the right circumstances there could be benefits or that there currently are benefits?

"Pristine society", the major religions on the world today are misogynistic, violent, and intolerant in nature. Buddhism is the lone exception amongst the various religions practiced by millions. Religion has caused wars. People kill themselves and others in the name of religion. Religion like race creates classifications that seperate and divide people. Many religious texts are full of contradictions and hypocrisy. Many who believe in them train themselves to see what they want to see in them. Ignore the text as written in replace of there own interpretation. It hurts both their reading comprehension and integrity. In Buddhism perhaps... It teaches people that the truth behind things is basically magic. No need for science. No need to learn. God will provide. If you are hungry just pray. If there is a draught just dance. It is nonsense and has lead to the death of billions throughout time.

Here in the good old U S of A the majority of people have someone else do their taxes. So clearly people dont know something. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/09/tax_season_2013_most_americans_won_t_do_their_own_taxes_will_pay_professional.html

Why would anyone other than you be responsible to explain what you meant? Only you know the full motivation and context of your own posts. Egyt and Syria have been in civil wars last few years. Not sure that would be a move worth making if the goal is to improve ones safety. Historically people tend to stay and fight for the place they consider home rather than flee. Egyt and Syria both rumble over the area in the 1800's. When Egyt and Syria figure their internal issues out perhaps they will be part of peace talks.

Israel knows they can never fully be beyond this issue. Hamas is founded by other countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egyt, etc. It doesn't matter how many Palestinians Israel kills more will come. Imagine if in your Englad/Ireland example the IRA was financed by France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. *Founded by should read Funded by.

You are treating humans in realtime the same way we treat all other animals and history as a whole. I think most people will have trouble with this but I agree that it is fair. When looking at the past we seldom make judgements about what people did based on right vs wrong. We don't debate the morality of our ancestors migrating north from Africa and displacing the Neanderthals for example. Just as we don't attach any negative labels to a male Lion who displaces other male Lions. We just consider it natural behavior. Surely the lions or neanderthals being displaced in realtime feel/felt differently. Only time and the survival of humanity will tell right from wrong. In realtime splitting the atom seemed like a miraculous discovery. If nuclear war extincts us perhaps it will have been the worst thing we humans ever did.

You mean like earthquakes, lightening, eclipses, and tsunamis?