TJ McCaustland

Well for me I still hate the work because it's elaborate drudgery, but the point is to find music that gives you the strongest work ethic. (BTW Thanks to efmotat, thats some funky music, and fiveworlds, thats some epic stuff.)

Thanks

Ok thats just drop dead hilarious. LOL

Any objections?

Well seeing that it is rather safe to do basic chemistry so long as you know exactly what you're doing, unless you're using hazardous materials (Powerful acids, toxic gases etc.), or charging these superconductors with enough electricity to produce super-heated plasma arcs by exposing oxygen to millions of volts you should be safe using a kitchen setup so long as you use a power source that can be remotely turned off in case of emergency (Battery, not wall outlet) then you should be fine. And so long as you don't do anything stupid (Supercharging the things) this is in compliance with the hazardous materiel guidelines, which means you're free from insurance concerns so long as you use caution, If anything does happen use Material Safety Data Sheets MSDSonline.com.

Hrmmmm...... Good thing I have a chromebook, It can't download stuff so I can view any page with no risk LOL

It's not too old, it's from 08. so not that long ago. But thanks

Music, some of us like to listen to dubstep, others classical. The question I am presenting here is which is the most motivating. We know that music causes, as everything else, chemical reactions in the brain. But using applied neuro-chemistry, and basic observation, not to mention listening to it yourself, which is most motivating (3 SA's due for school, I need some motivation because personally, when I have that much dull typing on book analysis SA's I need motivation or I feel like crap and reallly want to break out Kerbal space program).

Hey bit of a problem today guys . My old laptop fell off my desk earlier this morning and the LCD cracked, anything I can do to fix it?

Why did I say the former, Sorry *Brainfart* It seems I cannot remember how to do basic density calculations today, or haven't had enough coffee..... After all to each his own.

Ok look this is lost cause and I gave up and reformed this hypothesis, I bent it and shaped it to not defy the laws of physics. This was the result of a late night with too many root beers, and too many videogame hours, it was a wild thought. BTW, I do actually know what I'm doing for the most part, but do need correction on some things, This I thank you for. Thank you. This is, as elfmotat said, a bunch of word salad, and a wild hypothesis at best.

One particular explanation for the creation of the universe could possibly be because of nothing itself, because nothingness cannot exist, there is always something, whether it be energy, matter, or even space itself, is up to you, a universe of nothing cannot exist itself.

That was what I was trying to convey but a sphere is much harder to work with IRL

Ok so a physicist walks into a drug store (1960's era) and orders a soda. And at some point in his order the boy taking it asks what he does for a living, and he says "Well i'm a physicist" and so the boy says "Oh so you're a physisisisist," and he says yes, so the boy then asks him "OK Mr. phyisisisist wanna physisisisy soda?"

First of all, mass produce ABMs, they will save our donkeys, then ramp up deuterium oxide, and lithium 6 and 7, high yield explosive, and fissile material production, then throw it all together to make nuclear salad, and launch em at all countries not bowing to our superiority. in weaponry anyway (Not to be overly nationalist or racist.) well not racist at all. Note to anybody concerned, I did not explain how to make the nukes of course

Time is relative, that relativity changes how we perceive it. Time here on earth is often thought of as a very limited resource, and that in many ways in our lives is correct, but if you look at the big picture, it changes, bends, and flexes, all due to physical reality. So if you take a very precise clock (This was used with an atomic clock) and you put it on a jet and fly it around the world, and compare it's time to time to another atomic clock on the ground, the clock that was flown will be ahead several seconds. This phenomena is known as time dilation, and if you take a very large star and you fly around it at high speeds (Just under escape velocity) you find that time "moves" faster. Now time in physical reality should be thought of as a liquid on a sphere that we all float on, the higher up you are the slower you move, and the lower you are the faster you move. This is due to the fact that time is affected by gravity and speed, Men in jets, or men that are deeper in the liquid will move faster (Only slightly) than the rest. and men in orbit around a black hole would move MUCH faster than anyone else because they are moving at speeds near the speed of light. They are VERY deep in the liquid. So do not think of time as something to be perceived but something to be measured. And if you think about it at all do not think about it like so many other people, it is not a straight line with only so many possible outcomes, but think of it as a wibbly, wobbly ball of varying outcomes that eventually loops upon itself. Quote Dr. Who, The 12th doctor (After all everybody hates a plagiarist.)

