DanTrentfield

Suppose you are faced with the following decision: You are forced to choose between one of two people to die tomorrow through complete incident: Your spouse, or a person all the way across the world that you have not met and will never meet. What is wise? To choose your wife to die? or to choose a person of unknown potential, unknown intellect, who will accomplish unknown things in his lifetime? There is no right or wrong answer as you do not know what your spouse will do, much the same as you do not know what the person that you do not know will do. The only thing you can do to find a wise path is to remove yourself from the situation wholly and consider all sides. Wisdom does not benefit anyone, it is not self seeking nor charitable, it is not pointed towards one or more specific goals unless you point it there, it is flowing and calm like a river, which flows to the sea. Wisdom is the ability to remove yourself from yourself to think freely within confines by seeing outside them. -Dan

Apologies, business consumes my time. Dyson Spheres? Well.... Fermi may have been right. Let's just hope Klingons don't show up now, or worse, the Borg. Also, if we have proof of Dyson spheres does that finally mean that we have concrete proof that structures on the scale of the Death Star are possible? And if so can I get a quote on the cost? How about insurance and a parking spot?

In a way, games are like universes: Rules affect outcomes, outcomes determine what is and isn't, there is matter, there is energy. So it shouldn't be surprising that our 'reality' as you put it, resembles a game. If you support the theory of parallel universes, there is a universe that is exactly the same as any given game you can think of. Therefore Skyrim exists as a parallel universe, as does Final Fantasy 7, and even Mario. Even if the theory of parallel universes is indeed true, the likelihood of existing in one of these parallel universes is equal to one in infinity, however one in infinity is still one out of a number.

The exact same reason why you question it: Why?

What is the purpose of life? The same question applies to all nations as they too are living beings composed of many living beings, who are in turn composed of many more living beings. The question you should be asking is not what purpose something serves, but what it has accomplished. The United States has put men on the moon, developed a deterrence against massive scale conflict, attempted to provide the world's populace with the ability to choose, and has cured many diseases and helped curb the spread of many incurable ones. I daresay the heat which this nation catches is far too much for what it has accomplished in three hundred short years, it has made invaluable contributions to humanity, and though nothing is without it's cost, the majority of it's populace wants the advancement of science and the arts. Do not forget that to give oneself wholly to fury or prejudice in interest in defeating an enemy is to betray wisdom, as you can no longer see the full nature of your enemy. The best way to defeat an adversary is to remove yourself from the situation through contemplation and then decide what to do. If you are truly enemies of the United States so be it, but do not think that this nation has bought what they have cheaply, and do not think that everything that you hear from another person is true. The only thing that cannot deceive you is yourself.

A question worthy of a thousand books trying to prove either side. The only way to concretely say yes or no is to have a view of the entire universe, and unless you happen to be capable of "Leaving Hotel California" (The universe), I am afraid that there is no answer that is true or false except one: Perhaps it is, Perhaps it isn't.

Whoops. Wow. Forgot the link. Damn I am busy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure

To begin this page here is a quote from an article on Wikipedia I was reading a moment ago: "Magnetic pressure is an energy density associated with a magnetic field. Any magnetic field has an associated magnetic pressure contained by the boundary conditions on the field. It is identical to any other physical pressure except that it is carried by the magnetic field rather than (in the case of a gas) by the kinetic energy of gas molecules. A gradient in field strength causes a force due to the magnetic pressure gradient called the magnetic pressure force." So in magnetic pressure being identical to physical pressure except in being carried by a magnetic field rather than the kinetic energy of gas molecules, I raise the question is it possible to generate electricity from magnetic pressure exerted on a magnetic field? This question is rather above my knowledge of magnetism so I leave the speculation to those whom know what they are talking about.

So I was reading my Hubble feed this morning over some eggs and sausage when I stumbled across an article about a possible failed supernova in NGC 6946, where the star brightened considerably, but not enough to be classified as a supernova, and after this event it's infared output lessened considerably as well so it could not have simply remained a star hidden behind the dust cloud it created. This star specifically is N6946-BH1, and I find it rather interesting that it may be a black hole even though the star did not go supernova, and I think this could redefine a large section of research on the nature of black holes. I for one think that a new type of celestial body was formed as a result of the event, one which we have not seen before, as we have never witnessed this kind of event before. I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. I think that this is relative possibility based upon a few basic points: The star did not go supernova completely, which means that it is less likely than most cases of supernovae that a black hole was formed; The infared emissions are too low for it to be a dwarf star (Unless it became a black dwarf); And the infared emissions are too low for it to have retained most of it's mass and or sustained significant nuclear fusion; and to back up this thought these particular objects would be very hard to detect unless they were orbiting stars, and then they would be easy to mistake for planets, and they would not produce gravitational lensing on the same scale as black holes as they would have neither the density or mass of one, making them harder to spot. This is in no way a claim I am making, this post is simply food for thought and this is my thought, Feed your brain and share your thought below.

Gah. You're right. fine. nevermind.

Ok, simplify it, How could you store light without converting to to chemical, kinetic, or potential energy? Otherwise we just have a flashlight again. If light doesnt degrade, can be used as a power source and can even be slowed down and takes up no space so can be stored in infinitely dense concentrations. Why dont they make batteries out of light? Sounds like they have the technology to do it. And I cant imagine cost is a factor, light is free. -OP 'Why don't they make batteries out of light?' That calls into question practicality because batteries are practical ways of storing energy that can be harnessed to do work.

