toastywombel

Hmmm. Well I wonder how the GPS satellite system we have works? The calculations it makes are based off of relativity and how fast light moves. Furthermore, linear time has nothing to do with E=mc2. Another final point, the big bang theory might not be right, but it is rather obvious from observations that the visible universe was at one point collected together near or at a single point.

I would think the frame of reference is implied here because of the topic title. But it is good that you bring up that point. From what I was saying, it would be the velocity of the observer as compared to the theoretical singularity of the black hole. I of course cannot prove that the observer would be travelling 99.99% the speed of light, but I would think that would be the maximum that the observer would be travelling at. My point is that I don't think the observer would fall into a black hole and surpass the speed of light.

So, it looks as if some are beginning to stray away from the topic . So do most of us agree yet? That the vast majority of evidence supports that human activity, through burning fossil fuels, contributes to global warming?

I don't know if things are falling faster than the speed of light. My understanding is that things falling in a black hole, at maximum speed (the moment before hitting the inner wall), you would be travelling at 99.99% speed of light. I think this may also depend on the size of the black hole. But then that brings in another good point. As an observer falls towards the theoretical singularity he would approach 'c'. As the observer approaches 'c' time would slow down, basic relativity. This would make the fall take an extremely long time to an observer (assuming /he/she could survive the tidal forces).

Well up over 300 posts, and I just felt the need to say thank you for the information I have learned, so far, from being a member on this forum.

This is the best I could do, for now. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.immunol.14.1.233 It only displays the abstract and charges for reading of the full text.

Worm hole- In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is, fundamentally, a 'shortcut' through space and time. For a simple analogy, consider spacetime visualized as a two-dimensional (2-D) surface (see illustration, right). Now, if we 'fold' this surface along a (non-existant) 3rd dimension, it allows us to picture a wormhole "bridge". Please note, though, that this image is merely a visualization, to allow the limited human brain to grasp an essentially unimaginable structure existing in 4 or more dimensions. The above is a section of the wikipedia article for wormholes found here. Geometrically the shortest distance between two points is always a straight line. In space this would depend on the mass of the two points, however. If the two points are mass less than the shortest distance would be a straight line. However, if one or both of the points have mass the line would not be exactly straight. Can we bend space time? You are doing it right now! According to relativity mass bends space time, much like a ball on top of a sheet that is held taught. You might notice that the ball creates a bend in the sheet. This is comparable to how mass bends space-time. Reference to the picture below. Here are some more links on the bending of space time that you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe As far as a way we can bend space time and control it to our liking, it seems unlikely at this time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAll of space is filled with virtual particles. Tiny particles and anti-particles are phasing in and out of existence in what many thought to previously be just empty space between electrons and their respective nuclei. They are really wave packets of possible particle positions. This is one of the concepts behind Hawking Radiation. "In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (Indeed, because energy and momentum in quantum mechanics are time and space derivative operators, then due to Fourier transforms their spans are inversely proportional to time duration and position spans, respectively)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle Hope I helped answer some questions.

On the contrary the amygdala has been subject to evolutionary pressures for a long time. It is the idea that life-forms that are social (like humans) require basic morality to survive. By basic I mean essentially "Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you". Social creatures that do not partake in this golden rule would find it harder to pass their genes on, over time. Example) Murderers get sent to jail or put to death (If the legal system works well of course ). The idea is that social creatures that don't have some sense of basic morality are then rejected by their respective society.

Its also good to keep in mind that some scientists think different kinds of black holes form differently. While stellar black holes (smaller ones) seem to form by the collapse of a dying star, the supermassive galactic black holes are thought to have other ways of forming. This is because there is a dearth of intermediate sized black holes compared to the amount of stellar sized and galactic sized. This might imply that they have separate ways of forming.

I love predictions of the end of the world. They are so exciting! Yeah, but seriously I did not expect the world to end on 2012 sorry to burst any bubbles. It brings up an interesting point though. How long would one of you guys give humanity? Of course if 2012 doesn't happen. Fifty years? One hundred years?

I am starting to wonder if there is a final point of evaporation. Observations of black holes show that the more massive they are (mass inside the event horizon) the less dense they are. While the less massive black holes are higher density.

Why do you keep spamming this video? Its on three threads.

I watched the same video and commented on it in another thread here. Are we in another hawking radiation debate here?

Yes, I watched the video and I totally support your right to express your views . But it would be good to note that it is a rather big leap to say thinking positively effects how our world becomes. The actions of the microscopic are really best described as random. I also thought your comments offered a poor explanation of wave function collapse.

