Xyph

That's bizarre. Are you doing it because that region hurts, or just for no reason whatsoever? In the latter case, just resist doing it for a while and the habit will go away.

Time is only distorted to that extent at relativistic speeds (ie, significant fractions of the speed of light), which could result in one twin aging faster than another (if one travelled at near the speed of light for a while and the other stayed on Earth). On (or in orbit around) planets, though, rotational/orbital speed is negligible as far as time dilation is concerned.

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining that. Thinking about it now, I suppose it would be pretty difficult to actually cling onto imperfections with such tiny hairs if there weren't another force allowing the hairs and the surface to stick together.

I've always heard that geckos can cling to apparently smooth surfaces like glass by gripping tiny imperfections, invisible to the naked (human) eye, with microscopic hairs on their feet... Is this incorrect? If geckos can use vanderwaals forces to cling to glass, wouldn't that mean that you could make 2 panes of glass stick together?

Seems doubtful. Why would they bother? If they did, though, it would obviously be the fault of the robots, if they're the ones who do the conquering... What does this have to do with Quantum Mechanics?

I heard 7, but either number isn't true, since you could obviously get more or less folds by decreasing or increasing the thickness of the paper without changing its size.

Ah, oops, I should apologize for my defensiveness, then - I assumed (a bit too quickly, it turns out) that you were being critical of asking about things from fictional science, but since that's not the case, sorry about my reaction.

Not being a biologist, I obviously got the idea from science fiction, but I don't see what's so funny about trying to find out whether there's any truth to it. It's an interesting idea. I presume "spiral-shaped EM interference" is a reference to another fictional idea, but I have no idea how it relates to this otherwise.

Whatever is used, surely the amounts would be so small that flammability wouldn't be a danger...

The brain would be the last part to go, I expect, since it's the most vital organ (if it is in fact classed as such) and is in control of the rest, so it would make sense for it to keep itself alive as long as possible.

More likely the wormhole would just collapse in some way, I'd think - into a non-traversible black hole, perhaps, if causality is to be preserved. Or the universe could just turn out to be acausal.

That's not what I meant... I don't mean backwards as in, literally, the engine would drive the car backwards... You can already do that with the engines we use at the moment. I meant, trying to do the reaction backwards isn't going to work the same way as doing it forwards. Putting in gasoline and getting out CO2 and whatever else is an energy efficient reaction - it generates heat, that can be used to power the engine, which it why it's done that way round. On the other hand, if you tried to make CO2 and whatever else react to produce gasoline again, you'd be putting in more energy than you'd be getting out, so there wouldn't be anything to move the car.

The reason engines work in the direction they do is that it's energy efficient to do it that way - you get more energy out than you put in. If you did it in reverse you'd be putting all the energy into producing fuel and never actually go anywhere. Plus the waste products of car engines make up a very small percentage of the atmosphere (<1%, I think), so even if such a reaction was theoretically energy efficient, you'd have to suck in vast quantities of air to generate enough energy to make it practical.

If you mean "is it possible to create a black hole a ship travels through", then you're referring to a wormhole, which may or may not be possible. You wouldn't be travelling faster than light because, as you said, the wormhole would consist of linked points in space so you'd just travel through it at slower-than-light speeds. It wouldn't be easy, though. Creating a wormhole large enough to take a ship through would likely take a lot of energy, and chances are you'd have to carry one end of the wormhole to its eventual destination at slower-than-light speeds, and there would be other considerations to take into account with the wormhole placement to avoid violations of causality... So there'd be a lot of preparation involved. It's very unlikely you could just "induce" a wormhole to a remote destination at will. Edit: Oh, and another thing, remember you'd be travelling through a black hole in any case, so if it's possible to create some type of black hole with a region through which a ship can travel, the trip is going to be very gravitationally turbulent if not completely lethal, and would require some very skilled piloting (although, admittedly, if we're at the level where can create macroscopic wormholes, piloting is unlikely to be much of a problem).

If time was dilated on the trip to the extent that it took only, say, a hundred years from the perspective of those travelling with the wormhole, people from the planet would be able to step through the wormhole and come out at the destination after only a hundred years, I think - when, ordinarily, it would take thousands of years. This would probably allow causality violations in some cases, such as if he looped back on himself with the wormhole at 0.999c so the light from his home planet thousands of years in the future would be reaching the wormhole, which was linked back to a planet only a hundred years from when he left. Problems like that could probably be avoided, though... I'm pretty sure if he left in a straight line and didn't try to go back, there wouldn't be any problem with having a wormhole linking his home planet to another one thousands of years in the future and thousands of light years away, especially since it would only take a hundred years from the perspective of the travellers and those who stayed on the planet.

Ah... So he is just a Creationist after all. I suppose that was very predictable, but it's somewhat disappointing nonetheless.

Relativistic mass becomes infinite at c. Something at absolute zero with a velocity of 0 relative to an observer would have no relativistic mass. It would still have rest mass, though, which wouldn't change no matter what the velocity or temperature.

Are you saying humans evolved from something other than prehistoric monkeys? Either way, it seems like you're being deliberately cryptic, and it's quite annoying. Could you please just summarise what's so different about whatever you've come up with?

It wouldn't, that's what I said: It was in response to:

Antimatter has positive energy and a positive mass, so wouldn't have antigravitational effects and would release positive energy when mutually annihilating matter rather than simply vanishing into nonexistence. I don't think any "school of physics" suggests antimatter can't coalesce in anything larger than a particle. Quite large objects could be built out of pure antimatter in the same way as with matter, I would think (barring practical considerations). That said, large quantities of antimatter probably don't exist in our universe for other reasons that have been detailed already in this thread.

121, 122, then 125 - 137 are all wrong, and seem to have been done under the impression that [math]4^{3} = 128[/math]. Using sequences like that probably shouldn't be allowed, though. It's the same sort of thing as using constants. Might as well come up with sequences of your own and make sure [math]x_{4}[/math] equals whatever number you need. I agree posting one at a time is probably a better idea, although admittedly I've been guilty of posting quite a few at times.

What do you think Darwin did propose, exactly? Although we didn't come from modern day apes, what we did come from would have looked a lot like an ape and most people would have looked at it and said it was an ape (or a monkey, maybe), so I really don't see what difference it makes in regards to the Bible whether man evolved from a modern ape or a prehistoric ape. What difference, in your opinion, does it make? Also, I wish people would stop trying to pander to the Creationists with attempts to work the word "Creation" into what is essentially evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life anyway, so it doesn't matter whether you think God created life and used evolution, or doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Christians do accept evolution, so no-ones going to be amazed at how someone could possibly be a Christian and not a Creationist. Words like "Crevolutionist" and "Creavolution" are pointless and just confuse the issue. If you deny evolution - you are a Creationist. No more terms are required.

Otherwise it would get a bit silly, don't you think? [math]arccos(sin(\tfrac{4}{4})) + 4! - 4 = 109[/math] [math]arcsin(\tfrac{4}{4}) + 4! - 4 = 110[/math] [math]arccos(sin(\tfrac{4}{4})) + 4! - \sqrt{4} = 111[/math] [math]arcsin(\tfrac{4}{4}) + 4! - \sqrt{4} = 112[/math]

[math]arccos(sin(4!+\sqrt{4}))+\frac{arccos(sin4)}{\sqrt{4}} = 107[/math] These functions are pretty useful.

Humility costs nothing, you know. If you have such an "insane IQ" and are such a scientific genius with so many inventions to your name and all these revelatory theories, I find it difficult to see why you're finding it so hard to get yourself into a position in which you can test them.