JohnStu

Nobody dies of aging.

 

But as you age, other stuff starts to fail more often, and you will get ill more often. You grow weaker, basically. But in the end, some disease, accident or a failure of your body will kill you.

Oh, so it's weakness that kills me, which is caused by aging. That means mercury doesn't kill me, it's my incapability to adapt to mercury.

I grew to 6'2 through years of sports. I don't mean lift weights or manual labor, I mean sports. Like skydiving to work or pulling the earth up, stuff like that.

Jokes aside, I drank milk regularly, never got sick, visit the parks often and run around like a crazed werewolf. Also, pretend the couch and TV never exist. Stay close to nature and oxygen and hope for the best

I've seen many people whose parents are shorter, and people whose parents are taller, so it is not completely genetics.

Man is this post derailed.

There is a universal frame of reference just that they don't have an accurate one yet.

...there's no disagreement to it. Scale doesn't matter. The only reason you notice gravity is because we live on a huge rock orbiting an even bigger ball of gas. You're lucky atoms don't rely on gravity to keep them from flying apart.

 

 

 

 

I thought it was even more than that. But I could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you did.

"weaker" not weakest. Weaker of the other two forces.

http://www.reuters.c...E64I6HV20100520

 

Also bones do heal as i am sure many people who have recovered from a broken arm/leg etc can testify to.

but that's not all the bones.

Launching a rocket on a planet is like firing an arrow on a moving ship. The arrow gets the velocity of moving ship added to it before launch.

You're still wrong. Gravity is BY FAR the weakest of the four fundamental forces.

That depends on your definition of weak. Also, I never said magnetisum is weaker than gravity. Never.

Aging is a process, not a disease lol. Disease is caused by misfunctions and/or bacterias/viruses etc..

To eliminate aging, the process, is not possible since I mean most parts of the bones cannot be reversed or healed. Bones don't grow back once cracked up. And they have limited time span too, so bones aren't permanent. This makes the person not permanent. Except me, of course, I am made up of silicons and metals.

The question is invalid, a lot of plants aren't green at all.

Yes, but you are still at that speed, which is not even close to 1% of light speed

Hi everyone, for the last few years i have been thinking about free will and i realized that the unconscious mind controls the being's behavior by releasing specific chemicals to lure the being into doing something or avoid something else , like making the having the urge to eat and how the unconscious mind inject "positive chemicals" if the being eats or inject "negative chemicals" which generates pain if he doesn't .and other feelings where they all drive the being into reproducing with strong spouses in order to preserve the species , so this have been causing some issues in my life like depression and some other bad stuff , and i was wondering if i will able one day to adapt and stop feeling deceived or whatever whats causing such pain? thnx

The pain you are feeling is a mental one, based off of many logics and memories. So I don't think it can be physically neglected. To ignore such pain, one has to change perspective/opinion. Pain caused by brain imagery/scenario is different from physical pain.

I think high dopamine:serotonin predisposes brains to think they're doingwhat they're supposed to be; lets get some metabolite studies -neurotransmitter degradation products are assayable in bodily fluids.

 

In a Freudian context, this is different than the delusion that one ismaking all events happen. Not environmental mnemonics, Gestalt psychology seemslike semiotic Kung Fu. I much prefer Divine Wind, reified using a gentlebehaviorist model.

 

 

 

 

I see kamikaze as result of brain signals has overide naturel physical responses. The person conducting kamikaze knows (or thinks) that doing this is better for its cause than to back down.

It's been tested that little brained animals are much less sensitive to logic. the smile of dung could completely change their mind/opinion on certain substance, where as humans, they see the dung and examines the situations, measure the gains/losses of each possiblities and actually physically ignore the "nerve signals" and go for the brain instructions.

Are you talking about understanding of the structure of the brain or the psychology of humans?

I think studying the structure of the brain first would help studying the psychologies of humans later on. Well, psychology is more like a result of years of brain activity. So I guess studying children or fetuses or other animals' brain would do better.

I think the assertion that magnetism is weaker than, for example, gravity needs looking at in a bit more detail: then laughing at.

The electromagnetic force between, for example, two protons is something like 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational attraction.

Or, to put it another way, the magnet on my fridge can hold up it's own weight in spite of the fact that there is an entire planet worth of mass underneath, trying to pull t down.

 

And, for the record, no, I wasn't on about some bollocks from star trek.

