Jump to content

brad89

Senior Members
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by brad89

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Under the hypothetical imagining that such a pill was ever developed and created at an easily managable size' date=' I really don't see what the actual benefit would be to normal people. It's clear that such a thing would be a boon to military units, survivalists in their bunkers, and hardcore and long-distance nature hikers, but I doubt it would catch on among the general populace.

     

    For one thing, I happen to [i']like[/i] food, and enjoy eating. Sure, a few people would get caught up in it as a fad of sorts, but in my books, taste and satisfaction trumps efficiency any day of the week.

     

    And it wouldn't serve as a good source of nutrition for the homeless and destitute either (as friends have suggested to me), because (as brad already mentioned) such a pill would almost certainly be very expensive, too much so to distribute at homeless shelters.

     

    I imagine an overdose would be a real threat, especially in the early stages when a few idiotic people might think the pill is supposed to actually stem hunger, which it wouldn't do immediately, so the next thing you know they chow down eight or nine pills.

     

    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.

  6. That's doable' date=' and is done in hospitals for patients on CPN (Complete Peripheral Nutrition). Those who are unable to eat are fed IV. It's a milky substance and it smells awful, but it will keep you alive.

     

    The thing is that much of what we need can't really be ensmallened, so you'd just end up with huge pills, or hundreds of smaller ones. You might just as well eat 'normal' food.[/quote']

     

    Actually, I kind of just asked this question out of curiousity rather than a possible future alternative. I couldn't find any type of problem with it when I was thinking. That idea is kind of out of the question. Mass production would be a bit out of the balance. First of all, obtaining the right amount of nutrients is tough. It is like milking a piece of meat for all the protein and not too much of the saturated fat or cholesterol. Second, to make enough to be purchased would be just out of the question! We have roughly about 7 or so billion people, each taking a pill every day. That is like 7 billion times each day. So we get pd=a, where p is the population, d is the times a person takes a pill, and a is the amount of pills we need. So in a years time, we would have had to produce 7,000,000,000 * 365 = 2,555,000,000,000 pills a year. To make enough pills for a decade, we would need 2,555,000,000,000 * 10 = 25,550,000,000,000 pills, or 25.55 trillion pills, for a century, about 255,500,000,000,000 or 255.5 trillion pills. But that is an estimate for if everyone on earth took them. But still, the actual balance wouldn't be far from that (or maybe it would, im not a mathematician)

     

    besides, I love to eat, and I am pretty sure everyone else will agree with me!

  7. 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.

  8. Sure you could' date=' but the pill would be soooo big you'd choke to death trying to swallow it. Think about it a single hard candie is almost 100% sucrose you can't get energy much more condensed than that. Now they're pretty big and hard to swallow. plus 1 can't hold you out for a full day.

     

    So yeah that idea can work, but you'd be swallowing a fairly large handfull of pills a day.[/quote']

     

    Yeah, I guess it would be pretty big, but would it work if it were dense as, say, a neutron star? Besides crushing our stomachs and falling out of our bodies, would that work? Because the area of the pill would be so small that It would have trouble getting to all of the bodies cells. I know a pill as dense as a neutron star is completely stupid, but it is just as an example.

  9. 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?

  10. Thats if you belive in evolution of course, I dont think it has been proven as an axiom. Yes thats what many people believe, but the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. I know what a clock is but thank you for simplifying the inner workings of one. I know what you mean, you can[/i'] set your watch to any time you want, but the 'right' time is still accurate. Accurate to what? What exactly defines the right time? And like I said, time is possibly different to each person since it "only matters in your own reference frame" then I suppose I can make it whatever time I want??

     

    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.

  11. I hope you did not infer this from Dave's posts - because he never said anything about "mobile dimensions". He was talking about the mathematical concept of dimensions as the basis vectors of a vector space. This is an algebraic concept.

     

    It appears though' date=' that you are interested in spatial dimensions, which is a topological (or geometric) concept. Simply put, the dimensionality of an object (or space) is simply the number of co-ordinates (or scalars) that need to be specified to identify every point in that object.

     

    For instance :

     

    A line, (or a circle or a parabola) is a 1-d object because every point on it is uniquely identified by a single co-ordinate. For a line (or a parabola of the form y=ax^2), specifying the x-coordinate of a point on the line (or parabola) completely specifies the location of the point. On a circle, specifying the angle (theta, from some fixed direction) completely identifies the point.

     

    A plane, or the surface of a sphere (the surface of the earth, say) is a 2-d object. Any point on this object can be specified using 2 co-ordinates. On a plane, the x and y co-ordinates will do, and on a spherical surface the [imath']\theta,\phi [/imath] co-ordinates.

     

    A sphere itself is a 3-d object as you need also specify the radial position to determine the location of a point in a sphere.

     

    Keep in mind that these are all mathematical objects. Physically though, all objects have the same (not lower) dimensionality as the space they inhabit. In our universe, this is (to an excellent approximation, at the very least) 3. It is also important, to specify an additional dimension (in the framework of classical physics) that is important to fully describing the location of an event. This dimension is time. It is simply a useful dimension to have in your metric if you want to describe dynamics. Note, however, that some physical frameworks (such as Quantum Mechanics) do not treat time as a dimension, but still do a great job of describing dynamics.

     

    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.

  12. What is the difficulty with a 4D atom. If you can be content with 4D space, you should have no problem with a 4D atom (or for that matter, an n-dimensional atom, for any n)

     

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

  13. 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.

  14. You are being notified to be posting a spiteful comment with a quoting that was not posted on this thread by me. However' date=' Phi for All is a biased full of shaving cream God and increased my warning level to 10 points as a sacrificial goat whose blood is for your salvation. Of course it would be much easier for all of you to unsubscribe me if that option existed rather than torturing each other.

    What really worries me about all of you as human beings connected on the Internet, is that the average conduct is obviously much lower than anything that could be evaluated as good conduct, and any philosophical value of power is exercised tyrannically.

     

    I was thinking the other night about how much I would loose if I unsubscribed or was permanently banned from here.

    Emm. <thinking again>

    Absolutely nothing. :D

    On the other hand, you loose a payable X-professor who has strong ideas for sharing. So if you seek good debates let us do it, less your childish whining and laughable punishments. Then there is always that overvalued dignity and feelings of pseudo-dominance and power, where it would be best for you to permanently ban me right away.

    I promise I shall not hold any hard feelings, so do what you wish to do, but I shall not hold back my feelings and my intellectual judgement and that I have to tell you that I was on topic and you went off topic and that you are all full of shaving cream.

    Now give us a proof demonstrating that "Significance" as a topic is irrelevant to "Infinity" as a topic, if you dare, and you are being openly challenged, I mean both of you. :D[/quote']

     

    Man, what are you pissed for? They aren't cussing you out, they're trying to put up a problem that you must overcome so that if you do, you can prove your point. Your point is something about infinity, and these guys, DQW and Phi for All, are putting up an argument, and if you can re-explain your point so that it is good enough to easily understand, you can start over, and debate whatever you are trying to prove. There is no reason to just cuss out the forum and try to get banned from it.

  15. 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?

  16. 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!

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

×
×
  • 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.