brad89

Yeah, but DNA says nothing about how much dedication someone has, the personality of a person (at least as far as we know), and I don't understand what factors other than life expectancy can be determined through processes similar to GATTACA.

How much information could really be determined from someones DNA? I saw GATTACA and wondered if such discrimination was possible. The genetically perfect people didn't seem to lack anything the faith births lacked, and besides life expectancy, what possible factors could go into employment through DNA testing?

Is it possible to find the angle measure of two lines following y=mx+b format? I didn't think so because it is impossible to determine the slope of a vertical line, but I also could be wrong. I tried to relate two slopes to their definite angle measures. I used slopes 1 and -1 for 90 degrees, and 1 and 0 for 45 degrees. I can't find any relationship after using multiple slopes, so I don't know if there is already a way.

My guess, Chloroplast. In order for energy to develop, we need either food or sunlight dependant on the organism. Food was in only plant form at first, which provided whatever an other organisms with food for the mitochondria, but the original energy was all in the plant, which came from chloroplasts.

Is there more atheists or theists in the world? I don't know, but I was watching the news a few days ago at work. It was only local news, but it was talking about evangelical christians. The problem with religion and science is that religion tries to pry around inside of science. It is a problem that science and religion exist on the same playing field. I compare it to how abe lincoln once said that a country divided can not stand. Well, here we have a WORLD divided! There is much debate between creationism and science, and why does it exist? Because religion just feels it has to exist. The thing about the evangelical christians was the newsman said, "so, what plans does this group have for faith and politics?" And in my chest a hole was sank. There might be creationists trying to control the things that me and everyone else does. The state divides the line between politics and religion very generously to religion. Like when it says that religion can not be taught in school. That is wrong. Because religion is just some ancient hypothesis that stuborn people can't seem to drop. It is like a group of atheists is trying to debate it and religion. The atheists provide good points of views and proofs against theism. And then the theists are asked to reply, and what they choose to do is wait until the debate is over, asking for more time. Then they can 'ignore' what was said about them. Religion should be allowed to be debated in school. Why can't it? Personally, I think the government finds religion too important to give up. Well, all the government is is a group of millions of people who decide what the rest of us do. They need to get that things are alot more long term. Here is what I mean. Short term: Gasoline prices are very low for the next hundred years because of the vast supply there is currently. Then when the current supply drops, the prices change out of control and throws the economy a curve ball and it loses balance. Long term: Gasoline prices are a lot more expensive for the next hundred years even though the supply is vast. It may suck for consumers, but they will be wise not to waste the gas they buy on needless things. It reduces pollution, consumption of fossil fuel, and gasoline is able to last for a much longer time, as well as the human race. Now put religion in these bounds. Short term: Religion offers fargone people like alcoholics or drugatics or homeless a purpose in life. But then religion goes out of control, causing wars and violence all in the name of god. Then it divides the world even worse then it is now. And we find ourselves at the brink of extinction. Long term: The government eliminates religion. The extremists feel they have lost their purpose in life, and my guess is that there will be suicides or killings. However, as time progresses, the world sees absolute reason, and feels rediculous for how they had once thought. Then it turns to complete science. We could solve a world problem every single day. Cancer, overpopulation, agricultural and hunger problems, expanding into space, figuring out how the earth and universe came about, understanding how the brain and life works, etc... The world is held together by one absolute religion, and wars become pointless. This is what I think and there will be others who think religion holds the world together. But there will need to be a change in the world in the next few years, because we are about to be FLOODED with problems, and all the while people will turn to god to help them. But if they were atheists, they would realize that the only thing that will help the world is themselves, so they have to throw in their helping hand as well.

I agree totally. It wouldn't ever really catch on because people would probably be concerned about eating for taste rather than for bodily function. And since I don't even want to give up eating for a pill, I can't disagree. Eating is a way of life, and has gone far beyond the function of being solely for nutrition.

Just out of curiousity, and I can't seem to find the answer, but if a container of gas was said to be 60 degrees, would every single molecule that makes up the gas be 60 degrees, or would they be, like, 60 degrees divided by the number of molecules that make up the gas, like making a decimal degree that represents each molecule? I hope someone gets what I am trying to say. In a nutshell, does anything that is a certain temperature have molecules that are all that temperature, or does that temperature get divided by the number of molecules that make up the object. Dammit, i can't word it right! Hopefully, one of you understand what I am saying.

