fafalone

Ok you're looking at this the wrong way. The patterns exhibited by life (do you even know the term for this? i do.) have been described with mathematical equations. We can look at systems at the particle level and perfectly describe motion. We cannot perfectly predict all of the interactions on a large object, YET. It's just a matter of starting at the subatomic level and working up. Snowflakes, someone did a rather large study analyzing formations, and explained it quite well. I suggest finding and reading the study.

Drop, my thoughts exactly. I'd welcome his theories if he could back them up, but I don't see that happening.

Gravitons* (what is a gravatron? you can't even come up with the right word) are quite real, pick up any quantum mechanics book. The gravity within our solar system have a negligible effect on photons, since they have no mass and space-time is not curved enough to alter their path.

Mummies have been found in pyramids, and I'm sure a large powered hammer would break even the biggest rocks. Tell me, have you actually been to the pyramids and seen these machines. Because personally I know people who have been inside them, no such technology. Similar in the way that we don't believe theories that have been proven beyond argument by any reasonable intelligence? WHERES THE PROOF, DO NOT CONTINUE TO POST ON THIS SITE WITHOUT BACKING UP WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE A LEGIMATE IDEA, SHOW EVEN THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF EVIDENCE IT MIGHT BE EVEN IN THE BALLPARK. THIS IS SCIENCEFORUMS.NET, NOT CRACKPOTTHEORIES.ORG/PROOFLESS_IDEAS_THAT_HAVE_BEEN_PROVEN_FALSE/

Yeah, and what happened to this technology? Government cover-up? Aliens took it back? They buried it on the moon? OOh, I know, They took all the technology and launched ships to go colonize another planet! And why would they bury their dead in their water makers... or are all the tomb discoveries a lie too?

Furthermore, having an open mind in this area means listening to someone say "what we know for a fact might suggest this" instead of an established theory. Having an open mind does NOT entail believing every crackpot who comes along with NO EVIDENCE, NO DETAIL, NOTHING other than the words of someone who's probably never even heard of a "graviton" or looked at analyses from particle accelerators.

There's a huge difference between having an open mind and believing something that has NO basis in life and comes from crackpot sources with no formal education. We've long proved that gravity exists. We have studied gravitons. You are WRONG.

Look I'm about sick of your whacked out concept of the universe, either provide technical detail as to how Einstein and Newton are wrong, since I'm sure they know a hell of alot more than you ever will, or stop talking out your ass from a couple non-technical references. Not all objects are magnetic, and there is no "electrical" force... there's electromagnetic and electrostatic. How's about you give me some documented equations that exactly shows the force of gravity, and some documented experimental data that shows the formula works? The electromagnetic and magnetic forces between galaxies are negligible, and still do not account for the movement of galaxies 7+Mpc apart (assuming you even know what that unit is, considering your blatant lack of scientific knowledge)

...and the existance of spin gravity doesn't eliminate the existance of attractional gravity, nor discredits the countless experiments done that illustrate attractional gravity

I love how people just come out and contradict the greatest minds ever to have lived, and provide no technical evidence to back up their claims. And then how do you account for gravity strong enough to pull light into a black hole, or the fact galaxies are pulled towards eachother (our own Milky Way will collide with another galaxy a couple billion years after our sun burns out, 5-6 billion years.

There have been several near-miss asteroids. There are thousands of asteroids around, are we forgetting the "asteroid belt" just a few AU's away? Long range data is collected very slowly, and is easier to collect because everything we're looking at emits light. An asteroid does not emit light. The giant crater in south america is proof. Believing this planet x crap and taking all your knowledge from far-left conspiracy theories makes you just about the most ignorant person to ever live.

Both. Near-Earth object collision detectors cover about less than 5% of the sky, unfortunately watching the skies costs more than an administration with the standard ignorance of science (with the exception of JFK) has. Terror strikes from the middle-east are far more probable, but as the recent uncovering of prescience of 9/11 attacks have shown us, we should be watching what is deemed improbable.

