Xyph

I think you're taking the analogy a bit too far.

 

The surface of a 4D hypersphere is a 3D surface, not a sphere. That is, if you go far enough in any direction in our 3-dimensional universe, in this scenario, you will circumnavigate the hypersphere and end up back where you started.

 

Because of this, the (hyper)volume contained by the hypersphere will also be 4-dimensional, not 3-dimensional, as in a normal sphere. So it doesn't make much sense to try to think of what stops the hypersphere collapsing, because whatever forces are involved can only ever be explained by physical laws that go beyond our universe.

 

It can't just be assumed that gases (or dark energy, even, as we perceive it) could exist and behave in a way that we are used to within a hypersphere, because they will have to exist in a 4D space - meaning the physical laws governing them could be very different.

 

 

Remember, this idea is just a way to visualize a possible shape of the universe. It says nothing about WHAT makes it that shape, anymore than we can infer any characteristics about the Earth's interior from only the fact that it is a globe.

I strongly suspect you imagined it.

Hahahaha, that is obviously not going to work.

 

 

Even if you did find some hallucinogenic combination (which you're absolutely not going to, just to reiterate) there's no reason to think it would be safer than just taking a drug, especially since you wouldn't know exactly what caused the hallucinogenic effects.

 

There are a surprising amount of legally obtainable hallucinogens if you want to hallucinate that much.

Stars create heavier elements through nuclear fusion.

People of caucasian slavic nations have different numbers as far as lethal consumtpion of alcohol goes

What do you mean? Slavs have a greater tolerance to alcohol?

That's pretty interesting, if a little weird seeming.

 

I eat chocolate occasionally, but I don't feel addicted to it, or any great desire for it at all, really... I imagine you'd have to eat a lot quite frequently for a craving to build up, but maybe some individuals are just extra-susceptible to whatever specific opiates chocolate might contain.

I think they should have waited a bit longer before attempting a study like this.

 

24 hours isn't nearly enough time, IMO, to be sure that there are no lingering effects from the drug, and by publishing too early for any long-term effects to be determined they're potentially just providing more fuel for politically biased misinformation campaigns. It wouldn't hurt to exercise more caution when dealing with such polarised issues.

Yeah, fish and other aquatic creatures would probably adapt well to 0g. I think birds would have trouble, though, since they don't spend their whole lives in the air, and even then are accustomed to flying under the influence of a gravitational field.

Experienced users can predict the effects drugs will have on them. Granted, with psychedelics such as LSD the effects can sometimes be very unpredictable, but experience will still make you more able to predict what is coming, handle surprises if they do arise, and prepare things before hand so you're not in a situation which would be likely to induce a bad trip.

 

Issues of impurities in the drug you think you're getting stem from the fact that they're illegal. If alcohol was illegal I expect you'd be a lot more at risk to adverse reactions, like blindness from methanol impurities, than you are when you buy a case of Miller today.

 

Assuming the drug is reasonably pure and the user has used it before with little or no ill effects, and is not taking a drastically increased dose, heart attacks or seizures would be very unlikely. I could be wrong, but I also don't think very many drugs have the potential to be immediately lethal, and that most deaths probably stem from impurities - which, once again, relates back to the fact that they're illegal.

 

Anyway, no-one is forcing anyone to use drugs. It's a personal choice, and when they're used responsibly the risk can be very minimal. Also, I think it should be noted that people are probably less inclined to seek medical help on drugs even if they badly need it because they're aware that what they're doing is illegal - whereas, I'm sure, people are frequently hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, not to mention the plethora of respiratory conditions that can result from nicotine addiction.

 

In a society in which there was less of a relentless and seemingly baseless campaign to demonize drugs, I am sure that drug use (for recreational, scientific, or spiritual purposes) would be far, far safer than it is today.

Obviously there are risks with any mind altering substance, but with proper preparation and careful use they can be significantly reduced.

 

I forget where I read this, but it seems a particularly apt analogy - when someone tries to climb a mountain without preparing properly and falls to their death, no-one blames the mountain.

If eugenics was practised at the time of your conception, what makes you think you would not have been weeded out?

Maybe because he's genetically healthy?

 

 

Anyway, widespread genetic engineering will probably be available before the sort of social changes that would allow a system of eugenics to be implemented could ever come about, so I doubt it would be necessary.

 

That said, I don't think it need necessarily be a bad idea. The Nazis have made it a taboo subject, but practiced scientifically and humanely I don't see what would be wrong with it. It's only necessary to look at the sort of families which on average have the most children to see the value a system of eugenics could have. As I understand it, it's already practiced to a very limited extent in the form of genetic counselling, given to couples whose offspring are especially likely to have a serious genetic condition. I see no problem with extending this sort of thing (to include family intellectual history, and the like), especially since the eventual, eugenics-regulated society would likely be populated for the most part with happier people than the society of today.

Recently it seems there's been a lot of interest in the upper limit for the existence of extremophilic organisms, but I haven't been able to find very much on the lower limits of temperatures at which life would be feasible.

 

So, what organism at the moment is the record holder for (reasonably comfortable) survival at the extremely low temperatures? I've read -15°, but I'm not sure how up to date this is, as the site also listed 113° as the upper limit for hyperthermophiles, which I know has been recently surpassed.

