EWyatt
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by EWyatt
-
-
On 3/24/2019 at 11:37 AM, Itoero said:
In the OP afterlife is mentioned.
In what way can all of this happen again?
Not "all of this to happen again" but our self awareness (self conscious being, our life!) could happen again. It only seems logical: if our self-conscious life happened once due to pure physics, why not again in another time, another universe perhaps, given the right prescription of physics again.
0 -
19 hours ago, Itoero said:
When you lose a loved one then you miss him or her and want/wish to see him or her again. This is imo a main reason people believe in afterlife.
I often want to believe in afterlife but from a scientific point of view there is no reason to believe in afterlife. We are one of the many animal species on Earth. From a biological point of view there is nothing special about us.
I agree with most of your comments, but "afterlife" isn't really what I wrote about. My point was that if we are here now, why not again. If physics can get us here this time, why not again?
0 -
On 9/16/2018 at 10:04 AM, Itoero said:
No. The belief in afterlife is often due to wishful thinking.
Afterlife? The thing is, we're here now, and if it can happen once, it can happen again. That, I believe, is the key to "afterlife" no matter if our "next" life happens a millisecond or 100 trillion years after this one. I don't believe we can dispute the "if it happened once it can happen again" concept.
0 -
3 hours ago, StringJunky said:
All along the horizontal I would think because they would just keep adding porous pipes as the venture further to keep the supply going.
Thanks, StringJunky -- good info. There's hope that our portion of the lateral lines will be producing, and paying! Besides, it makes sense to use the entire line.
0 -
A general question about the oil/gas fracking process: Is the lateral line of a well usually fracked (and providing production) along almost the entire length of the lateral line or just the far end? Example: we have 9 lateral lines, each a half mile long, originating from a neighbor's acreage and extending to another neighbor's land. We're in the middle. Can we assume that oil/gas production is coming from under our land also, or are we just granting access? Note: we're in the Eagle Ford formation in Karnes County, Texas.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:
Password crackers can easily make billions(or more) of attempts each second. Can attempt to reduce the time further checking lists of common passwords and words from the dictionary first.
Must be true, yet that doesn't jive with the fact that it takes the site at least a few milliseconds to analyze the incoming password and provide a reject comment. How can all that happen thousands or millions of times per second. Or perhaps I don't understand how it all works....
0 -
I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but here are my thoughts.
I think that the current scientific standard on the universe, big bang timing, the first 380,000 years, etc., is as good as it gets, due to the overwhelming agreement of the scientific world. Scientists always try to disprove their counterparts, but we are left with the result of that, and we have consensus.
Second, the word "infinite" should be outlawed, especially when related to tangible concepts. When related to "size" or matter, it's ridiculous. How can anything be infinitely small or large or dense?! Illogical. When someone says that a black hole's singularity is infinitely dense, that's crazy! If anything were infinitely dense, then the entire universe and beyond would be a black hole singularity or more! And the universe cannot be infinitely large because of "space" beyond its expanded boundaries. Propeller heads will rationalize otherwise, but that's all it is.
Time is another matter though. Who knows, but I feel that time is a measurement between two or more events, which need energy or matter. Since energy or matter cannot be infinite, can time be? I don't know.
This doesn't answer your question but let's me get out some lingering thoughts.
0 -
We're told to use strong passwords, yada, yada... It must be true, since hackers successfully get past the password walls all the time. My question is how! Sites ask for our passwords to get in, we supply them, and the site spends "some" time evaluating them for accuracy. If inaccurate, the site asks again, or gives us a few more tries, which takes even more time. Seems to me that using brute force to get a correct password would take days (or more) of trying to get in, considering the time sites evaluate those incoming passwords. Even using automated software to guess moderately strong passwords must take a LOT of time due to the site's time to evaluate them.
What am I missing? Do hackers indeed spend days (or more) just trying to get into a site? Don't they have a life?
0 -
21 hours ago, mistermack said:
The OP is fairly typical of how a lot of people see evolution. They think it had a purpose, and that purpose was us. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and what it's for.
There is no purpose to evolution. We humans are not the desired final product. And so there is no "sweet spot". Africa isn't a sweet spot. It's just a spot.
Take away humans, and Africa is no sweeter than anywhere else. It's not about a place. It's about a line of apes that took a different direction. Or to be more accurate, directions, as there were a lot of slightly different species before our own line. Just as there are bonobos and chimpanzees, our ancestors split into several different lines.