Number 1 the answer is 'B'. This is because a positron is the anti-particle to an electron. And an anti-proton is obviously the anti-particle to the proton. One electron orbiting on proton is hydrogen. Therefore one positron orbiting an anti-proton is anti-hydrogen. You can look it up on wikipedia's page for anti-hydrogen here. In the first paragraph you might notice that the definition for anti-hydrogen is the same as the question. "Antihydrogen is the antimatter counterpart of hydrogen. Whereas the common hydrogen atom is composed of an electron and proton, the antihydrogen atom is made up of a positron and antiproton." I hope this helps! Number 2 I think the answer would be 'A'. I might be wrong, but I thought generally fusion reactions release a lot more energy than fission reactions.

I don't have very many memories before three, but I do remember some events. I remember watching a football game with my dad, it was at my grandparents house. It was the Dallas Cowboys playing the Philadelphia Eagles. The Eagles ended upt winning the game I think, but I remember an interception thrown by Troy Aikman vividly. It was late in the 1991-1992 season. I also remember climbing on top of a pile of wood onto a shed in my back yard. My mom came out and found me on top of the shed and was quite scared. I asked her about it just a little ago and she said I was probably three. I have another memory of us moving into our old house in Arlington and one of my Mom's friends carrying in boxes. I would have been around two at that time. I have many other memories from my early childhood but I would say that they are all around two years of age. Most of them are just bits and pieces though.

I guess I'll take these guys one by one. 1. WHAT ARE THE 3 FACTORS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED THE EVOLUTION AND DESIGN OF SYSTEM SOFTWARE ESPECIALLY OPERATING SYSTEM? Number one, in my opinion would be the transistor and the later development of the microchip. Without the microchip operating systems would most likely be command prompt. There would be no video cards for computers so anything graphical is out the window. Mouse polling would be impossible as well. Essentially the computer as we know it would be impossible. Another huge innovation was the mouse. The mouse was fist introduced to the consumer market through the Xerox 8010 in the early 1980's. However it did not become popular until the Apple Macintosh was released in 1984. Steve Jobs, CEO and Founder of Apple, describes the mouse, "Without it (the mouse), operating systems would not be the graphical user interfaces we see today.". . . "It (the mouse) was the first piece of hardware that allowed the user to actually interact with the operating system, as opposed to just feed the system data." This is according to a book I got for Christmas, The Mind of Jobs. Furthermore, The mouse allowed software to be more customisable, unique, and easy to use. Users did not have to remember commands any more to control their programs, they could navigate it with a mouse instead. Finally I say graphics cards. The first use of a graphics card in a computer product was the MDA by IBM. This card only displayed 60 characters on a monochrome, text display. Of course we have come along way since then. In less than 20 years we have designed graphics cards that allow us to play games that look beautiful, detailed. Many of these games have rich environments with amazing texturing. Furthermore, these applications can smoothly refresh at hundreds of frames per second. Dedicated graphics processors and graphics memory have allowed for applications and operating systems to become what they are today, interactive programs for the common consumer. Other notable factors that are key, but I will not over them extensively: keyboard 64-bit bus RAM Innovations DirectX Touch Screen Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_card http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_%28computing%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface This is the only one for today. I will try to address the others as time goes when i am not so tired. Hope this helps.

Salt: A chemical compound formed by replacing all or part of the hydrogen ions of an acid with metal ions or electropositive radicals. (3) So no oxygen is not a metal ion, nor is oxygen an electropositive radical. (2) "In chemistry, hydronium is the common name for the aqueous cation H3O+ derived from protonation of water. It is the simplest type of an oxonium ion." (1) 1. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Hydronium&ei=XtNDS_OvFYmysgP4q6CfBg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE 2. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-electropositiveelement.html 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SALT

That may have been true thirty years ago or so, but I would argue that cameras today can, most of the time, capture what our eyes see pretty well, and much of the time cameras catch what our eyes don't see. That is if the camera is used properly by the user. I have to agree with the captain though; I am finding it hard to believe it is a missile as well. There is a scientist Dr. Paul A. Reed who does not believe it is a missile either. http://strictlyhonest.com/it_wasnt_a_missile/

Photons have mass, but only because they travel so fast. The rest mass of a photon is zero. Matter on the other hand has a rest mass of greater than zero. That is why it is impossible to get matter to travel at the speed of light. Here is a link to a good set of videos that are on the scienceforums.net youtube channel that explains relativity quite well. Furthermore, faster than light transportation would not be possible. If you mean by moving an object through space-time. Now faster than light is possible if you have space-time move around an object, but the technology to warp and manipulate space-time in such a way is a long way off of being developed. The other box you would open by going faster than the speed of light is the fact that you would go back in time.