Actually I think he took a vacation (aka fled) to Greece. If he's not back in about 10 days, then we will really start to worry ;/

Science has published a paper (reported by the BBC) detailing the cDNA poliovirus being synthesized by assembling oligonucleotides of +/- polarity. The assembly was then transcribed by RNA polymerase into viral RNA. The viral DNA then paralyzed and killed test subjects, and CD155 receptor-specific antibodies confirmed it having the properties of polio. This marks our first successful attempt to synthesize a virus. Also of interest, the sequence they used was obtained from a public mail-order service and a method downloaded from the internet. Click here for the Biochemistry/Molecular Biology forum. Click here for the Genetics forum.

CNN is carrying this story: No further comment on my part should be needed.

I'd have to say it started with basic photoreceptors, where having a more sensitive one is an advantage, since the eye is nothing more than a whole lot of specialized photoreceptors, it could easily have evolved from these.

Just about as impossible as vacuum fluctuations spontaneously giving rise to the universe, assuming you accept that definition instead of god, and if you believe in god, i'm sure he could "teleport" matter in any way he chooses. Beyond the edge of our universe, in regions where physics as we know it has no meaning, perhaps it is possible. You simply can't call it impossible.

And just so you know, I'm NOT using the same definition of teleportation as Star Trek. Whatever judgement you may have made of me, forget it and start over considering my definition of quantum teleportation is that of research papers such as the one I uploaded.

Which makes some of us wonder... where is our dear fraudmaster rikky?

Read this please. quantum teleportation.pdf

Results 1-3 of 1380 Matching Entries from nature.com alone 1. Complete quantum teleportation using nuclear magnetic resonance M. A. Nielsen, E. Knill, R. Laflamme SUMMARY: Quantum-mechanical systems have information processing capabilities, that are not possible with classical devices. One example is quantum teleportation, in which the quantum state of... CONTEXT: ...original object? No: all physical systems are ultimately quantum mechanical, and quantum mechanics tells us that it is impossible to determine completely the state of an unknown quantum system, making it impossible to use the...... Nature396, 52 - 55 (05 Nov 1998) DOI: 10.1038/23891 Letters to Nature Abstract | Full Text | PDF 2. Experimental quantum teleportation Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter, Anton Zeilinger SUMMARY: Quantum teleportation -- the transmission and reconstruction over arbitrary distances of the state of a quantum system -- is demonstrated experimentally. During teleportation, an... CONTEXT: The dream of teleportation is to be able to travel by simply reappearing at some distant location. An object to be teleported can be fully characterized by its properties, which in classical physics can be determined by measurement. To...... Nature390, 575 - 579 (11 Dec 1997) DOI: 10.1038/37539 Article Abstract | Full Text | PDF 3. Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations Daniel Gottesman, Isaac L. Chuang SUMMARY: Algorithms such as quantum factoring and quantum search illustrate the great theoretical promise of quantum computers; but the practical implementation of such devices will... CONTEXT: Quantum teleportation is a scheme by which the state of a qubit can be transported from one point to another by communicating just two classical bits, provided that the sender and the receiver have previously shared halves of a specific...... Nature402, 390 - 393 (25 Nov 1999) DOI: 10.1038/46503 Letters to Nature Abstract | Full Text | PDF I strongly suggest reading those papers and doing your own search. I'm sure you're thinking of matter, anyone who's ever read anything knows quantum teleportation both has been done and doesn't involve matter.

More of "educated guess" since no one was around to measure it (that we know of, of course... except god, but we haven't heard much out of him in a couple thousand years, assuming Jesus even spoke in his behalf)

Ok, so the worlds leading researchers doing quantum teleportation and all their peer reviewed studies are wrong. And if you're going to sit there and tell me that another billion years of mankind's knowledge progressing and teleportation will still be impossible, then you are the moron.

Energy. In the first few milliseconds, an equal amount of matter and anti-matter were created, and 94% of it collided and produced a massive amount of energy as the particles annhilated eachother. Since not all anti-particles decay at the same rate as their counterparts, 6% of the original matter created was not annihilated and subject to the energy released by the rest. Also, I believe the big bang theory defines matter being created at many points, not just one.

A recently isolated endogenous GH secretagogue called ghrelin, which has an n-octanoylation in the serine 3 group, stimulates GH release, contributes to motility, and regulates gastric acid levels. While this has shown to be age dependent, neither ovariectomy nor orchidectomy significantly changed the amount of ghrelin levels; and it's not related to BMI. Since grehlin is a major factor in hunger, it could still be responsible for the differences, since the evidence suggests it is not produced by gender specific structures.