Jiggerj

The entire Earth became hotter than the melting point of iron shortly after the Earth formed. The iron core formed after this melt. This differentiation of the Earth resulted in even more warming. The iron core was entirely molten when it first formed. The Earth's core froze (and is freezing) as the Earth cooled. When the solid core first formed is not known. It was perhaps somewhere between four billion years ago (half a billion years after the formation of the liquid core) to only two billion years ago.

Googled info:

Iron melts at 2800 °F

Estimates put the temperature of the inner core of the earth at: 9800.6 ºF

The primary ingredient is curiousity, and I doubt that curiousity can be taught.

Don't know of many 13-year-olds that are all fired up over reading, writing, and arithmetic.

So, are they doomed, or can they still learn this stuff?

Hi, I've heard that the earth's iron core hasn't melted because of the immense pressure it's under. Doesn't immense pressure cause immense heat?

On the other hand, if life depends on natural selection and dominance by the fittest, food chains make sense.

Can we actually think of food chains as 'making sense'? Plant life gets what it needs from water, minerals, and the sun. Given the right circumstances all life could've evolved in this way. We may know how and why the food chain came into existence, but it doesn't have to make sense. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it simply is what it is.

Mathematicians handle infinity, all kinds of infinities, with regularity. There is no mystery and little difficulty.

 

The "documentary" at that link is apparently as big a crock as the description would lead one to believe and has been removed by the user.

Wow! Then here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dangerous+knowledge+part+1&oq=dangerous+knowledge&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=7016l10766l0l13375l19l17l0l5l5l0l313l1985l0.3.5.1l9l0

You posted it. You called it a deficit. Now you own it.

But I don't want it! You buy it for only three easy payments of $79.99!

"Only one in 20 people was aware that humans use all of their brain capacity,..." Scary, isn't it ?

 

I don't personally know anyone aware of this, to the point where I've had to double-check to make sure we use 100%. When we have so many people claiming something that is incorrect it can put the truth in jeopardy.

I would've guessed it to be one in 50,000 (ballpark).

Even now I don't like talking about my shoulder injury because people will think I'm an idiot for calling it a torn rotator cuff (which is correct). Everyone I know calls it a rotator CUP.

Also, education is learning to become educatable.

THAT should be a class in and of itself. Telling kids that 'Reading is fundamental' is fine, but it doesn't teach them how to absorb as much as they possibly can from what they're reading.

Atoms 4.4%

Neutrinos 0.1%

Dark Matter 24%

Dark Energy 73%

-----------------------

Total 101.5%

 

Doesn't look like a deficit to me. Seems to be a surplus. Better check your data.

It's not my data.

When we multiply by zero we are in very different situation. Formally, zero is the only non-invertible element of the real line. That is we cannot define another member of the real line, which we denote [math]0^{-1}[/math] such that [math]0*0^{-1}= 0^{-1}*0=1[/math].

 

Think about it.

Think about it? I can't even say it! lolololol

If my post is out of place I understand, I apologize, and I thank you to just kindly delete it.

 

Believe it or not but thoughts like these have been known to lead underdeveloped minds to suicide and I believe this is actually a driving force in their circulation amongst would be 'deep thinkers.' This is not really a math question and the persistence of some is kind of sick when you think about it no? At any rate, these are my thoughts on the subject!

For me, it's just a passing interest because I don't have the math skills to persue it deeper. However, I recently watched a documentary that validates your point. Men have literally driven themselves mad trying to define infinity through math. I'll see if I can find the link.

Here if you want: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dangerous-knowledge/

"In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing – whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide."

P.S. Honest input that doesn't ridicule or insult is always welcome in my threads!

No, the notation 0 refers to a very special number that has the properties

 

0 * a = 0

0 + a = a

 

We do think of zero as "taking a value" simply because it is a well defined real number.

 

lol Well you're a lot smarter than I am! I am of the assumption that zero is the utter absence of value.

----------------------------------------------------------

Just googled 'What is zero' and got this:

ze·ro/ˈzi(ə)rō/ No quantity or number

 

from this, we can conclude that 0+0=1 is false.

 

Now, please remember that I know that 0+0=0, but for the sake of discussion can we say that there is no substance in the universe (be it matter or energy) that can be reduced to nothing? I mean, try as we might to pulverize something into non-existence, it just can't be done - something always remains, be it just one particle, one atom, one quark... So, in reverse, our starting point in creating anything must at least be 1 (one particle of something).

What is the point in saying: "In order to cook a scrambled egg we need to start with Nothing plus One Egg?" Isn't this simply stating that we are going to start with One Egg?

(Going for my second cup of coffee. God, I hope it helps. lol)

I don't get why you think 0 is a place holder. It has a specific value. If 0 is a place holder then so are the other numbers.

