Zant

 

Optimal for what? Getting spine-injuries or back-injuries? Quite a few systems in our bodies were designed for walking on 4 legs. In order to free up two limbs, we made a few sacrifices. The design is still good, but it is far from perfect.

I could have phrased that a lot better.But overall its the best system we have that I know even if it not perfect.

So the general information is saying yes but it would be immensely hard to achieve.

I would say that the humanoid shape is a optimal shape on earth but not necessarily on other planets but if they would evolve a humanoid shape I like to believe that many games and science fiction are within the range on what a humanoid alien might look like. Well maybe not the Asari who are at the very general level humans with blue skin.

I was recently playing star craft and it got me thinking would a life form like the Zerg be possible to replicate today or soon?

For those that dont know the Zerg are able to mutate their bodies to what the need by will or by absorbing DNA from other creatures, they do this in the matter of minutes without the need for offspring. for example the may mutate their exoskeleton to be resistant to heat so they could life in volcanic environments or rapidly heal wounds on their body.

I would say that from what I know that is seems plausible for such a creature to exist but perhaps not with abilities to the extent you see in the game. But for the creature being able to be made in a lab I don't have a clue about it.

Whats your thought? possible or complete nonsense? or indecisive.

I would say daily life robots will be worn by us in the form of self regulated pacemakers and equipment of the like. But do I believe that we will have robots running around shopping and other menial tasks? no its to much work for little gain, when you look just how much work is needed just to make a robot walk by itself its easy to become skeptic. That is just my basic take on it.

Sorry for not clarifying, this is a end project to be able to show to universities and companies what you are able to do, basically. and yes the project needs something built that can range from strands of data in the form of an app like thing or a physical object. Hope this clarification helps. I think that the school can pay a sum if you have a great idea.

Hello, I am not sure if this is where this topic should be and if that's the case I am sorry.

I am currently building a project or rather have ideas to build a project but I dont know what to make. I wont lie it is for school but we are suppose to seek help from anywhere we wish and be as independent from the school itself as possible.

Since i am going the technology course it has to be techy with a report and I have the entire school year to build and I pay for the supplies myself. but the project itself I choose what I want as long as it stays relevant to the subject of technology and engineering.

I ask you to help me give ideas what I might be able to build as I am not that great at ideas and eventual experience you have would be greatly appreciated.

My own ideas is in short a google glass copy, a wearable computer(arm wrist) as you can see neighter is what I would call complete ideas or all that great.

I am happy for any ideas you might have it dosent need to re invent the wheel I just ask for advice and experience if you will.

I apologize in advance for any misspelling I might have.

-Zant

Zant, de Broglie produced the first derivation of Quantum Theory on the basis of relativity. So Quantum Theory is due to relativity. The idea of "spin" is due to Dirac's application of relativity to quantum theory and explains the chemistry of matter. Without relativity there would be no modern chemistry (drugs, advanced materials etc). Anti-particles are predicted from the application of relativity to quantum theory so PET Scanning is a relativistic application.

 

See

 

Relativity and chemistry: http://books.google....rbitals&f=false

 

De Broglie's QM Theory: http://www.google.co...aMFIF3Q&cad=rja

 

PET: http://en.wikipedia....sion_tomography

Wow that is really interesting I especially like Broglie that would work perfect for my report thank you so much.

I am writing a report on Einsteins theory of relativity and I am stuck. I need to name a few things that came out of the theory for the everyday man and science today.

I so far have GPS satellites(the recalculate for the time difference made from the gravity)

New energies that work like the sun(fusion) is maybe plausible in the future.(the calculations is based on Relativity theory)

But I wonder if you can help me at all I still need maybe 3-4 more but my teacher cant really find any so we agreed to ask here. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Well I think you should give yourself some years to build a stable life, explore the world a bit, get a job and then you could get married if you want that. Personally I don't really see the point of marriage but I could still get married nothing against that. Since you just use lots of money that could be used doing something to do with the one you love. And getting married just alone (little money) is fine. But going back to the age I would say 26-28. That would be enough time to be fully educated in most educations and time to travel a bit.

Minecraft world at 10^7,7 nice touch

In UK I wouldn't know but the university of lund in Sweden has a really good one if you want to study abroad.

I always keep my books it is as everyone above me says really great in order to find fact about something you might have forgot.

That is still science fiction. What you may be thinking of are nanomaterials that are used to deliver cytotoxic compounds efficiently to cancer cells. Whether they are of clinical value remains to be seen.

Yes that is the one. But from what I heard it had developed enogh to destroy cancer cells in pigs and mice :/. Still I am waiting whit great anticipation.

I heard that in america(I think it was) that they have developed nano robots that crush cancer cells and that they have tested it on pigs and mice with great results and belive they can cure different diseases. This would be revulsion in medical science and biology but my question is if you know any risk factor with this ( I cant really think of any) and discussion topic is would you accept to have them in your body curing you from diffrent diseases??. Also dose anyone have a link were they explain more in detail about this?

I for one would gladly take them to keep heathy

Note"I put this under Biology but it could be under engineering instead im sorry if I misplaced it"

aww i didnt even know it had been released, is co-op any good?

 

anyway i would doubt it but then again who knows? i wouldnt sit on either side of the fence id just be optimistic about the whole idea and the progression of physics, I.E 200 years ago space travel would have been presumed impossible now its needed to keep society running at usual pace.

Yes the co-op is fun although i think the puzzles are a bit easy except a few that you need to think about.

Its true as you say that it may be possible in a few years but still would be fun having in my lifetime atleast

I don't know how the portal gun in the game works. But at least in theory, wormholes would be an option. Though they wouldn't require you to stick them to a wall, most likely. And to make one, you would probably need more energy than what is contained in a gun that size.