When a basket ball is dropped and hits the floor the surface wall of the ball contorts. This causes the air inside the ball to pressurise. The pressure of the air pushes back at the surface wall causing the ball to bounce back up. Here is a good link explaining the process further, "The more air pressure a basketball has inside it, the less its surface will bend or deform during a bounce, and the more its original energy will be stored in the compressed air inside. Air stores and returns energy more efficiently than the material that the ball is made from. If the ball is underinflated, some of its energy is wasted in deforming the ball as it bounces, and the ball will not rebound very high. For the most elastic collision possible between the ball and the floor, you want a highly pressurized ball. (But you knew that already, didn't you! Now you know why!)" http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/physicsof/basketball.html

There are many ways to try and fix the CO2 problem. However, many of them would cost lots of money. One being wind turbines and solar farms. This could also create a new industry of technicians who repair and manufacture solar farms and wind turbines. Of course these do not work everywhere though. In harsh weather climates solar panels are not so great. They are delicate so they are easily broken by hail or objects in high wind situations. Wind turbines are pretty good as long as they are equipped with a speed regulating clutch. If not, they can end up spinning so fast they rip apart. There are also ways of harnessing electricity from the power of oceanic waves. Geothermal heating and Nuclear Power are also promising ways. Although nuclear power creates waste we can implement a model like France where we recycle much of that waste. If we were to switch all the power we get from coal power plants to getting it from solar, wind farms, oceanic waves, and nuclear power we would initially have to curb our energy use because these sources might not be initially as reliable as coal. It would be important to continue to make appliances more energy efficient as we have been doing so far. Also a smart grid, that can store and re-direct power to where it is needed would be important. This would allow the electricity from these sources to be used more efficiently. As for replacing the internal combustion engine, that seems a little more daunting. Of course we will need internal combustion engines for high powered construction vehicles and for trucks. However, for regular commuting cars, they can be replaced with electric cars. For this to work we would have to convert many of our gas stations to battery exchange stations. Where one could go and exchange their dead battery for a new fully charged on, much like how people exchange propane tanks. This would require many infrastructure overhauls, although daunting it is possible. Another way we can reduce the amount of CO2 is by re-planting and conserving forests. This is already being done by many groups today. Here is a link to many ways to conserve energy, some of them I have covered above, but some not so much. http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html Hope this helps.

This is ridiculous jackson, caleb clearly was inferring that Mt. Saint Helens released more CO2 than the human car industry. That was simply not true. You turned it into how much CO2 is released by nature compared to the release of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels. Furthermore, that argument of nature producing more CO2 is ridiculous. You ignore the fact that there is a balance between CO2 released by nature and CO2 absorbed by nature. By releasing the amount we do through burning fossil fuels we create a surplus of CO2 that is not absorbed every year. This is from wikipedia, "Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants during the photosynthesis." The amount of carbon we release, though small changes the balance. Also, deforestation decreases the amount of carbon that is absorbed every year also from wikipedia, "Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852.[74][75] It has been estimated that about half of the earth's mature tropical forests — between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet[76] — have now been cleared.[77][78] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that have not been disturbed)[76] are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining,[74][77] with another ten percent in a degraded condition.[74] 80% will have been lost, and with them hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable species.[74]" This causes more carbon to be stuck in the atmosphere. Also you mentioned about how CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. This is true. CO2 makes up 0.0387% of the Earth's Atmosphere. But it still plays an important role. More from wikipedia, "Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[5] See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent"." Furthermore, CO2 is an extremely potent gas. Although it may be in small concentrations, if the CO2 in the atmosphere was anywhere above 1% of the total volume we all would become sickly and ill. Again from wikipedia, "CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[3]" In conclusion, to use the argument that the amount we release is so small it doesn't account for nearly anything, or that nature releases much more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels, are really ridiculous. It misses the point that there is a delicate balance that is being disrupted by artificial CO2 release. One more thing, you are aware that since the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 levels in the atmosphere have rose 36%, according to studies using ice-core samples. I wonder what could explain the increased temperatures and CO2 levels? To totally ignore this statistic and argue that it is nature that is causing the increase is rather ignorant. If you do argue that nature is causing the greater amounts of CO2 propose something, don't just say it's nature. For your argument to be valid, it would be necessary to find a reason that would match the known facts better than the burning of fossil fuels, and so far you have not proposed one. My philosophy teacher told me something once that people think rationally all the time in nearly everything that they do, but when it comes to politics and religion these rational thought processes break down. Just something you might want to keep in mind.

I have to agree with iNow and the facts. On average, volcanic eruptions account for 200 million tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually. This includes volcanoes, hot springs, and any other form of geothermal venting. In 2003, the release of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels totaled 26 billion tonnes. As you can see it is not even a close comparison. The CO2 released from volcanic eruptions is 0.76928% that of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels. Furthermore, this math is including all the volcanic activity on the earth. If one were to just include Mount St. Helens the percentage would be even smaller.

Sounds like your trying to sell it . . .