I was talking about science.

http://en.wikipedia...._and_levitation

That is because of 1/d squared. Put the entire planet as a tiny ball and put it next to the magnet.

So you suggest that because we cannot accurately predict the motion of several dozen galaxies in a cluster, they are not orbiting their ever-changing center of gravity?

 

Does anybody here agree with Dr Rocket on this? It seems obvious that a cluster of galaxies remain bound by gravity. So they have to move relative to the cluster, and what other motion is possible, except for irregular orbits around their common center of mass.

Galaxies are too far apart to have any influence on one another. They more so float on their own than spin around something in a group.

Good morning.

 

If the material things ("bodies") consisted by really points (with no dimensions, each one of them), then the total gravity would be a sum of zero-factors, and thus a total zero?

Total gravity would be a positive value if going scalar. Total gravity of a "perfect" system would be 0 vector-wise. (i am being brief)

Whoa easy there, radioactive substances give off invisible (to eye) death rays!

I don't get why C is constant either. Someone enlighten me, please!

Hmm, I have much on my mind but I will be brief, since this is just font reply, not voice reply, much data would be lost anyways.

I think the causer of your obstacle is mostly an unethusiastic environment and a teacher who is not really qualified to be teaching computer science.

Yes, programming is hard, espeically when you get into those high tech stuff like directX lighting and ambient lighting and stuff like that. Exposure, brightness, contrast, glow effects, etc.. But that's just one area of computer science. I suggest you google some good books on SIMPLE GAME DESIGN, where they teach you how to make your own Snake, math question games, which I have done so when I was young. Through making these projects, one can understand the logics better and become more interested. Having a good classmate that always share knowledge with you on this subject would help to make it more interesting.

Computer science does kind've require a huge investment of your brain (memory rooms). Everyone finds it hard I guess, if it werne't so hard, it would be something everyone could do.

Coding languages, though called language, it is not like English where you almost know what the words means. One has to look behind the meaning of the names for coding langauges to master it. For example, the for loop in coding languages is not FOR something u know what I mean, it is a ticker, it ticks from a value to another value for every increment. The while loops is a similar ticker, but operates under condition rather than increment. I suggest finding good programming books that show you how to program simple software such as bank software, Conwall's game of life.

At what speed do molecules break apart? Why do molecules break apart at all due to speed? Speed relative to what?

Whenever something speed up, they usually heat up, not due to the friction of air at high speed but due to the processes that speed up something usually cause tremendous energy aborbtion increasing the unstability of the molecule. Weak bonded molecule like liquids will turn into gas at high temperature. Also at high speed, matters break up on their own even at cold temperature due to massive changes in the behavior of electrons. Atoms in those molecules start losing "charges" of a sudden. The speed I am talking about here is speed relative to complete stillness. High speed, like 800km per second, not 80 km per hour. This has been a brief answer it's a complicated topic that could have a book written on.

Yes endothermic reaction means the stuff has "eaten" some heat, becoming more hot, and exotermir reaction means the stuff has given off heat, becoming more cold.

These reactions talk about the result, not the process. In some complex reactions it goes endothermic, then exotermic, then edothermic and you get a net of exothermic reaction as result due to the magnitudes.

yes 62 posts in 2 days lawl. I been writing papers while on this forum and websites found by google

Yes, it is all just fantasy, but you still have not answered my question. How is time travel definitely not possible? Your explanation was because not everybody in the world is time traveling. How does that matter?

Ok, hmm. Time travel is not possible because you must be "travelling" to surpass time. And molecules break apart upon reaching certain speed.

if the person does travel pass time however, he, himself would move back into a previous state of himself, not the world around him. I am not saying all those time travel movies are inlogical, but there is a difference between the word "he went back in time (self progress)" than "he went back in timeline".

The clouds of dust in our galaxy conceal a narrow band of the universe from us, not "half of the universe".

 

What makes you think galaxies are not orbiting the center of mass of the cluster in which they are located? Everything gravitationally bound is orbiting a center of mass. The only exception to this rule is on the scale of superclusters. Superclusters do not seem to be orbiting other superclusters, but rather flying apart at an accelerating rate.

I solidly believe that a nearby star has much more gravitational influence on the galaxy than superclusters "nearby".

Hmm, I guess your classmates must be some dull people. I've met quite a few good people they always listen to my "lectures", quite fun to do.