Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Posts

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon This looks like its got trigonmetry stuff you need
  2. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77604-reduce-ph-of-water-using-hydrochloric-acid/ This might help, just substitute in your numbers. You might need to find the Molarity of your Nitric solution.
  3. Doubtful on radiowaves. This is biological evolution. It requires that radiowaves need to have been around for millions of years to give biology a chance to exploit it. On the other hand, free electrons is what these bacterium are "feeding" on. I guess there are many kinds of natural rocks, perhaps metallic in nature that can provide such an environment. You might be able to make any old metal stick antenna that will receives radiowaves that will then transform the EM wave into a free electrons in the antenna. Stick your antenna in a soup of electric-feeding bacteria, and then control the behaviour of bacteria via the radiowave somehow. That's not to say you cant get a primordial soup of complex molecules, and semi DNA strands and some simple bacterium, subject it to high energy radiowaves, and let nature run it course. Maybe something will form that will exploit the energy in the radiowaves directly.
  4. I'm not a chemist or anyone with knowhow. A few of my thoughts: Isn't HCL dangerous and toxic, especially if your product is for consumption or entry into the food chain? You don't have much neutralising to do, isn't something like acetic acid (vinegar) safer to use? The minimal amount by volume is dependent on the concentration of your acid and the PH for that concentration. So surely you can discount HCL 0.1M in favour of HCL 0.5M? When you measured it by hand, did it not occur to you to note down how much you put in, so you would at least have a ball figure to work with on the next dilution? EDIT: Apparently HCL is safe according to SCOGS http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260426.htm "There is no evidence in the available information on hydrochloric acid that demonstrates or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect a hazard to the public when it is used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future."
  5. Around 2 years ago, I recall someone mentioning they successfully cultivated bacteria that fed directly off electricity. Its pretty mainstream these days. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160613-there-are-microbes-that-eat-and-poo-nothing-but-electricity https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160621-electron-eating-microbes-found-in-odd-places/ That's not the same as bacteria being able to sense electricity, though its quite possible. They certainly react to it. Sensory or reactionary capability is a step towards communication.
  6. You dont need to walk anywhere, just arch your back until the RED LINE is vertical, and hold your arms above your head. Or just swing the carrot until you can grab it. I'm going to get this wrong but here's my go: The Hubble limit is our particle horizon or "observable" universe. Its actually not calculated by the distance to the furthest object we can see, but how far a photon emitted from us could have travelled. This is all based on the history of the universe since t=0 Things beyond the observable universe can be moving away at superluminal velocity, but we might be able to observe them one day if the scale factor decreases. The future event horizon is much larger, its is a prediction based on the evolution of scale factor of expansion, from now until the end of time. It is the limit beyond which will never influence us, because they will always stay ahead of a photon emitted from us today. I guess this assumes that expansion will never flip into contraction.
  7. I was just making a general comment. There's a lot of ways of symmetry. Inside out, upside down, leftside right, frontside back, firstone last, clockwise anticlockwise etc An anti-universe doesn't necessarily need to be opposingly symmeterical in all these aspects, but it certainly does need to be symmetrical in at least one. Being symmetrical in one measure, say distance anti-distance, is enough to make it "not of this universe". More than 1 symmetry might lead you back to the original form, via rotations, flips, and inversions.
  8. That stick is too short, or string too long, or carrot too big! The point is the carrot is supposed to be out of reach?
  9. Don't waste your time with me, I probably wont understand much. But if you can comment on your conclusions or possibilities that would be enlightening.
  10. According to wiki there's 4.6% baryonic matter and 23% dark matter. Assuming gravitational constant G is the same for both types, I would expect baryonic matter (BM) to gather and coalesce around dark matter, rather than vice versa. Unless some time in our past the ratios were reversed, particularly around the early formative periods. I recall reading that the ratios evolve over time. It would seem DM is less susceptible to entropy than BM, unless "weak decay" for DM follow different mechanics.
  11. Does antimatter (that follows normal time and gravity) entirely exclude the possibility of anti-time and anti-gravity? Is it possible that both negative energy solutions to Dirac's equations can co-exist? Just symmetries in different direction. PS I'm not really sure what I'm saying.
