Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Posts

    337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. I think most people agree:

    • There's no doubt exercise relating to chi heats you up.
    • Neither is there doubt exercise not-relating to chi heats you up.
    • There's no doubt you can transfer thermal energy via conduction.

     

    Its not impossible that you can control blood flow, metabolic rate, and even maybe electric charge in the body using conscious thought.

     

    The question is there something else to chi beyond heat and charge that we don't know yet. Or is there something about heat and charge that medicine hasn't yet discovered?

     

    Seeing something you don't understand is not proof that "special physics" exists.

  2. Before you starting building anything :), just a few thoughts:

    profile.jpg

     

     

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html

  3. Ok so the sum is the same, but the larger the region, the more likely a large fluctuation will appear somewhere?

     

    Are energy fluctations either positive or negative, or are they multi dimensional?

     

    Do positive fluctuations ever "materialise" into something permanent or non-virtual?

     

    What happens in the negative locations? Anti-energy?

  4. Will time ever end?

     

    If the universe continues to expand and entropy, will it ever reach a state where it can "decay" no further. A moment when no further change can happen. When everything has cooled to absolute zero. When all particles have decayed to sub-particles that do not experience time. Where space has expanded so much that there is no other particle within every particle's future event horizon?

     

    How does expansion and entropy fit with laws of conservation of energy? Does the Universe have an absolute Energy value?

     

    Can time spontaneously begin after it has stopped?

  5. 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.

  6. 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."

  7. 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.

  8. It will always be the same distance however far you walk.

    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.

     

    What's the difference?

     

    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.

  9. 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.

  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. 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?

  13. 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.

×
×
  • 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.