Riot

Wrong yet again. That quote actually came from Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from UCLA, and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week."

If you can somehow get the voltage from static electricity and create electricity with it then (approx 1/2 volt per (25nm by 200nm)) then the work to create the static electricity would be less than the output. And there's your perpetual energy source.

Wrong again. Directly quoting from OP's source: "'The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun -- just how and why remains to be discovered.'"

The scientists are quick to conclude that the sun was not formed by the same nebula based on the unproven fact that they did.

Thanks!

I am talking about light not time.

I recently was told that given the known velocity of a particle and the position of every particle at a given time, it could be predicted. However, my father disagrees and says that you cannot find the location and the elocity at once and therefore a particle cannot be predicted. Unfortunately, I don't have any evidence or theories to back myself up. Any help?

Much thanks!

I agree with the first post. The universe is not defined and therefore finite. Not every single idea, or concept can be infinite. Finite-Boundry theory (A theory I have hypothesized) For example, of computer programing an integer can only reach up to 4294967295. Which is exactly 32 bits (I might be wrong). The numeric system is often thought of as infinite, but is undefinable. Bob can't count every single number of the whole numeric system. The ends, limits, and boundaries are unknown. Can we say for certain that the numeric system is infinite? No, the limitations are unknown (There could be a number that can be found using your calculator but that does not mean it exists in the real world). Can we say that the numeric system is PROBABLY infinite? Yes, if all that is being done is bashing on your calculator.

In the way I see it (I'm wrong of course), Time is just a measurement. Take a step back at the bigger picture other than your watch. There isn't one. Time is "measured" through the decay of cesium, an isotope. So how do you jump from measuring the decay of cesium to converting it into atomic seconds? References point me to: "Atomic time is measured through electrical oscillator regulated by the natural vibration frequencies of an atomic system". What I find from this is that Atomic time is measured through a generation of electric current which is regulated by the SOMTHING of an atomic system." A few flaws from my references, an atomic system is not defined. Vibration frequencies are not defined. Of this, I am lost. Could I have some help from the experts?

So in layman's terms, Light causes propelling electrons?

graphical- of or relating to visual art I was not being rude, I am just trying to refute your point.

I will reference my post in a similar topic

Great query. I think the spinning might have to do with other lower level particles affected by other smaller repealing and fusing forces.

If you did so you would be considered "falling up". View it from a graphical standpoint.