But it is possible maybe not as a gun but its possible to make portals ?

I just finish playing Portal 2 and me and my friend have been arguing if its possible (in theory) to make a portal gun like in the game?

I think it is possible to make it and he dose not he says "A portal gun is impossible to make since there is no way to connect the 2 portals"

and I say to that statement "its possible to make one since they would be on the same wavelength" (maybe the wrong word for it)

So my question is is it possible to make a portal gun in any way,shape or form?

The gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Earth is proportional to the product of thoer masses (Msun x Mearth). If either gets larger the gravitational attraction becomes stronger.

 

The amount of force that it takes to deflect a mass into a circular path (such as an orbit) agiant its natural tendency to travel in a straight line is proportional to the mass of the object.

 

Thus, if you increase the mass of the Earth by half of the Moons mass (1/162 of the Earth's mass) thne you will increase the Sun's gravitational grip on it by 0.61%, but a the same time, you will be increasing the force needed to hold the earth in its orbit by the same amount. The two effects cancel out and you see no net effect in the Earth's orbit.

Aha so it is because its moving/in orbit

I'm not aware of any such proofs. Can you provide a reference?

 

Chris

I saw the proof on tv while i flipped channels more specific discovery (science or normal one) and it was michio kaku talking about multiverses.

Short answer to your question no i cant unless you find that clip/episode on the internet somewhere.

Hope this clears that up

i would presume something like pi

 

"π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any Euclidean plane circle's circumference to its diameter; this is the same value as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. π is approximately equal to 3.14159 in the usual decimal positional notation. Many formulae from mathematics, science, and engineering involve π, which makes it one of the most important mathematical constants.^[1]"

 

it cant be defined (infinitely long) but is used as a constant.

Ok now i understand thank you

If you Build all lego in the world on top of each other it will reach a length 3x the distant of the moon

source: my science book at school

I should think that would depend on the definition of energy.

 

Heres my analogy: to create an IC (integrated circuit) we must necessarily have metal to manipulate into tracks and transistors to manipulate the throughput (changing the energy) but to create or discover the logical manipulation is the actual creation of energy because you have physically created something that didnt before hand exist (essentially creating a new system), this takes the same approach as pragmatism whereby we progress from past experience and try to take into account our own experience and then build on and create thing's that wouldnt otherwise exist (without the progression of past knowledge)

 

in other words im defining energy as a logical system and everything in existence must already be logical of the system, however if you were to manipulate that logic to create or build upon logic that already exist's then you are creating what could be defined as new energy (new logic), this is actually quite simple in practice...inventors and scientist's have been leading developers in the creation of new energy since the dawn of time......Music artists, actors, religions .... they all progress energy, create new systems of thought or systems of constraint or whatever systems they would like to create (ooooh like numbering systems)

 

i define logic as energy because it would be the simplest deduction we could make, 1's & 0's are transferable within the logic manipulation so the relativity of energy could be simplified (this is too say that electricity would have a more complex numbering array than sound but both will be true of the system and that system comes down to true or false)

 

i think you'll probably find there is almost no exclusiveness in the definition of the energies, if energies are phenomenologies of physical change it would assert that mostly all energies are relative (exist because of each other rather than exclusively)

 

So to conclude if we define all energies in a logical sense then to create energy you simply manipulate the already existing logic to something that doesnt yet exist, sound was defined because it was needed for the definition of electricity or heat, heat is defined because it is needed for the definition of electricity etc etc, the further you go up the tree the less relative the branches become but still hold fundamental relationships, so to create energy you simply pick a branch, examine the fractals of the leaf and create your own, or you could do as i do and go for the tree trunk and roots

If energy is in this system then wouldn't you be referring to string theory that if you tweak these strings it becomes a dark matter particle and if you tweak it again it becomes energy? since you can make any particle by changing the wary bottom of it (roots/strings) still you wouldn't "make" energy you would only change already existing matter

the big crunch is its name

 

our universe is already infinite your just looking at it from the wrong scale, we still havent magnified our own existence to any limit other than practical, so if we had the tools there would be more to discover and thats looking in, if you look out and presume there are other universes we have no idea what our universe could be part of and how infinite that scale is, all we know is our own reality and some of the laws which dictate it

 

things like big bang/big crunch & big planet/small universe are perceptual concepts which if you like could be called infinite space

Thats a new way to look at it for me but its still interesting i see what you mean by it. We dont know what our universe is part of the only way to know that is to go and see it from the outside. But there has been proof in mathematical equations that there is in fact other universes but like i said before only way to know for sure is to see it from the outside.

The part i dont get is how there can be more then 1 infinite object since infinite means having no boundaries or limits, but it may be infinite since space is bendable so it just bends at the edges. If you could explain this part then id be happy its been nagging on me for awhile thx in advance

more gravity, further away from the sun? what

stationary in physics? what

What i mean is that the bigger mass something have the stronger gravitational pull it have, atleast thats how it works on objects that dont move as i said since the earth is moving i may be wrong on that part.

so say the earth got half the moons mass (as in the question) extra then the earth gravity get stronger so it could "fight" the suns gravity pull hence the part about moving away from the sun.

I hope it got bit clearer now, if you still dont understand what I mean feel free to comment again and ill see what I could do bout it

Well if we assume other universes exists then our universe cant be infinite since where would the other universes be? Although Im aware that space is not like a field but still infinite would be everywhere right since thats all there is ?

But it may be infinite in a sense it repeats it self it collapses together again and makes another big bang. Although that last part is a little of topic. in short the universe wouldn't be infinite just really big to us