EquisDeXD

Which is why it doesn't work. No it doesn't, if the limit goes to 0, and if there's more than one possible answer, then the limit doesn't exist.

Hydrogen is the lightest and lowest density element you can have, below hydrogen there's no protons. And there is more mass on Jupiter than on Earth, so Jupiter has a high acceleration due to gravity.

Don't know, I would have to keep testing numbers until I found one, but I don't know if you even could given the circumstance, I don't see when you'd ever ask about 4 when the limit is 3 things, one three, two three, one three, there's no combination that can yield a 4.

Did you...read my post? Because I was in support of saying other animals had non-zero consciousness. I don't think dolphins are much simpler at all, I was referring to the slight differences in brain structure, because that link sort of shows the gateway to the other thing that I was saying, which is that if you have dolphins be almost exactly as mentally capable as average humans, but have something be almost as capable as dolphins and have something be almost as capable as that thing that's almost as capable as dolphins which are almost exactly as capable as humans, there's no real way to say that perception or comprehension or consciousness or whatever you want to call it just cuts off after a certain point.

I wonder of there's some mathematical theorem for it, it's not actually a recursive sequence, but it's a system of values created from a single pattern, there must be some kind of equation for it.

I haven't really seen a reputation system on a forum before, but looking at various topics, what's the point? The marking of positive or negative is essentially just a purely emotion decision, not a rationally deduced one, in fact it's purpose is merely for an opinion, so I don't think it should have a place on a science site. Even if you have extreme religious fanatics, chances are they are that way because of a misconception or not because they are arrogant but because they've spent their whole life around religion. No offense, but I see even posts by staff members and I'm like "What? How was that 10 word most more helpful than my detailed and cited 2-3 paragraph post?". I don't know who's in change but given that this is a science site and the choice is often emotional, there shouldn't be a place for it. If your a staff member, then that already means your recognized by the site as credible in whatever field your credited for, you don't need over 2000 plus marks.

But isn't that only if you define location as certain quantum states? Can't you have two electrons in the same sub-orbital? And can't the 3 dimensional models of the probabilities overlap?

And what exactly is this "deeper nature"? You think you have some mystical understanding of the properties of the universe, but you don't, about you and millions of other people have already been there and think/thought that.

Hurricanes are distinguishable from rocks. How does that mean they can think? Depends on how you define them. I don't think gravity can think. Everything in the universe is a byproduct of the universe, so what? I'm still not understanding why you think the universe in any way consciously does things. Scientifically, any form of thinking in any way has only been observed only in living things, which the universe has no apparent reason to be. If you play the "well science doesn't know" card, then you need to be prepared for the counter of "so then why can't you be completely wrong?". If the whole of science can be wrong, and what your saying is outside of evidence, how is there any scientific justification that you aren't making it up? Besides, we're suppose to be talking about expanding space, there's no such evidence that constitutes that galaxies can "know" anything.

How about this: Mathematics isn't reality, yet both it AND reality agree that your wrong.

Hot to cold, right? Thermal energy usually (almost always) transfers from the highest amount to areas of the lowest amount. He's saying based on that, that matter has to do the same thing. But, matter itself doesn't, solid matter doesn't always have to osmose, and can in fact go from a state of more chaos to less chaos, such as molten rock cooling to form structured minerals I do see the different, that's why I don't agree it's impossible. The circumstances for a nuclear blast to happen are indeed improbable, but they merely require matter to happen to be located in a certain volume of space at a given time, it doesn't require any sort of physics to be broken like in your lava analogy where in order for the swimmer to actually swim, the conjecture that thermal energy tends to travel from a higher state to a lower state in macroscopic systems would have to be broken for the swimmer to not gain enough thermal energy to die.

In particle physics, particles don't have finite physical boundaries, and in particles physics they aren't treated as merely point-like objects in their natural state either. In non-classical versions of particle physics, particles have a sort of probability cloud, and can mathematically be described as a field. In this model, particles can occupy the same volume of space, but no more than two can occupy the same quantum state. And a quantum state is a set of intrinsic properties of a particle that determine it's shape. In this new model, there are wave mechanics which describe properties of particles. If you drop two stones in the water at the same time, the waves can overlap, and they will overlap differently depending on their angle and magnitude.