Sorry for simply being "typical," which explains the reason I asked. I only wanted others' opinions. But being atypical, you supplied an answer that makes sense: that those African apes took a different evolutionary direction from all the other apes in the world. And that surely doesn't make their homeland a sweet spot. Oh no.
EW (they)
22 hours ago, Itoero said:The reason why we developed/evolved in/from Africa is because the 'apes' we evolved from, lived in Africa.
Other monkeys/apes simply did not evolve into humans.
A good, solid answer, Thanks.
The next question could be: why didn't other apes evolve as he Africans did. Environment, chance, slight genetic differences... etc? But I'm afraid to ask, here.
0 -
My first posting in this forum, so....
The consensus is that humans (sapiens) slowly made their way out of Africa around 100K years ago (or so) and eventually populated the Earth. Considering that mammals survived the KT extinction around 66 MYA and were present worldwide, why wouldn't they evolve likewise throughout the planet, as they did in Africa apparently. Or perhaps they did (though I haven't read about it) considering the many different "races" in the world today. Why would Africa be the only sweet spot? Or could it be that there WERE other Homo "evolutions" worldwide, but natural selection edited the others out somehow and left Africa as the only birthplace of Homo Sapiens.
This may be an over-simplistic question, but it's all I've got for now. Help!
EW
0 -
On 8/12/2017 at 8:19 PM, swansont said:
Being part of a multiverse does not mean our universe must be finite.
Uh, so our universe could be "infinite" in size, but there would be room for other universes anyway?? Does that pass the logic or physics test?
0 -
Airbrush, I think your post was less about the Fermi Paradox than about your (leftist) politics. Get a life.
However, Gutfeld should have spoken about something he actually had reasonable information on rather than just dorky blather.
EW
0 -
Thanks, StringJunky, for the reply. I'll keep it plugged in (mostly) all the time. The laptop has an SSD so that should be a plus for heat production, I think... Regards.
EW
0 -
I purchased a new Dell Inspiron 13, 5000 series, laptop jewel. The battery may be tough to replace eventually, so..... Will I improve (or hurt) the battery by keeping the laptop plugged in ALL the time from the start, or are charge/discharge cycles necessary? Thanks.
EW
0 -
It's a statistical thing. Nothing can tell you when any particular atom of U 235 will decay. It could be in the next second or 200 billion yrs from now. All you know is that there is a 50% chance that it will decay in the next 700MY. Even if you have already been watching it for 700MY, there is still only a 50% chance that it will decay in the next 700MY.( it's like flipping a coin, every time you flip it there is a 50% chance of it coming up heads, It doesn't matter if you've already flipped it 1000 time and came up with 1000 heads in a row, the next time you flip it, the chances are still 50-50. previous flips of the coin have no effect on subsequent flips.)
Because of this, Half-life really only works when you have a large number of atoms. If you start with 10^12 atoms, you can pretty sure that will will end up with something very close to 5^12 having decayed after 700MY, just like if you flip 10^12 coins, you'll end up with 5^12 heads. On the other hand, if you just have 4 atoms, you are not as sure that you will have 2 left over after 700MY.
Janus.... I think you've done it for me. Are you saying that an atom of U 235 (or quadrillions of them) will decay from it's state instantly, without a "dying (degeneration) process?" And that there is really no specific "lifespan" for a U 235 atom? If YES to both of those, then I'm good. As a bonus for me, what would you think makes that atom(s) instantly decay and not others around it?
Thanks to all who've been patient.....
0 -
I've tried, but got nowhere. A kilogram of Uranium (U 235) has a half life of 700MY and decays to half its weight in that time. How is that? Let's bring it down to 4 atoms instead of 1 kg. After 700 MY do only 2 atoms degenerate? If so, what's keeping the other two at "full strength?" I understand that radioactive output may have something to do with it, but how? What am I missing with the entire "half-life" concept?
Sorry, this is a rookie question, but I've got to start somewhere. Thanks.
EW
0 -
(Reposted from the Physics forum)
Once upon a time, the Earth was a molten, roiling blob of stuff. Then it cooled slowly, and I suppose gravity pooled iron toward its middle. But now we have similar metals within the planet that somehow coalesced into veins of gold, silver, areas of lithium, uranium, lead, etc. How did that happen? Why aren't ALL metallic elements equally dispersed throughout the planet, since these elements had no particular attraction to each other? (Note: all metallic elements do exist minutely everywhere, but why the pooling in many places?)