  12. If you really believe in this yourself, you should focus on defining this statement. Otherwise it sounds like a reading from a fortune teller.
  13. Would you also not require anti-distance, anti-electromagnetism, anti-singularites etc? How do you reconcile retro-causality with anti-retro-causality? Is this interpretation about Mutuality rather than Causality?
  14. One question that springs to mind is if DM "orbits/swirls/forms halos/gathers/loosely collects" around galaxies, then why might it not swirl around real nebulae, solar systems, stars, planets, asteroids? Or why might it not gather in the middle of galaxies, instead of surrounding it? If it tends to swirl surrounding matter, then would there not be even more swirling around bigger super clusters than small galaxies? Do any observations support this? On the other hand, if it is difficult for it to "gather", why would it gather at all? Would it it not be evenly spread out throughout the universe (rather than "form halos" around galaxies). Collisions alone would not cause it to coalesce, they will just be redirected off into space. Perhaps something akin to brownian motion. Also if DM ever did manage to form into a object of significant size, there's no reason for it ever to fall apart (unless it collides with something)? Is DM affected by the strong and weak fundamental forces, or just gravity?
  15. Right so if i understood just the tiniest bit: decoherence over time from the noisy environment eventually causes superposition of many states to "decay" to just one state. I wonder if the mechanism is through elimination of certain probabilities, or adjusting the global set of states so that fewer states become more probable, and many states become less probable? So when the double slit experimenter sticks his measuring device at the slits, he essentially introduces a large influence on the electron and forces it into pretty much one state/location. But even before then, the electron is gradually decohering due to the environment (probably mostly air molecules, other em radiation). So observation is like: the more something is affected, the fewer states/positions it will likely assume. Or the more something is measured, the more definite it becomes. But if we measure it gently enough (like from the environment - probably not enough to glean anything useful) it might not lose all its states. So like uncertainty, if we measure a location of a particle very gently, we only know a very rough estimate of location, but we don't disturb its momentum as much. I hope I'm making sense.
  16. There was a crowdfunded project for an RnD device called Triton in 2014 from S.Korea. Doubtful it ever worked.
  17. Appreciate the help. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Just this point of observability is bugging me. Seems like it is relative to the object being measured. If its small enough relative to the object being measured it can be ignored. So that kind of contradicts the uncertainty in measuring principle. That's why i was thinking along the lines of degrees of observation, and degrees of superposition, and some continuous (maybe quantisable) scale. And what about the Earths magnetic field? Does that not influence the (moving) electron in such a way as to act as an observer, determine its position or momentum, collapse the wave function, and make it behave like a particle? The two questions are: How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer? How small does an influence need to be to unable to affect an object enough to make it lose superposition (to any degree).
  18. Doesn't that mean "very little" and "negligible" are irrelevant? I thought anything above zero is enough to act as an observer? How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer?
  19. If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness. conversely If a chicken egg, laid by a chicken, hatches into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness. If a goat egg, laid by goat, hatches into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness. Which one makes the most sense?
  20. How is it that the Earth's gravity field or the Earth's magnetic field do not collapse the wave function the moment the electron is emitted from the source? That they are not being measured by humans is supposedly irrelevant? That the electron has an infinitesimally small affect on the Earth's fields and is immeasurable with our technology is also supposedly irrelevant? How does the electron maintain super position when the Earth is in perpetual observation?
  21. I know, i just didn't get Moon's point. What does eggs coming before birds have to do with chickens and chicken eggs? IMO, the adjective describes what comes out, not who it belongs to. A chicken egg hatches into a chicken. A chicken's egg comes from a chicken. If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness. If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness.
  22. Eggs didn't precede amoeba, bacteria, viruses, self replicating molecules.
  23. If an almost-chicken laid an almost-chicken egg, and the mutation happened within the egg after it was laid, but before it hatched. Then it was an almost-chicken egg that turned into a chicken egg >> the chicken egg came first. On the other hand if what was hatched was an almost-chicken that then mutated into a chicken >> the chicken came first.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.