 

Also, is there any theoretical lower temperature limit for life? Apparently at temperatures above 150° biological proteins should start to break down, making that a reasonable upper limit, but I haven't found anything on a lower limit.

Natural Selection is only a theory, not a law.

Natural Selection is a law. It occurs, by definition. Anything that is more capable of surviving will be naturally selected over something less capable of surviving. There's really no part of it open to debate.

You are still in the denial' date=' fingerpointing and obfuscation stage.

 

It science produced fusion generation that UC National Labs started working on over 50 years ago instead of dedicating themselves to tenured welfare state, we wouldn't have to consider actions you like those you suggest.

 

But UC hasn't even come up with feasible fuel cells, so Humanity is screwed, because your suggestions will never get the job done as long as we depend on oil.[/quote']My suggestions would get the job done even if science never came up with an alternative to oil for the masses.

 

If oil use is subject to uncompromising regulation, even to the point of outright prohibition in all polluting applications, what part of global warming, exactly, would remain a problem?

 

Could you explain why you think this problem is the responsibility of science to solve, rather than, say, those who have the power to enforce such regulations, yet continuously ignore scientific recommendations?

... Thus' date=' the greatest tragedies caused by American scientists due to their cultural failures to replace the need for oil after over 50 years of research into fusion, fuel cells, etc, are:

1) American scientists are totally unable to stop global warming, and

2) American scientists are totally unable to prevent escalating international chaos from overwhelming humanity.[/quote']It's not up to science to provide the technology to allow humanity to do whatever they want without consequences - it's up to humanity to be responsible about their use of the technology that is available.

 

Your so called "greatest tragedies" are pretty ridiculous examples. We don't need any revolutionary technologies to solve the problems you've listed. We have the ability to do it now. The obvious solutions to the problems you've listed would be:

1) Impose strict regulations on all polluting activities, regardless of economic impact, and enforce them ruthlessly.

2) Regulate breeding, regardless of economic or societal impact. (Assuming this "tragedy" refers to overpopulation... It's not phrased entirely clearly.)

 

Even if science did come up with technological solutions, similar problems would recur if humanity was continually reliant on science for new innovations to support itself. Whenever science couldn't keep up, society would be in danger of collapse. What's needed is not a scientific revolution, but a political one, and it is the current political climate that has failed humanity for the last 50 years, not science.

If most of the material that falls into a septillion-year old black hole is very weak radio wave background radiation, and it explodes into say gamma rays, that would be a reversal of entropy, too.

That would never happen, because background radiation is dispersed, by definition, so would never just "fall" into a black hole.

so does that mean animals are less self aware than us...

 

or that babies are of a lower order of awareness.

Obviously. Is this something you would doubt?

Building a shelter out of neutron stars would certainly provide adequate protection against an atomic bomb, but seems unlikely to be practical on a planetary surface - not to mention the fact that you'd then have to heavily insulate the interior against the considerably more intense radiation from the stars themselves.

 

Although, in a similar vein, perhaps strange matter would be more practical? There seems to be a lot of (rather vague, and never elabourated upon) speculation that it might be stable outside the conditions that formed it, so, if this is the case, it might be more useful as a building material.

I would expect antimatter elements to behave almost indistinguishably from their matter counterparts, but I think I remember reading that it is strongly suspected that antimatter behaves at some level in a subtly different way from normal matter, which is why we've ended up with a universe of matter.

Of all the near-incoherent but supposedly revolutionary hypotheses I've seen posted here, this has to be the funniest.

if there are two objects out in space at 100 degrees touching each other, they will remain at 100 until they touch another piece of matter that is higher/lower than 100degrees?

This isn't entirely true. Heat radiates as well, so the objects will gradually cool down whether or not they touch anything.

I'm sure it could be done, and although I do agree with you, to some extent, on the issue of money, it's still pointless and obviously not going to be done for a long time. NASA do have to worry about the cost of their projects (as does everyone, at the moment, no matter how idealistically opposed they may be to the idea), and such a project is utterly unjustifiable at the moment for many reasons.

 

For a start, where do you propose such a city ship would go? It's all very well to say that it...

could venture far out in to the galaxy further than we have ever gone before!!!

[...and...]

could take us to places we could only dream of!!!

...but this is extremely impractical without a specific destination in mind. And even with a specific destination, it would be far more efficient to colonize it gradually than all at once with such a needlessly extravagant project.

Wow.

 

One Echizen kurage can be up to 2 meters (6 feet, 7 inches) in diameter and weigh up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds).

Is it just me, or does that jellyfish look a lot bigger than 2 meters?

Honestly, whatever abstract, ill-defined, obscure and roundabout definition of time you want to think in (for what reason I can't fathom) is utterly irrelevant to anything.

 

What use is your convoluted hypothesis?

The historical record seems to indicate that they were used to pull carts long before men rode them for war, hunting, or transportation. I for one would sure like to know why.

Because it's probably far easier to simply tether them to things and point them in the right direction that it is to actually sit on them?

 

In any case I expect humans did play quite a large part in the survival of the horse, since they were so useful. Before that, maybe big cats would have hunted them... They're the most likely large predator I can think of, anyway.