What am I missing....?
0 -
Once upon a time, the Earth was a molten, roiling blob of stuff. Then it cooled slowly, and I suppose gravity pooled iron toward its middle. But now we have similar metals within the planet that somehow coalesced into veins of gold, silver, areas of lithium, uranium, lead, etc. How did that happen? Why aren't ALL metallic elements equally dispersed throughout the planet, since these elements had no particular attraction to each other? (Note: all metallic elements do exist minutely everywhere, but why the pooling in many places?)
What am I missing....?
0 -
Perhaps it's simplistic, but....
Why do most objects falling from very high altitides always seem to fall towards Earth at a steep angle? Why not just plop right down from above? This is evident in meteors falling, the doomed space shuttle a decade ago, other objects. Is it the Earth's rotation?
0 -
Well, the universe might be infinitely large. Run away from that if you want but there is no real reason to.
You have a point..... but I was thinking more in terms of matter than "space." But then there's the multiverse concept that points to other universes, thus rendering our "infinite" universe moot. We could go on and on about the size of "space" but without further knowledge of "what's out there" it would all be speculation.
But back to my "infinite" densities, "infinite" gravities as in black holes; I think that's all a crock.
0 -
If the universe is infinite, then it has always been infinite.
Anytime so-called scientists and wannabees use the word "infinite" when discussing PHYSICAL properties (infinite density, gravity, space, etc...) should make us run away from that discussion. "Infinite density" especially is so illogical, yet over overused. Come on!
0 -
I wish, for once, with an authoritative source, someone would define the difference between "space" and our "universe." To me, most bloggers seem to think that our universe is the volume of "space." They say that "space expanded" after the Big Bang..... etc, etc. Oh yeah, where did it expand into? More "space?" Until we humans determine, or define, what "space" really means, we're just all spinning our wheels.
0 -
This is incorrect. Our current understanding is that space itself is expanding between points. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space, not the expansion of matter and energy into space.
Use logic. But first, perhaps it would be good to define "space" and "universe." To me, our universe is the result of the what's left of the Big Bang. It's expanding into and within more "space." To me, again, "space" is the available area (perhaps infinite) where the Universe and the theoretical mulitiverses thrive, expand, whatever. IOW, our Universe could be compared to a small grain of sand in a monstrous ocean.
As some simplistically say, if space is not inifinite, then what lies beyond it boundaries? Answer: more "space." Comment?
0 -
Quote: Nothing with mass can be accelerated to light speed. Anything massless always moves at light speed.
Space, however, can expand faster than light speed, and still does over large enough distances.Reply: Perhaps a minor? point, but "space" can't expand. The "universe"
did/does expand inside "space." Correct? I think too many people
equate the known universe (even multiverses) with the much larger,
perhaps infinite open space.0
Black Hole: Why do we believe that matter could be such dense?
in Astronomy and Cosmology
Posted
Aaaargh! What does that even mean!
As much as we say that we know little about BHs, some sure spout a lot. Perhaps if some tried less to sound sooo intellectual, we could have a conversation.
First off, we know little about what's past the event horizon, so why talk about the density within? For all we know, the "inside" of the event horizon could hide a super neutron (or quark) star just heavy enough with actual matter to suck in light and other EMs. Some say the singularity inside has "infinite density." WTH! "Infinite" density would mean the entire universe would have to be a black hole singularity. And if each black hole has "infinite" density, or close to it, how can any other black hole be bigger (heavier) than the other if they were "equally infinitely dense?" Can one infinity be bigger than its sister infinity?
"Have a density less than that of water?" Yeah, I've read that before too but how can that be proven? Does the area just inside a BH constitute matter or just a "space" where outside matter like rogue spaceships or bodies of scientists whiz by on their way to the "infinite" singularity? If it's just a "space" how can it weigh like water; if it's matter (it's probably not) then "weigh like water," really? And if it's not space or matter, then.....
OK, thanks for the venting opportunity. Bottom line: Speculation about the inside of BHs should be just that -- speculation. But it shouldn't be: pseudo-scientist 1, black holes have extreme density thus preventing even light from escaping, and pseudo-scientist 2, large BHs have a density like that of water.