Riot

The OPs source is a journalist's hyped up interpretation of their reading of the research paper. Are you seriously contending we should take a popular account over the original document? The abstract in the original is quite clear. I present it here in full, since you seem to have ignored the link. I have emphasised the relevant words.

 

All planetary materials sampled thus far vary in their relative abundance of the major isotope of oxygen, 16O, such that it has not been possible to define a primordial solar system composition. We measured the oxygen isotopic composition of solar wind captured and returned to Earth by NASA's Genesis mission. Our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in 16O relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Because the solar photosphere preserves the average isotopic composition of the solar system for elements heavier than lithium, we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals.

 

Source: McKeegan, K.D. et al "The Oxygen Isotopic Composition of the Sun Inferred from Captured Solar Wind." Science 24 June 2011: Vol. 332

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.

Unfortunately your sentence makes no sense.

 

If I take the part in bold, that is simply wrong. This is what the scientists concluded: "...we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals."

Source: http://www.sciencema...7/1528.abstract

 

There is nothing in that statement that suggests they thought the planets were formed from a different nebula.

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!

Check out my Ontology of Time thread in the Speculations section.

How do you deal with the fact that the present means now, and "it is always now"... the past is not still present the future is not yet present.

It's just too simple for a complicated mind set about time to comprehend... especially since "time dilation" reified "it" into being an entity in and of itself.

Clocks "keep time" differently ("tick" at different rates) in different environments. This does not make time into a variable entity.

What say you?

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?

It's not a decay — Cs-133 is a stable isotope. You measure the hyperfine transition of the ground state.

 

 

 

The frequency corresponding to the energy difference between the two states is defined to be exactly 9192631770 Hz. (multiply by Planck's constant to get the energy). You basically count the oscillations and keep track of that number, which tells you the time.

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?

Do you just mean that as a humerous observation, or is it meant to refute the point I made lol? That is a genuine question incase it reads as rude, I'm not sure what a graph has to do with it. It doesn't negate any of what I said.

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

Not impossible. Sub atomic particles under theoretical certain conditions can become slower than the speed of light which would cause a "reverse" in time. Although, it does not change time because time is constant; but the speed.

lately i have been frustrated from trying to find out what a magnetic field is made of, why does a moving electron create a magnetic field that rotates in a particular direction? considering that you have worked with magnetism concepts i hope you can provide a logical concise explanation. i sure would appreciate it.

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 jumped in at the north pole you would keep accelerating until you reached the centre, but I see no reason you would stop there, you would have converted gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy on the way down and if you don't hit something at that centre of gravity the kinetic energy would make sure you keep going past the centre towards the south pole. You would even make it to the other side (exactly) I can imagine, if you didn't have to deal with friction and the like.

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

I wouldn't call it logical. Logic is something that seems correct to our diverse human minds.

I would call everything "mathematical" or able to be solved somehow by mathematics.

Lets say for a minute that there IS a long pipe from north to south pole and the center of the earth does NOT have an extremely hot sphere of magma in the center.

Theoretically, If you are living in directly the center of the earth, you would be suspended there. Forever.

Why?

Say the observer falls through the pipe, and his goal is to go from the north to the south poll. Upon the observer reaching the origin of the sphere, He would immediately stop falling with each gravitational force pulling on him.

/thread

Is it true that if you can know all outcomes and directions of every atomic particle then you can "predict" the future?

Exactly. It doesn't make sense. Can someone please explain it? Did someone make a mistake entering that in Wikipedia?

 

 

 

Thanks for commenting but I think you are not correct. Black holes have event horizons which should be visible as a dark circle over a stary field. The volume inside the event horizon is empty space, but the boundaries of this should be very tangible. Also the singularity at the center of a black hole takes up no space. A black hole is all empty space except for the singularity, if there is no accretion disk remaining. The mass of any body is not annihilated. It's mass adds to the mass of the black hole (not much because most of it flies off in energetic sparks that don't go into the black hole). This additional mass will increase the size of the event horizon sphere slightly.

I appreciate your corrections.

Make a mechanical machine that conducts mass separation of protons from oxygen.

That is the closest you can get. "Making"(isolation) energy from "nothing"(takes up no space).

Not impossible. Sub atomic particles under theoretical certain conditions can become slower than the speed of light which would cause a "reverse" in time. Although, it does not change time because time is constant; but the speed.

Doesn't a black hole need to be rotating at relativistic speed in order for the singularity to be flattened? The highest rotation possible is under 1,000 revolutions per second. Why a ring shape and not a flattened disc shape? How can a black hole have a ring shaped singularity? This defies reason it seems to me because the center of a ring is empty space. How can the very center of a black hole be empty space?

 

A black hole that is not feeding would appear like a flat black sphere. If the Earth could be crushed down into a black hole it would appear like a flat black marble only an INCH in diameter!

Not true. A black hole has no volume. Therefore a black hole is not a sphere. The event horizon only appears to be sphere to our eyes.

A black hole takes up no space. Therefore any celestial bodies absorbed by the black hole appear flat but actually are non-existent because they are not in our space time in addition to the fact that the celestial body now takes no space also.