samtheflash82

yeah, im a fan of sagan and michio kaku. seeing him talk and having him sign a book will be cool and once i read the book i'll ponder this some more

how about making the super collider just a means to discover how to make time machines and then actually build one using the collider knowledge in outer space?

what is this thread even about?

I am going to see Michio Kaku talk about his new book, Physics of the Impossible, at a local Borders on thursday. I haven't read the book yet but I plan to buy it at the store. From what i understand, the book is him discussing what technologies that we now consider impossible may be a reality in the future and what may never actually be possible. I don't know if he claims that certain things are impossible but if he does, I may be inclined to disagree. The reason for that is, there is no 100% concrete, indisputable evidence of something being impossible. I'm not sure that I can even imagine how to prove something to be impossible like that without having a Hawking-like Theory of Everything to go by. I don't know, did I skip something in my line of reasoning? Let me know what you think.

there is a fallacy in that equation.

Merged post follows:

for some reason the picture didnt show up so here is a link

Where did the universe come from?

Brooklyn

why not have the brilliant scientist discover some type of higgins particle and subsequently reveal a TOE. that way time travel would work as long as it is possible according to his fictional TOE.

(TOE = theory of everything)

it basically just states, that we can not know for sure right now whether it is expanding or not.

It is possible to curve a bullet and a human can do it. It just doesnt involve kinetic energy. I have seen extremely powerful magnets used to curve bullets. Im not sure if thats what you were asking but it has been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

try that. if you still don't get it, buy a book on the subject.

Can somebody explain to me how kinetic energy can be calculated in an electrical field? Is the kinetic energy that of the charged particles in a current? What are the particles?

i would start by figuring out how to get your egg to be launched as close to 90% as possible. then i would try something in the same design as a breech loading rifle. use some type of explosive component that is sealed under the egg.

Wow, that rhymes...

This thread is about two different explanations of god and the universe and how the two relate. Before you read any further, do some research on Occam's Razor. I have provided a Wiki link. Once you understand that concept, read a little bit about Pascal's Wager. Got all that? Good, let's move on.

Let's first take a look at how Occam's Razor interacts with the creation of the Universe. When we talk about god creating the universe, we make many assumptions. First, and possibly most important is the assumption that a being, deity, force, whatever, created everything. You assume that every single thing (down to subatomic particles) in the universe, a number that might as well be infinite, was brought into existence by this "God". You don't know how or why, but he just did.

Now lets try to find the scenario for the creation of the Universe that uses the least amount of assumptions. According to modern science, the Universe is approximately 15 billion years old. That number is all relative to the speed of light, obviously, but that's besides the point. That's less assuming than the God explanation but I think we can do better. Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead to the conclusion that Time itself is infinite, without a beginning or an end?

Now let's talk about Pascal's Wager. Hopefully you read the Wiki article and understand it. Take Occam's Razor and use it to slice the Pascal's Wager, the outcome of which is based completely on assumption. Wouldn't Occam's Razor disprove Pascal's Wager simply by the fact that by not believing in a God, you are making the simpler, and thus more true conclusion?

but these planes werent standing on the earth. they were in the air, so they werent spinning with the earth at all, right?

the earth was spinning under them.

what is a charge in an electron or proton?

the proton has a positive charge, while the electron has a negative charge.

Is it true that the Earth's magnetic poles switch at some intervals? I really don't understand that.

you can't "make" a positron. it is created in a large hadron collider if i'm not mistaken and it would only exist for an incredibly small period of time.

I see, i have wondered about this topic myself.

mathematics, in a general sense is the study of digits. maybe?

So is it possible to change the charge of a given particle? For example could you change the positive charge of a proton to a negative charge, thus changing it to an electron? I'm not asking if we as humans can do this, i am asking simply if it is possible.

I'm not gonna lie, I like pot. That being said, the only thing that it has helped me do when relating to science, is think of things that sound right but are absolutely impossible to prove. This seems to be one of those things.

whatever, the fact is that it's irrelevant.

the radical sign [math]\sqrt{x}[/math] is a request for the principal square root of [math]x[/math].

Every non-negative real number x has a unique non-negative square root, called the principal square root, which is denoted with a radical symbol as [math]\sqrt{x}[/math], or, using exponent notation, as [math]x^{1/2}[/math]. For example, the principal square root of 9 is 3, denoted [math]\sqrt{9} = 3[/math], because [math]32 = 3 × 3 = 9[/math]. If otherwise unqualified, "the square root" of a number refers to the principal square root: the square root of 2 is approximately 1.4142.

Merged post follows:

Oops. Yes, iNow is right, I meant [math]\sqrt{4} = \pm 2[/math], which is true.

 

Read the Wikipedia page I linked to.

I did, and I quoted it above.

the speed of light is constant. it is always travelling at more or less 670,626,629 mph. the light from your car headlights will not be going any faster than the light from the headlights of a car going 50,000 mph. Of course, due to the doppler effect, the wavelength of your cars light will be shifted either to the red end of the spectrum, or the blue, depending on the position of the observer..

It's clear to me that Cap'n made a simple typo, and intended to show that [math]\sqrt 4 = \pm 2[/math], which is, in fact, QUITE true... and contrary to the assertion made by Max in post #2, which was challenged by me in post #3.

alright, but [math]\sqrt 4 \neq \pm 2[/math]. [math]\sqrt{4}=2[/math] while [math]-\sqrt{4}=-2[/math]. the correct notation that you would need to use if you wanted a positive and negative answer would be [math]\pm\sqrt{4}=\pm2[/math]