Yep, I said there was no hole, and the only problem with that your saying is there's absolutely no reason to expect one in an uncontrolled nuclear event where the shockwave and thermal energy would not travel in a perfect circle nor would it only travel mainly downward and upward. What causes the specific pattern in nuclear devices is that there are special plates which deflect the shockwave outward. And in a relatively rough terrain, a not too steep drop wouldn't be very distinguishable A meteor however leaves an impact crater, usually with a basin, though I'm still not ruling it out. Which is still just a matter of location and time, it doesn't require physics to be violated. Geology isn't fast enough. Not all explosions happen the same. I never suggested such a ridiculous thing. Show me exactly where I said "an earthquake occurred in the air". You can't, can you? I don't think that just because it's entertaining that it means it's false. Physics lectures are entertaining on certain subjects, does that mean the physicists are lying? There's only evidence that it's improbable, not that it's impossible. I don't know if that's true, but compression should force a lot of air out of the area that's being compressed. And besides, there's still a meteor that can contain critical amounts of 235 by random chance, and there's different types of ore. It doesn't need to be pure, we're not building a nuclear device, it's that rare circumstances happened, but even so, it is mathematically possible for multiple uranium isotopes to happen occupy a specific volume of space. I agree that nature doesn't generally make reactive materials pure. That contsraint exactly applies to the meteor theory, because the meteor theory says there has to be a meteor of a high enough mass to not completely evaporate, but also have a low enough mass to be able to completely explode. Obviously a meteor the size of Mt. Everest isn't going to completely evaporate and even if it explodes, like the meteor that hit Jupiter and left visible scars, it would still break into chunks large enough to leave a distinguishable mark. But if the thermal energy isn't directed perfectly radially and shock waves aren't directed in a perfect circle like in a nuclear device, then you shouldn't expect the explosion to leave a perfectly recognizable hole. If it was a completely flat field of glass in a flat plain, I'd consider that point more. Public opinion doesn't matter, what matters is evidence. I've let you come at me all you want with all sorts of ridiculous arguments like that I said an earthquake occurred in midair which is a completely inaccurate statement, while I've merely been arguing improbable =/= impossible, the evidence is circumstantial, but all it requires is special circumstances created by there happening by chance to be a little more of some matter at a given time, which means it is possible, however improbable. If it's in the center of a meteor, it won't necessarily combine with oxygen and evaporate. 235 has a half life of 703 million years, and radioactivity itself doesn't guarantee the reaction to start. I get what your saying that a neutron from a nuclei can strike another one and potentially create a critical reaction, and that if it had that critical mass there's a chance it could have done that before. But this is why compression is important, because the critical density for neutrons to effectively strike nuclei which then can break apart other nuclear could be formed after compression. So you have the critical mass in the ore or a meteor or whatever form it naturally comes in, then after compression you have the critical density required for the neutrons to more often than not, strike the nuclei of other 235 isotopes. But your spreading the wrong information that it's impossible, not improbable, yet your posts aren't marked down. The marking system is purely emotionally driven which is why I don't ever mark anyone's posts to below 0 and rarely mark as something in any other case anyway.

Yeah, I was thinking that if there's a finite degree of curvature that it eventually curves back in on itself, which means that the universe would have a closed 4 dimensional shape, and that you could travel back in one direction and eventually arrive at the same point from the other side, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for it. If the equation for the universal relative curvature can be mathematically modeled, and we solve for the relative 3 dimensional size the universe would have to be before it loops around, and if that size is greater than our observed universe, the theory has evidence, but if the shape would be smaller than our observable universe, then it's essentially confirming it can't be true, unless we can confirm the light we see from a galaxy in another direction is from the same galaxy in the opposite direction, which I don't think we can without space travel.

Since particles can be thought of as fields, do you think a distortion in the fabric of space that creates a gravitational field "moves" within itself?

There no exact agreement no what a particle actually is, but there's still loads of statistical evidence supporting that there's no classical trajectories.