Right, but the question is how can you practically store photons? Why not just build a flashlight? Yes indeed, due to me not reading into that enough I made that mistake. However radiant energy couldn't really be used as a pure power source through conversion to electricity like the OP is suggesting.

In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space carrying electromagnetic radiant energy. Radiant energy cannot be harnessed practically to generate energy. You can build mirrors for days, and you're still melting salt. Photon batteries do not exist, You can store the energy from photons through other means, but photon batteries do not exist.

Well if you're constantly hunted by things which only desire to eat you which you do not have the means to kill, you tend not to think. Hence why so many soldiers just follow their training in battle rather than thinking, and hence the phrase, don't think just shoot.

Circumstance and environment play a large role. If the area has a multitude of natural resources and life is not constantly a case of eat or be eaten, then people begin to question why certain things happen because they actually have time to, and a question is the basis of an answer, and the answer is the basis of knowledge is on the object. Another thing, is like he was discussing, broad focus, because then you learn many things.

Frankly, if Nikolai Tesla thought batteries that could contain light would be impossible or impractical I'm pretty sure that you couldn't prove him wrong. If we had batteries that could generate energy from photons the world would be a very different place. The existence of chemical batteries alone is almost enough to disprove any notion that photons could be stored in a battery that would produce energy. I'm pretty sure one day we will be able to trap light, but the ability to generate power from light other than the photovoltaic cell method and or store energy in photons will most likely not exist. To further prove what I say is not merely speculation here is some research: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-do-we-store-solar-and-wind-energy This particular article explains the three ways in which you can store harnessable energy: Chemical, Kinetic, and Potential. Photons do not have potential energy that is harnessable, they do not have chemical energy, and they do not have kinetic energy otherwise we would just be building photon sailing ships instead of using rocket engines in orbit. Also, do not confuse solar sailing ships with photon sailing, as solar sailing uses radiation pressure not merely photons, Wikipedia article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail As such, if there was a way to use photons to store energy I'm pretty sure we would be using it by now. While this does not concretely rule out the possibility, the probability of something like this being practical in any way shape or form is doubtful.

One flaw: You assume energy cannot do work. Energy can do work, and Therefore gravity can be energy and still do work. But at the same time gravity is a result of the curvature of space, because mass distorts space and creates gravity wells, so it is hard to say if it is a force or an energy.

You make one huge assumption: Humans are perfect at measuring. You make another huge assumption: Scientists in the in eras when there was nothing to drink but beer weren't drunk (Or at least tipsy) when they measured. Finally I want to say this, Constants are very well defined and tested hundreds of thousands if not millions of times over the course of centuries, While in some cases things in science may be wrong, constants are almost always right because of the sheer amount of things they are used for, because they are constantly measured and tested.

Of course all things considered I am barely halfway through college and struggling at best having changed my major several times. So of course I am prone to botch things. However isn't the statement: "Something is zero" equally hard to prove as "Something is infinite"? Even so I concede my point and am now firmly convinced photons are massless. It is simply strange. However there are far stranger things in the universe.

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist so I still think that photons have some form of mass albeit unmeasurably small, however you might as well say they are massless. Question is is there any way to prove photons have a miniscule amount of mass, Perhaps a stream of condensed photons that impacts a silicon wafer nanometers across in a magnetic bowl (Antimatter trap)? If it moves more than a control object being put through the same experiment without the stream of photons then it would be provable through thousands of more tests that photons have miniscule amounts of mass? I personally think they do have a miniscule amount of mass as something without mass shouldn't really exist. However I could be wrong...

Godd****t I forgot photons are massless. I seem to remember reading that they had a mass that was incredibly near to zero but not actually zero. Ugh

I dun goofed.

While normally I would never post something regarding a moderator note as criticism of said notes is strictly against the rules. I would like to spread the words of wisdom of Leonardo Da Vinci: "Where there is shouting there is no knowledge".

To point out an interesting thing I noticed, a study was conducted and published as a broadcast on TEDx that noticed that human DNA contains information that determines sexual orientation regardless of sex, and seeing as that is a cornerstone of personality and etiquette, I wonder if personality itself is determined by that as well. Also, I digress with Mr. Darwin simply because I do not see enough evidence behind many of his studies, though I do concur with the general theory of adaptation, albeit at a much faster rate than he predicted, because if you've noticed how personal adaptation affects the next generation of humans in terms of intelligence, interests, and sometimes even skills, it is very likely that political and religious views could be hypothetically passed down from parents to children. Like the old saying goes: "Like father, like son."

I'd like to add that it also facilitates an air of morality and calculated risk that our society today is built upon, so while it should not be forced upon anyone it is a pillar of contemplative thought and has led to more than a few important discoveries being preserved by medieval monasteries. Without religion we would see a completely different ethics system take over that facilitates the slaughter of human beings by governments for whatever purpose, and the human being would soon lose value because of the sheer number of them, leading to regression into baser cannabilistic-like practices of sacrifice for nothing at all. Such was the case of the Incas, though they had a religion, it viewed the Emperor of it as a god (Unless I am mistaken) which led to a society of shambling zombies that cannot think for themselves. In conclusion though it can be a great nuisance religion does happen to serve a purpose in modern society as a facet of culture, a by-product of progress, and a source of ethics.