Space is quite indeed infinite, just as time is, one point of evidence it that if you take a piece of tracing paper put dots on it, and then take another piece of tracing paper and put dots in similar places but farther away to represent expansion, and you move one point over another point, that point becomes the center of reference, so in all reality if this is applied to the universe all points are the center, which is a clear statement of infinity. Do Not think of time as a straight line, it is a wibbly wobbly ball of interconnecting strings that is infinite. The 12th Doctor (Dr. Who)

This all depends on the distribution of molecules, if the molecules are farther apart than water's then it will float, but this must be in proportion to it's weight and density. However all of this depends on how far away the molecules of the liquid are, too far and hardly anything will float. But this all must come after it's surface area, not enough and enough density and it will not float.

The only problem I find with this, if it were to be applied to full sized atoms, or larger compounds, is that in order to achieve teleportation is that you would need an amount of antimatter in proportion with the amount of matter. I mean you might be able to split basic hydrogen bonds with ultra-high energy gamma radiation to convert a small amount of matter into energy, but the thing is that would only split single layer bonds, and you would still be left with a tiny amount of energy and many more basic chemical elements. So unless 24th century technology is able to create large amounts of antimatter then the very idea of teleportation will be impractical until we are able to master the art of bending space, thus allowing us to get from point A, to point B, via the fold at point C. This is in order to transport actual living objects of course, because if your energy from matter-energy conversion did not follow you you might not actually be you, if you know what I mean, because your consciousness might actually cease to exist, and like dying, nobody would ever know what happens afterward to your consciousness.

Well for one doesn't Steven Hawking's theory state that the universe was created as a result of a black hole explosion? Because if it does that means that this particular part of the theory has a much better chance of being correct. Ughhhh..... Dark energy not dark Matter Soooo many mistakes in editing...

Ok well thank you I knew that already but I wanted to leave the topic open for discussion as well as the application of different circumstances You see, sometimes the essence of science is not merely cold hard fact but discussing that fact with others.

Hey, just had a question for the physics community. Are natural nuclear reactors possible? would it be possible for a natural uranium-235 deposit to be introduced to a neutron emission somehow, and it to begin a fission reaction?

BTW if this ever gets off the ground and turns into a theory I will credit all of you because you help to formulate the theory by pointing out stuff. So thanks. And since current Quantum mechanics is a little.... sparse to say. I do simply assume certain things. That's why this in speculation and not quantum physics. This is where every theory should start, and eventually graduate to quantum mechanics when its ready. BTW if you think this is bad check out the McCaustland theory, my biggest mistake. That thing was a result of a late night with too much root beer, and probably too many videogame hours, which caused my brain to spasm out like a fish on land.... Well this speculation should graduate to quantum mechanics eventually, not every theory. Speculation Not theory

Well thanks for taking the time to read my wild hypothesis, and please continue to poke holes in it, it's required for each hypothesis to grow into a theory. Just to make a point, with all of this taken into consideration I would be applying very special circumstances to many of these points.

Hello, I would like to apologize to everyone who read the "McCaustland Theory" it was poorly explained, and very unorganized. This is my second attempt to explain my own personal hypothesis on the universe. First of all I do believe that black holes are actually how the universe first began, this is due to the phenomena known as hawking radiation. This explains why singularities less than a nanometer across dissipate (Correct on measurement if necessary). Now this I believe is due to another still highly hypothetical phenomena I like to call ultra-high velocity ejection. In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity many times the speed of light. This explains hawking radiation, and the big bang. Now it is widely believed that dark matter pushes matter away from matter, and is the reason why the galaxies are speeding away from us rapidly. I personally believe that dark energy dissipates, and when all dark energy dissipates we get another big bang, the reason why? well as I explained earlier hawking radiation causes tiny black holes to dissipate, and therefore I conclude that a similar thing happens with extremely large ones. Now think back to the dark energy speculation, gravity would take over right? well all that matter would come to form a gigantic black hole with nothing stopping gravity, and the hawking radiation from that, not to mention the ultra-high-velocity ejection hypothesis would cause it to explode after receding to become incredibly small mass. a supernova on ultra steroids basically this would also theoretically create more dark energy. If you would bear with me, this also explains revelation, how the world is recreated. Please, do not for any reason jump onto the anti-Religion bandwagon, I understand, and respect that we all have our own beliefs, please do the same. TJ McCaustland P.S. Think of light like a barrier, once it's hit it gets pushed backwards, not simply a speed limit to be obeyed.