Units of density and units of entropy are different, but even though that matter usually tends to head towards a greater degree of chaos, that does not mean it's impossible for order to occur. Just look at sediments and crystals. Thermodynamics is more about thermodynamics, and not solid or fluid dynamics. Heat in a system tends to spread out, that doesn't mean it's impossible for there to happen to be a greater amount of a particular isotope or of some type of matter than usual, there's impurities in random objects all the time. I've been pretty open about saying that it's improbable, so it's really astounding how you could be so rude about it. Originally I did come here to ask questions, and I still do, like with this topic, but I've found I can also contribute myself and answer other people's questions.

But what your not understanding is there's no math for trajectories or classical motion in quantum physics, there's just correlations. The probability of an electron can classically shift (though still not between energy states themselves), such as if I throw a ball, but an electron as an existent object still can't accelerate because when charged particles accelerate they radiate light, which would mean an electron would radiate all its energy away. Electrons don't need to move between energy states because their mechanics automatically correlates to them having new probabilities. I guess a better way to describe it would be that an electron never moves, but it's probability does, though it still doesn't physically shift between energy states. The electron is never measured as moving because only it's probability instantly correlates to a new shape when there is a change in it's parameters such as spin or moentum, which instantaneously changes the probability if where you'd measure an electron in a given volume of space. If you can think of probability as a separate entity from existence or measurement, it should be easier to see.

N, a lot of properties of particles would still be true. Science doesn't just throw away a previous correct model that was used by the world of science, it builds off of it, or says "it is accurate, but not for situations involving Higg's Bosons". A Higg's boson doesn't seem to have any distinctive counterpart, but that doesn't mean other particles don't.

Theoretically, any number divided by itself should equal 1. 0 represents the absence of value, the absence of units of matter, so why am I not seeing random 1s pop up everywhere if nothingness can just divide by itself and get something? Dividing by 0 isn't useful at all precisely because it has little physical meaning. When you have limits anyway, the limit doesn't mean that the dependent variable every equals that value, it strictly means it y values only approaches it. In fact, the limit of the sequence in the topic post doesn't exist when 0 is approached from both sides. If it's approached from one side, then the limit is plus or minus infinity, but that still doesn't mean you can do direct substitution and logically say that x=infinity.

As far as my understanding goes, the moon didn't form and then just lock into place, it took millions and millions of years for the relative rotation of the moon to stop, but the moon from the frame of reference of someone not on Earth, the moon does in fact rotate, it's just that over time Earth has created a sort of "land tide" on the moon that has taken away a lot of the relative angular momentum over these millions of years that created a sync so that no further angular momentum could be lost. Matter naturally tends to naturally do the lowest energy thing, or go the the lowest possible energy state, and with the relative angular momentum at 0, it can't get any lower, so it appears stopped on Earth.

We do experiments and gather statistical data that can only be described under specific sets of mechanics, and those mechanics say there is no physical motion between states. Also, in QM you don't always need to know precise position or precise momentum, you can mix and math to get an accurate probability model which allows you to see more or less where an electron exists most away from the nucleus. Quantum mechanics often does use wave mechanics to describe probability, but there still isn't exactly a physical oscillation, which is why you need quantum field theory to describe the actual existence of particles as merely fields which can have mathematical oscillation patterns.

The electron as a point doesn't move, your only knowledge of an electron is simply a point in space at the instant you measure it, and a point in space at one instantaneous time does not travel distance over time, because there is no change in time in one instantaneous moment. Furthermore, a lot of quantum physical models are based on mathematics, and in mathematics as in nature itself, there is a clear difference between "correlation" and "causation". Causation requires cause and effect over time, correlation is just an equals sign. An electron doesn't move because it's position isn't ever changing, but is mathematically already equal to a superposition of all possible states, and when the momentum is completely unknown, as it when it's measured, then it's probability is only equal to one specific point. I don't know mathematically know it works exactly, and swan can call me out if I'm too incorrect, but if you can think of momentum as the coefficient of a sine function, 0*sine(x) always equals 0. But, if you have any non-zero coefficient, the probability varies as x varies, only there's some more direct function that models electron probability which has a horizontal asymtote at x=0, it looks kind of like a bell curve, i suspect it's something to do with sine and x squared ([math]x^2[/math]) because of the symmetry around the y axis that I remember.