Any number above zero is a stand-in for something: 1/2 an hour, 1 computer, 12 eggs...

Zero, however, means nothing, points to nothing, implies nothing.

Can anyone show me an equation with a zero in it where the zero can't simply be removed without changing the value of the equation? (Ick! Did that make any sense at all?)

One more time: Show me an equation that would change as a direct result of erasing a zero.

1+0=1 (Now remove the zero.) 1=1

Okay, I just woke up and have had only one cup of coffee so far this morning, so I'm not quite awake yet. When I'm in this sleepy-time condition I tend to wander aimlessly through the internet. This morning I found myself looking at a youtube clip claiming that 0+0=1. And all of the comments on that page were having a grand old time bashing the poster of this clip. (I clicked out of youtube and now I can't find the clip again.)

Anyway, while having my first smoke outside, my mind began to wonder how and why 0+0=1 could come even close to being a true statement. What I came up with is probably laughable, but could you kind people of a higher intelligence than mine (any IQ above 40 should do it) explain why or why not this couldn't be correct?

When looking at 0+0=1 the zeroes don't mean anything. They have no value, so we can just erase them. Now the statement looks like this + =1. Since nothing is being added together, the math symbols can also be erased. That leaves just the number 1.

Some would say (probably everyone on this planet), "NO! 0+0=0 !!!!" But that isn't even an equation. The zeroes are just place holders that can be erased, so what we're actually looking at is + = .

So, can 0+0=1 possibly be true?

P.S. I did a search here to make sure this idea hasn't been discussed before. It hasn't (probably for a good reason). So, don't go hatin' on me, I'm just looking for some easy chat this morning.

Ok, let's use your picture and take it to a smaller scale.

 

Imagine the blue dot is you. The grey dots represent your friend who is across the street, shining a flashlight at you, and walking across your field of vision. When the light from the flashlight gets to your eyes, he is no longer there. He is now further up the street (although a very small distance) because he is moving. You never see that flashlight in more than one place at once, and by the time the light gets to your eyes your friend and the flashlight are in a different position.

 

EXACTLY! But, tell me again why I can't see the flashlight when it's in a different postion? It's still shining. The distance is still close enough so that the light always remains in my field of vision.

"You never see that flashlight in more than one place at once" Right, but I do see it constantly moving across my field of vision. And if my friend moved fast enough, or if I took a picture using time-lapse photography, the light would streak.

DUH! I get it now. The hubble took a picture of the galaxies. If the hubble took ANOTHER picture we would see the galaxies in a different position.

Speaking of education standards:

Honestly, the only thing I vaguely remember from my school science classes is when one teacher dissected a fish.

Oh yeah, and catching my HS freshman science teacher sneaking a little alcoholic refreshment in the boy's room. I was smoking a cigarette in a stall. He looked at me and said, "I won't tell if you won't?" Of course I agreed.

There's some info here: http://en.wikipedia....ousness_Project -- doesn't seem so "sold" on the idea as the videos.

 

The videos present the topic in a very biased way. I don't think they're reliable sources.

 

What raised my eyebrows is the fact that it was never mentioned if any spikes (whatever they are) occurred when there was no catastrophe.

What raised my eyebrows is the fact that it was never mentioned if any spikes (whatever they are) occurred when there was no catastrophe.

From that link: The spikes are "synchronized parallel sequences of random numbers". In 65 computers around the world? Not saying it's wrong, just that it's hard to believe it.

Imagine that you're outside on clear, calm day and you hear the sound of a far-off passenger jet up in the sky. You look in the sky in the direction the sound appears to be coming from. There's no jet there! Did the plane disappear? Of course not. If you listen for a while the source of the sound appears to be moving. You can see the jet by looking well in front of the source of the sound. Now that you can see the jet, you can hear that there is no sound coming from where you see the jet. The sound is coming from well behind the jet. On a clear, calm day you can see and hear a jet that is 13 miles (21 kilometers) away. For such a distance, the sound you are hearing now is the sound that the jet emitted over a minute ago. You are hearing what was, not what is. You are hearing into the past.

 

You only hear the sound from one spot, not two or three or more. You are hearing the jet from where it was a minute ago. The sound from where it was 90 seconds ago: You heard that 30 seconds ago. That sound has already gone past. The sound from where it was 30 seconds ago, or where it is now: You haven't heard that yet. Those sound waves are still en route to you. You will hear those sounds when they reach you.

AHHH, I'm not explaining this well enough!

First off, the sound you're talking about is a matter of hearing something for seconds or minutes, because of it's close proximity. The galaxies are billions of light years away. I'll try this:

I would be more than happy.

