Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-9 Poor

About EquisDeXD

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Religion, especially at a church gives a very positive social feedback (usually), you spend time with other people, you act nice to people, people act nice to you, and without some god to say "you go to hell if you do...", it seems harder for non religious people to have a reason to do something like that, not that you always need to be nice, but I think it's an explanation.
  2. After looking at all the posts and after weighing all the evidence at points at once, I still stand by that it's not impossible, but it seems improbable to the point where I might as well be defending that aliens did it, so I'll drop the case.
  3. I'm a little thrown by your use of the word "oscillation" and the word" speed". Units of time arbitrary progress one at a time to the next number according to whatever unit we use, time doesn't oscillate any more then the dimension of "width" oscillates. Which brings me to my next point, which is that not all oscillation is the intuitive physical motion you'd expect. We have no physical knowledge of a photon before we measure it, it's oscillation is only modeled in terms of it's probability or the uncertainty of it's field, a photon by the dimensional analysis of it's mathematics does not have
  4. Because after processes of the the ends of Chromosomes shortening, the aging process happens, and over time the body functions less and less at it's optimal capacity. However, this only becomes a problem at ages 30-40+ in most cases, and humans reproduce before that, so the genes that cause the aging process survive. Nature isn't some mystical force, the other animals aren't any more aware of a point to anything than you are, nature is just the culmination of our physical world. Nature is not a conscious thing, therefore it cannot have the capacity to care about anything or have
  5. Light still has relative mass, and energy distorts the fabric of space as well. A photon has energy, energy is effected by curvature, and energy is a part of determining the photon's frequency and magnitude.
  6. Well I wouldn't suggest it unless to me they didn't seem right from my perspective. The responses to my posts on one or maybe two topics I suspect, I doubt you'd make the same assertion if you actually analyzed the total posts in all topics I've posted on. But if making a sock puppet is against the rules, and you have evidence for it, but I potentially have evidence against it, what's suppose to happen?
  7. Horn shape? I've only heard of a torus in 4d. How does a horn shape come about?
  8. Maybe I wasn't understanding the point you were trying to make. Were you saying that scattering from gas would cause certain objects to not be visible, and thus we wouldn't measure as much mass because the light didn't reach us? Because there's also different frequencies of light which filter through different materials gas. Infra-red light for example passes through most of the interstellar dust directly to the telescope, which is why scientists use it to peer into the center of the galaxy and look at Saggitarius A. With different combinations of light filters, they can determine the amount o
  9. I think there's two sides to this argument: At the current population, would it be more unethical to let many people starve to death if we didn't farm animals? But at the same time if people hadn't been doing it in the first place, society would have already been based on getting a food supply from not mass-producing meat, and the population wouldn't be as high as there would not be as many resources for the population to expand it's use to.
  10. Well, I didn't see a mod-warning, it's it's probably because no staff with the ability to put a warning has a strong enough case for it, and if he however doesn't have that ability, then he didn't fit under the definition of who I thought a staff member was. I thought staff members and people who had experience in a particular area were separate, but I guess there's the term "moderator".
  11. Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such, your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain. That's already a given, if the oxygen wasn't a problem the critical density would already exist and there' be no point discussing it. Well if you support the fireball theory, then you need to accept that a meteor can have just the right mass. How do you get "it definitively happened at location x" when
  12. I created one or at most two spec topics, and commented on many more. If it's lasted this long, then that means people care about it, though I don't think for the right reasons. I still don't understand exactly what it measures, if peopel can agree that it doesn't measure accuracy, what is it doing here? and why hasn't someone banned me yet to see if I can unban myself like I said I had the capability to do?
  13. "Any impurities in the fissionable material will act as a neutron damper". "Any impurities" implies you need 100% 235. The critical mass can exist well before the event, 235 has a half life of over 703 million years, but the critical density necessary to sustain the reaction could in theory be formed by chance through compression if enough 235 isotopes were in close enough proximity to each other for the reaction to sustain. Perhaps there's more ways, but I theorized such compression could happen in a meteor or through tectonic movement.
  14. I've thought about that, the neutrons would end up hitting extra oxygen molecules from air pockets or that they would hit non-235 isotopes, but that's when there isn't the critical density, you don't need 100% pure 235 for a reaction to occur, and I was actually researching this myself before I mentioned compression, you don't need 100% 235.
  15. Try banning me right now, and let's see if you can do it. It's a pretty good deal for you, because if I fail you won't have to hear from me again, and if I do it, I don't gloat. Also, evidence for the topic right here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69026-theory-if-everything/page__pid__702434#entry702434 Someone got marked down for some misunderstanding probably due to pop science shows exploring string theory and saying scientists are trying to unit the 4 fundamental forces of nature which is an understandable, and then someone makes a joke and get's upped.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.