granpa

the idea of a torus universe is simple. its just a cube and as you leave one face you reappear on the opposite face. its best not to think of it as embedded in any higher dimensional space.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mj78syL6kz0J:arxiv.org/pdf/0903.0568+%22bare+particles%22+%22absorb+infinities%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFjE_aQyX6Bm7AW3N0TsK6SV8y596En5qi-3n23qJwCJx8QABQdQMMYVU6gYb678zZdHb1rz9LATxswAVCOT12w2zE7TEgB2pcHfPsg_TmlC5Pz4IRdsfui7Ymk7FNTDnqH56g&sig=AHIEtbT2B9FjTJcnBC5jCZTyYyYGEER9Tg

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-baffled-by-failure-of-straw-shuttle,1997/

one neutron thick

neutronium armor would probably not be stable but if it was stable then it might just have the extraordinary property of being totally impenetrable. Since the strong force increases with distance then energy sufficient to stretch the armor would create more neutronium with the result that the armor would stretch forever but never brake. that would be some very useful armor to have. BTW, one square meter of neutronium armor would weigh one metric ton. (the mass of one cubic meter of water)

emotions and feelings in general are caused by inductive thinking. in inductive thinking we suspend our disbelief momentarily to get a feel for how reasonable the idea seems.

I have heard it said that most organisms have approximately the same number of heartbeats in a lifetime

fuzzy logic is the most basic type of thinking. (except possibly for some kind of crude 'pattern recognition' level). fuzzy logic is just like deductive reasoning except that it replaces truth values with expectations. instead of saying 'all men are vain. Aristotle is a man therefore Aristotle is vain' we say 'I expect that all men are vain. I expect that Aristotle is a man therefore I expect that Aristotle is vain'. the degree to which we 'expect' something can be anywhere from zero to one. but even if our expectation is total we can still be wrong. inductive (or abductive) reasoning is an outgrowth of fuzzy logic. in inductive reasoning we 'suspend our disbelief' of some particular idea for a short time in order to get an intuitive 'feel' for how reasonable the idea is. the result is our subjective 'feelings'. 'feeling' is therefore an outgrowth of 'thinking' (fuzzy logic). unfortunately inductive thinking feeds back upon itself and is therefore highly subjective by which I mean that we tend to see whatever we want to see or at least whatever we look for. . we might have a 'feeling' that someone is hiding behind the shower curtain even though we know its unlikely. if in subjective thinking we tend to see what we want to see then what would happen if we wanted to see the objective truth? the answer is that that is exactly what we would see and the result is deductive reasoning. deductive reasoning is therefore an outgrowth of our 'feelings' (by removal of all subjective bias). Through deductive reasoning we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. only humans are capable of objectivity and deductive reasoning. we can also link the 3 types of thinking with the 3 basic drives fuzzy logic - curiosity inductive logic - empathy (motherly) deductive reasoning - sympathy (brotherly) Therefore there is a connection between sympathy and objectivity and deductive reasoning. this may be surprising at first but if you think about it a little it seems less surprising. both require seeing things from anothers point of view. Objectivity requires seeing things from the point of view of objective reality (as opposed to thinking subjectively)

much easier to use the tides

fractal pyramid:

I am not sure what the op is saying but if you look at the Bohr model then when you add energy to an orbiting electron it goes to a higher level and slows down Its potential energy increases but its kinetic energy decreases. as a result the particles wavelength is bigger and the particle is 'spread out' over a larger area. i.e. less localized.

do you even know what the holographic principle is?

http://www.google.com/search?q=holographic+principle

LOL.

I wish the op hadn't used the phrase 'rock the boat'. I would never advise anyone to ever rock a boat. But I get sick of the bigotry exhibited toward anyone who dares question any part of the scientific establishment. Such people are invariably labeled 'crackpots' or 'mystics' (i.e. religious nuts)

according to holography the electron is already everywhere to begin with. So no I dont think it goes through a wormhole.

Newton is about as big a giant as there is and even he said that "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." What would have happened if Dr Einstein had decided not to rock the boat because he didnt want to question Newton? I fear that some scientists have become more equal than others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_and_cargo_cult_science

huh?

what evidence is there that there isnt a teapot orbiting in an elliptical orbit between earth and mars? in most peoples opinion there isnt one.

the strong force is always attractive but is very short range. it isnt an inverse square force the strong force actually increases linearly with distance (inside the nucleus) hence nucleons should resonate (vibrate with a fixed frequency) inside the nucleus if you want to know why some nuclei spontaneously explode you should look at neutrons. neutrons spontaneously undergo beta decay and change to a proton plus an electron plus a neutrino with considerable release of energy.

the strong force/nuclear force holds it together

time stops at the event horizon

sounds like a titan

space and time may indeed be discrete however this results in a length scale which is definitely not observer independent which makes it difficult to reconcile with relativity (unless c is made infinite) This is the motivation behind double special relativity.