 

First one: My evidence is that dust and burps are matter. I suggest you think more carefully about the question you write as that was just pointless.

 

Second one: Well actually Jiggerj asked you to define it but the evidence to support it is a little something called [math]E=MC^2[/math] !!

 

Third one: [math]E=MC^2[/math]

LOL

Let me also add:

mat·ter/ˈmatər/

Noun:Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass

If God exists he is supernatural. Beyond the visible universe. Trancending the laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that he is matter, energy, or just in the human imagination. He could be something else. Since he is not of this universe and transcends the laws of nature he could be composed of something that we have no concept of, that is not matter or energy. We do not know. We will never know. As far as we know there may be something called deity dust that is not made of matter.

This is where the catholic bible limits the possibilities of what this god could be. Remember, this bible says that god made man in his image. So, this god would be humanoid in appearance, and that takes matter.

Are you kidding????

 

The backward pointing joint is a bird's ankle, not its knee.

No, I never gave it any thought. The older I get, the less I know. It was just a few years ago, when I was about 54, that I learned that the moon doesn't orbit the earth in a single day. It's once every 28 days. Funny how we can miss things that we see almost every day.

But, I agree that the tour guide should've know about the ankle.

HA! Just googled emu's knee and found this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/74211461@N00/2232825936/

Someone (YOU, not me) should set the world straight on this.

I've always been struck by that. Omnipotent, perfect God can't kill off the bad parts of humanity without killing off most of the rest of the animals and plants?! He couldn't come up with an Evil Human blaster that only targeted the problem and nothing else? Does God have another set of rules that animals have to live by? Aren't they God's creatures too?

 

Next week, when I take out the trash, I'm going to throw EVERYTHING in my house away. When the garbage men come, I'll rush out to the street and save the stuff I want to keep.

Remember when HE precisely killed off just the firstborn sons in Egypt?

Solid proof that HE's been practicing.

At the Bundoora Children Farm in Victoria Australia, a tour guide informed my daughter's grade 2 class that an emu had a backwards pointing knee.

What am I missing here?

"then is it possible that we are also seeing that same galaxy in a different location as it was seven billion years ago, and/or three billion years ago? If not, WHY not?"

No, because if you could see those 3 images you would need to explain why you can't see the images from 4bn, 5bn, 6bn, 6.5bn 6.002 bn and all the other possible times.

Okay, we are lookin up at just one galaxy as it was (say) three billions years ago. We know that the universe is expanding, and that the galaxies are moving in this expansion. So, the galaxy we are looking at is actually no longer there. Two Questions:

Where did it go?

And:

How did it automatically go from the point we are looking at now, to POOF! out of sight?

Killing all the people in a flood seems to make some sort of sense, but why kill almost all the animals?

What a silly question! Do you have ANY idea how long it would've taken Noah to build an ark big enough for ALL the animals??? LOLOLOLOL

You may be right but you have not shown it to be true. What logical steps did you take to get from IF not matter, THEN in our heads?

I could just as easily say if God isn't made from matter, then he is made of deity dust. It is not true just because I say it.

If God exists, then he could be composed of something that is not matter but of a substance not of this universe. Since he is supernatural we have no way to make a definitive statement.

Or he could be made of matter. But how could I possibly know? I can't do a test on him.

Hi, just want to point out that a "substance not of this universe" is still matter.

Also, can you define 'supernatural' in a way that doesn't involve energy? If there be ghosts, then even they would be made of some form of energy.

I don't know where to post this, so if there's a need to move it I'm okay with it.

I've come across two documentaries that claim there are computers all over the world that are running random number generators. Supposedly, every one of these generators spikes when a catastrophe happens in the world. I'll post a link to one of the shows below, but I have no idea what a spike means in this context. Do all the computers start generating the same numbers? I have no clue. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/reality-extended-mind/

And Jigger - if you get less whacked I am sure that between Ewmon and myself we could explain it (and I promise never to quite anything with a pied or a toise in again)

Ha! Thanks! But I went to other sites for a bit of research and that's where I got nailed with the mathematical language. I'm old and tired, so if it's not in inches, miles per hour, or ounces, I'm LOST.

Why doesn't time runs back?

I'm still not convinced that time is weaved into the fabric of the universe. Whenever I read of someone referring to time, what I see is actually a reference to energy being burned. If someone says it takes an hour to drive their car to another city, what I hear is that it takes a gallon and a half of fuel to get to another city (say, fifty-five miles).

I've heard it said that the closer people get to travelling at the speed of light, their aging process slows; this is somehow proof that time is being maniulated. I don't see it. It is merely proof that the the process of decay slows the closer one gets to the speed of light.

Then again, I don't see a PHD certificate hanginng on my wall either.