I was in class today studying nutrients, and I kind of wonder what the problem is with this. I think it would cost too much to mass produce, so it isn't a high possibility, but could you just take a pill with all of the nutrients you need in perfect amounts, and never have to eat? I still don't see any problem with it. I do know there is more too it than just that, like activity, special things like allergies or lactose intolerance, but skipping all that, would it work that way? You get all the calories you need, all the important nutrients, what would you need food for?

That is a question I always ask myself. The thing is, time can be measured in many ways, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, centuries, but take a look at the second. I always compare time to a straight line in geometry. It goes on infinitely and it goes on in both directions. I always say that there is no such thing as 'choice' and if you don't already understand that or haven't heard of it, do some searching on the forum. Anyway, back to the other part. Time is a line, infinite in both directions. Take a magnifying glass and zoom in on the line (yeah, I realize it is impossible) and find a point where the line can be smoothly transitioned. Oh my god, this is gonna take forever. Here is the best thing I can say to make it short and sweet. Time can be divided infinitely. You can have a second, half a second, quarter of a second, eighth of a second, and you could go on forever, sixteenth, thirty second, sixty fourth, and hundred twenty eighth, etc.... You could go on forever! And you can never find a break in the line! That is what makes it so mysterious. And the worse part is, you can do the exact same thing for space! Zoom in the magnifying glass on an atom, and tell me where it really does become the smallest possible unit of matter. Well you could divide the atom infinitely. I just think it works, so I don't worry about it too much! By the way, I really didn't answer your question. I hope someone else does.

I am still at a loss of whether or not a ray is qualified as infinity. It starts from a point. Infinity doesn't start or end. A line doesn't start or end.

Thanks, that sums it up pretty well. The universe in approximation is made up of at least 3 dimensions. Yet, for the modern backbone of physics, an additional dimension must be included, so for that matter, it is time.

No, what I meant was that shouldn't a 4D atom be what would make a physical 4D shape?

So dimensions can be both spacial and mobile. Are there more mobile dimensions included, rather than just time? I still have to wonder about the atom question, and that is why I wonder about the 11 dimensions of string theory.

Does a white hole have to be the thing that spits out the matter? Say that a black hole just ends up going somewhere else in space, say it re-opens as a quasar. Maybe if matter gets sucked in under the enormous gravity, it goes faster than the speed of light. Would it be able to fly out the other end fast enough to escape? This question relates to a thought of mine, because I wonder if maybe black holes re open as quasars.

I think I just have a hard time defining a dimension. What really is a dimension in the first place. I understand them because I have always just accepted them, and just moved on without asking questions. But now I have to, to understand this early before it moves on and gets even more complicated. Thing is, why are dimensions involved at the same time with motion? Here is another good question. Picture a 1D atom. Maybe a 2D atom. 3D atoms are what we already get. But a 4D atom? A hyper atom? How could that happen? Wouldn't that be what would make up a 4D shape?

But I did plenty of searching, and we now have found and visually represented 4D shapes. It means that the 3D parts are represented as the sides. 5D shapes must use 4D shapes to represent the sides. So, we could have infinite dimensions when looked at from the spacial point of view. But why is time able to be represented as a dimension? Time can't make room to fit into infinity!

Thing is, I have always thought that infinity is forever going with no beginning or end. So is a Ray infinite? It has a beginning. But a line doesn't. I thought that the line was infinite, and the ray wasn't. Also, what is negative infinity?

But up there, it said that negative matter has negative gravity, and that is what a white hole is. Or maybe you just called it negative gravity because it is negative matter?

Here is a question, what happens when a black hole sucks up another black hole? I think it would just become a bigger black hole, after all, the black hole is made of mass, so it would gain more mass, right? Or would it gain more gravity, start up fusion of heavier elements again, and become a star, for a short amount of time? Just a thought.

It is the same thing, when you talk about the primordial atom and the hole of a black hole. Anyway, is it true that antimatter has anti gravity?

I have started wondering why time is a dimension. Dimensions are spacial, and that is why time shouldn't operate in spacial dimensions. Why is it considered it's own dimension?

I thought that infinity was kind of like having all the numbers packed into one variable. X can equal anything, 250, 5, 9.2435 * 10^7, but to be infinity, it means that it is moe than one number at a time.