abskebabs

I would recommend having a look at thermal depolymerisation. Unfortuantely though, Changing world technologies, the company that owns the patents for this process; is not currently publicly traded, if that's what you meant by invest.

The reason I brought this up was because I remeber seeing this program with scientists talking about the Earth's magnetic field fading, and how this could threaten the existence of life on Earth. Anyway I found some more info on the subject. Anyway I got some more info about this from an astrophysics group which I've placed a link to below. http://groups.msn.com/AstrophysicsGroupWest/solaralertanewmajorconcern.msnw Also I think the "normal" amount of radiation the sun emits is of no particularly danger. It is just when solar flares are emitted and fluctuations occur that there is a greater degree of danger. Anyway I realise the error I made, the magnetic field isn't anywhere near as critical for maintaining the atmosphere as it is for maintaining life. If it's potential dangerous when the Earth goes through a magnetic reversal how bad could it be if the field stopped?

You're right venus doesnt have a magnetic field, I just googled and I found this information from this bbc website http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A396939. "Venus has no magnetic field, and its atmosphere is being gradually leached off by the Solar Wind. It is thought that if Venus had a magnetic field, like the Earth does, this wouldn't happen. Venus's atmosphere is thick enough to prevent most meteors making it to the surface." It isn't gonna have it's atmosphere forever though, due to its lack of a magnetic field to maintain it. I guess we're both half right(please don't hit me:-p lol!)

... ok fair enough(i'm not gonna say diddly squat again:embarass: ), but Mars does have a very thin atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide, and it is theorized that if it did lose most of its water because it lost the shielding its magnetic field provided. As for venus, are u sure it doen't have a magnetic field? It has volcanic activity, so surely you can't have one without the other:confused: ? Anyway I don't think we nor the atmosphere(at least most of it) would survive very long if the magnetic field wasn't present.

If the Earth's magnetic field stopped, then we would lose the entire atmosphere, and all the water on the planet, as these would be carried away by solar winds and the planet, as you termed it would "die". I think the Earth's magnetic field is an often overlooked factor when we think of what allows life on Earth. Sure you've got the atmosphere, ozone layer etc, but you aint got diddly squat without an active magnetic field(just look at mars! )

I don't think it would be fair, to say we would be creating or building gods. I very much disagree with the common definition of God found, and what most ppl think of God as. I think it would really be a very hard thing for me to define a or put into words my own beliefs anyway . So let's say this being can produce other universes, would it inevitably produce ones with a smaller information capacity(or resolution for want of a better word) than the one it inhabits?

Has anyone else seen the video?

Perhaps we are mistaken in our assumption of God being simply a "super-intelligent" being, maybe the comprehension of such a reality(if assumed to be true) is far beyond what we perceive of it currently. I don't know...

After thinking about this, I have a few questions. If a super intelligent being in the future were able to create a Universe(of around the same scale and information density as ours for example), even though it itself would only have a smaller information capacity than the Universe that made it up? For example could it produce the same Universe as the one we inhabit, including up to the point of its own creation and when it is about to create another? To me it seems, if we assumed that perhaps this is a recurring pattern of Universe creation, if the information capacity of the being was less than the Universe it inhabited, then the "resolution" of the Universes being created would consistently drop with each universe. Also would this be impossible anyway due to the indeterminism, discovered in Quantum theory and more specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I suppose we could wait till we create a superbeing that works out the answers to these questions and then we'll know for sure lol:-p ! If ure reading this and thinking "what the hell is he talking about?" then u shud see the video bascule posted a link for.

That was a truly fascinating vdeo Bascule, I thank you for posting a link to it. More than anything else, I guess it's made me wonder about reality.

Whatever is done to this guy the damage is already done and an innocent girl has suffered and been killed. If someone close to me had been murdered this way I can't say I wouldn't be feeling the same way as Bettina, so I can't really argue against him deserving death, even though I know it would be absolutely arbitrary in the end(apart from perhaps feeling a little better that the person was punished). But I can't really say what course of action is required, as this depends entirely on your predispositons and your emotional feelings about these things. There's no easy judgement to make on these types decisions, and no real solutions. In the end I guess whatever method is deemed best for the protection of society, as well as to prevent crimes like this should be pursued and in the end a balanced judgement is reached. This is pretty much what happens in most societies today anyway. We have no where near a perfect law and order system anywhere, but it's all we got. The main emphasis should be placed on how we can prevent these sorts of crimes, and what kind of behaviour leads to them. From reading the article though, I don't think anyone who knew him closely could have seen this coming. Also, one more thing, is the number of paedohiles per some 100000 ppl(for example) greater today than it was 20 or 30 years ago, or is the media just more scaremongering and sensationalist about it today?

I think this raises an interesting question. Can we exist without experiencing(at least mentally) or are the 2 fundamentally intertwined? I suppose we would have to be aware of our own thought to even be aware of our existence so to me, it doesn't seem one could exist without the other and so the 2 are inexorably intertwined anyway. I would also be very grateful if any one reading this thread should also look up karl pribram and the holonomic(or holographic) brain theory and tell me what they make of it?

I think it would be good if there was a systems biology subsection in the biology forum as I'd like to find out more about this relatively new field.

Could it be considered therefore that space is discrete and discontinous(at some fundamental level), but time is continous, or is this an unfair assumption? Personally, I wouldn't be so sure because aren't both dimensions mean't to be intimately linked?

Ppl's attitudes are pretty much the product of their enviroment, and this includes attitudes towards sex. After all common sense is simply the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18.

If we die and have no memory of our previous lives, from our own experience isn't it practically the same as dying and not having another life? If you're not aware of it then you pretty much died anyway, especially if your soul has nothing to do with your inherited characteristics[from your genes] and the kind of person you have become[from the interactions with your surroundings].

This might seem slighly obscure, but try getting a calculator to produce a random number sequence and try to recite it backwards after reading it. Begin with something simple like a 5 number sequence and move up from there. I tried it a while back, and I think it can considerably improve your abillity to memorise. I also think what snail said would work just fine too. As for analytical abillities, I'd suggest doing puzzles and even maths problems too. My maths teacher was telling us about how he was able to recover after doing many of these after having a brain tumour[and he's one of the smartest ppl I've met]. Actually he's got a huge stack of these old maths books in his classroom.

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this but; is it reasonable to assume we will have a life after death when we never had one before birth?

ahh...... sorry about that!

I don't think they'll care excessively about fossil fuels as long as their economy depends on it, and I think they're developing far more silos and resources than is required for a civilian program. For this reason I think the US is probably correct in their suspiscions of iranian intensions.

That was what I pasted from the website, not what I said. By the way I don't personally believe a conspiracy exists, I was simply showing you some information from the site.

Also they say that Bin laden was framed[i'm not quite sure about that!] and that most of the hijackers were still alive. It also provides photos of the supposed real hijackers.

By the way the numbers are links to newsites from where the information was obtained. They can be viewed on the website.

There's more, but this is one part of the article that directly links in to our discussion.