alt_f13

me read later must go will do music will do flash see link at bottom to see my abilities

I'll do the music! [edit] And be the hero!

I am suggesting that an absolutely stationary point in the universe would be that which is not moving relative to the average velocity of all other points in space. It wouldn't be measurable, nor practical to use as a reference frame even if one could be found, but we could say the same for fashion in the 80's. I'm not saying Hammer Pants are the ruler by which we measure all other apparell, just that they exist. Moving on... I'm just saying that if you were moving at 5km/h, Mr.A was moving at 15km/h and Mr.B was moving at -5km/h all in the same direction and someone was asked to pick the unmoving player, the logical choice would be you, playa, because yours is the reference frame in which the average velocity of all other players is 0. Stop. Hammer time.

The Earth does have a velocity relative to the average velocity of the universe, does it not? Is there any reason that the point (or points... we don't completely know how spatial dilation and spacetime distortion works... but I'm sure there is more than one simmilar point ) in the universe that is moving simmillar to the average speed of the universe should not be considered "absolutely stationary?" (gr?)

Actually, this brings up a valid enough question... What is the square of an object? It seems like objects should not have squares... obviously the quantifier of a lone object is 1. Is "Sayonara^3" then just Sayonara^3? Duh. But... if objects can be broken down into formulae like shapes in geometry... what would the real world result be of a statement like that? I forgot all my math... but what is the square of a circle?

LOL, did the title of this thread strike anyone else as *slightly* paradoxical?

Needless to say, it was kindof hard picking a category to post this in... I can envisage a universe with 4 apparent spatial dimensions as far as the physical creation of particles, atoms (or their equivalents) are concerned. I'm sure a type of UBER-exotic biology could even live in such a 'verse where it had to navigate 4 spatial dimensions. But do you think a universe with two apparent spatial dimensions could support life? Could it even support the types of bonds needed to hold atoms (or FLATOMS ) together? Could a two dimensional universe even exist without the third dimension to relate the first two (after all, how could two infinately thin pieces of matter be beside each other)? Even pencil drawings have graphite in them. Where do you stand on two dimensional life? Four, above? Is three dimensions the be all and end all for the existance of life?

Who said dreams weren't communicated to your mind by some extrauniversal phenomenon?

That is exactly what I was talking about, thanks. I just never got that far in physics.

Actually, elephants are quite smart, but you need to look at the brain size compared to body mass. There is a clear correlation between that ratio and the overall intelligence of the animal. Apes, elephants and the dolphin family are among the smartest of the animal kingdom, and also have large brain to body mass ratios.

Is it applying any force to you? If not, then none. If so, then whatever the relative force then applies is the drag your "high speed space travel" device experiences. Is your question then "does CMB apply force to anything?" FYI, you cannot go past the speed of light in any frame, according to the current model. Even if two objects are moving .99c away from each other, they will never go past light speed (or reach it if they are not pure energy). I never learned the math, but it has been mentioned on the forum within the past month if you care to look for it.

I'll answer your question with another: Who's smarter, you or the cat with a fraction the brain mass? Cat says, "well, obviously there are other factors involved, such as the environment in which one develops, ability to control one's surroundings, and necessity to appropriate a signifigant intelligence, but initial raw computing power does rely on the amount of computations able to be made at any one time, the amount of which are determined by neurons allocated for specific tasks. Obviously there is a finite amount of neurons in the brain. "Then again, I failed Basic Neuro-Biology." [edit] Am I correct in assuming much of the processing of brains is eliminated through mere connections being made between simmilar conceps, like apples and apple pie? I think processing and memory needs to be more intriquately tied in computers before the "language" of brains can be adaquately adapted for use artificial computers. That is not to say we wouldn't benefit from the research. That may infact be the key to what I'm talking about.

I was wondering if it's possible that the laws that govern the quantum world are exactly the same as the laws that govern the world that we see. I know that the conventional laws of physics are almost completely turned around at that size, but I find it hard to comprehend having two sets of rules for the same area of space. It seems to me that physical formulae could be missing sections that take quantum mechanics into account, like a factor that shrinks exponentially as the size of the area you are describing increases. Or perhaps I'm just asking for the universal formula .

Check these out!!! I was scouring the net for art inspiration when I came across a microphotography site with a bunch of micro-biology live action and time-lapse videos. Here is the protozoan index as well as other cool microbio: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/moviegallery/pondscum.html Here is the general index: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/moviegallery/index.html

That's ewok for "bollucks to trees" for anyone who didn't know.

I thought green monkeys could shoot out of my arse.

That's cool. I think he meant that you actually are remembering the experience from the past, but the past you are remembering was just the split second earlier. Since the scene obviously hasn't changed within that split second, you remember it exactly as you see it. Perhaps the exact section of your short term memory is recorded to long term memory accidently, and is recalled instantly because of the connection to the long term memory for that section being connected to the short term so intricately. Some people say they "dreamt" a scene before, and some say the've been there. I am willing to bet that the two classes of people are experiencing something simmilar, but in one, the scene is recorded to a section of the long term memory, and the other to a section more associated with sub-concious thought or memory.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/ No more service flights to the Hubble Space telescope will be made. Influenced by new US manned space flight initiatives, funds previously intended for Hubble missions are to be reallocated towards the development of new vessels and equipment to be used in space exploration. The Hubble telescope is to be replaced in 2011, leaving approximately a three year gap without an operational space-based telescope, with Hubble's surmised failure being between two and three years from now.

Libation liberates.

WHAT COLOR IS MY CUP? GREEN!!!! WHAT AM I DRUNKING? THE JAGERMKEISTER!!!! WHAT COUNTRY IS THE JAGERMEISTER FROM? THE GERMANY! WHAT IS 317 DEGREES FROM NORTH OF GERMANY? IRELAND!!!! WHAT IS 317 IN HAX0R LANGUAGE? EIT!!! WHAT DOES THE ACRONYM EIT MEAN? ECONOMY IN TRANSITION! COINCIDENCE? I BE THE JUDGE!!!! no.

I feel the same way. It's kindof like being a kid, and someone telling you the cloud above you is the size of the entire city. But these clouds are red and blue, and it takes years for light to pass from one side to the other, and longer to you.

I think it looks awesome. I listened to an orchestral/synth audio version of the book in the 80s. That freaked me the hell out for litterally years. About 9 years actually.