farmboy

Lol dude, if angels have (apparently) shown themselves in the past why did you specifically say they hadn't in your opening post? That aside it only requires a minor change to the point I was making, essentially your whole argument rests on the premise that if an angel does exist, and it does have free will it would want to pose as god. I don't see how you can make such a claim, and your entire argument folds after that.

I wouldnt say he was really trying to prove anything, I suppose he was trying to highlightt the absurdity of extending the copenhagen interpretation (specifically the uncertainty principle) to macroscopic (I mean human sized lol) objects.

A little bit like scalar and vector quantities.

I don't think there is any problem with the way we define objects (systems). As someone else has already said consciousness is something that comes about as a result of the electrochemical processes taking place in our brains. It isn't a phenomena in its own right, distinct from our physicality.

1. I'm really not sure to be honest mate, if you want to get into proper research then you will need PG qualifications and I think it is what you do then that will dictate what field your career is likely to be in. Personally if you definitely want to go into research I'd go with a standard chemistry degree at UG (will be way more interesting anyway), and then if you want to be an engineer instead pick a masters/phd project that is in the engineering field. 2. Yes, same as before, to go into research you will need PG qualifications, whether you are an engineer or a chemist will only influence the type of projects you are likely to be accpeted on. 3. I can't predict the future, but chemical engineers are highly emplyable. A chem eng BSc will generally find it easier to get a job than a pure chem BSc.

With regards to what I think the OP was asking, an inability to sense light (i'm not sure that this is actually true in all bats) would probably have retarded our discovery of relativity. WOuld it have prevented it completely or led us to come to some crazy conclusion about the speed of sound? No.

What you say is true, but I suspect the OP may be asking about dative covalent bonds (been years since I used that term lol) in which one of the bonding atoms 'provides' both bonding electrons. I think, though I'm far from certain, that this happens in instances where one atom is fairly electropositive and the other strongly electronegative meaning that both the bonding electrons are assosciated with the more electronegative of the two atoms.

Think about them in what respect?

Indeed

Apologies if I missed it, but which country are we talking about?

Well I'm not sure that they do, but even assuming that is true and we assume that one of those beings is an angel we only have evidence to show that they will reveal themselves at the end of days. Doesn't help the foundation of your argument.

Yeah, like cheese.

I don't think it is possible to give an absolute (or even an evidence based) answer to your question. Will science as practised by humans eventually reach a plateau? Very possibly. If we assume that there are absolute answers to life the universe and everything then it is entirely possible that these answers will prove to be beyond our understanding. Personally I don't think that will be the case, if nothing else I think that we will eventually be able to create machines capable of higher levels of thought than humans, but then that is pure speculation lol.

I'll give the postive point first, I think that the general content of your proposed book will appeal to the new-age/pseudoscience crowd, and I can imagine that type of reader appreciating the connections you have made. That aside I thought that this work was pretty poor. For something you have apparently been contemplating for 30 years you don't seem to have spent much time considering what you would actually write. This type of stream of thought typing just doesn't work very well when you are trying to write a concise and convincing argument. In general you don't seem to have left yourself anywhere to go in the rest of the book, as you have already given your opinion on the majority of the ideas prevalent in modern physics which are likely to be of interest to non-experts. I think you mentioned that your goal was to unite science with pseudoscience, and if this was really what you hoped to achieve you have failed. You make it clear from the beginning that you are incredibly sceptical of science in general and feel that making up zany theories is the better way to go. You may have a science background (I'm not convinced if I'm honest) but if you genuinely want to write a book that discusses various scientifc principles you need to do a little revision. Your understanding of relativity and QM in particular were at a level that one could get from any basic history of physics book and you have twisted some of the concepts assosciated with these theories in ridiculous ways so that they might support your personal theories. Saturn and the speed of light are both somehow akin to infinity whilst atoms are generally close to zero? That really has no meaning with regards to relativity. The list of simpler scientific principles which you dont seem to grasp, or at least misunderstand, is not short and it stretches right from evolution to thermodynamics. Not sure there is much more I want to say on the subject.

Those gays do need punishing...lol

Your whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that if angels are real and that they can infact reveal themselves without consequence they would have the desire to do so. I don't think you can make any such claim.

This burger suggests it probably is. Last time I listened to my food it didn't end well though, so keep that in mind.

I'm on the science forums..... right?

Its duty to democracy? Has democracy asked it to do anything else?

The walls are melting, makes it difficult to answer your question. In response, AFM, SEM. Dynamic situations are irrelevant, in the model you are suggesting we would see different atomic radii and shapes all the time in all solids. We dont. I'll come back tomorrow and perhaps I'll be able to explain ductility then. But until I return, research some inorganic chemistry. Biscuits, OUT!

Widdekind, is what you've said here (and in the last post) just an interpretation of the stuff you quoted by the Zukav dude, or was it based on your own personal knowledge also? I had never heard of this phenomena before this thread, but thought I was understanding it anyway, but then all this stuff about repaying debts between atoms didn't really seem to fit with what I had read before. What I had understood up to that point was that the HUP allows the formation of these virtual photons because as well as a relationship between momentum and location there is also a relationship between energy and time. So essentially because the time is so short that allows us to have a greater uncertainty in the energy involved in the process (or maybe that is backwards) which allows the existence of the virtual photons without violating conservation of energy. This also explains why interactions decrease in strength the further the interacting particles are from one another. Is that incorrect (could easily be pure BS lol)? So yeah basically my problem was that I'm not sure where you are getting all this stuff about atoms borrowing money from one another and paying it back, has that information come from somewhere else (something you have studied but which hasn't been stated so far in this thread) or is that perhaps what was meant by zukarov in the sections quoted, and I have just failed to understand it. Very interesting topic by the way, particle physics is something I know nothing about really, something I should probably try to rectify.

Where did you hear it?

Atoms aren't like little baloons with variable pressure/rigidity though pal. Within a lattice, atomic radii are not variable (in that they don't change not that there aren't different radii within a lattice), there are many techniques we can use now which show that the actual size or shape of different atoms does not change based on how the material at large is manipulated (this only happens through chemical processes). So for example the way you are talking about it, stretching out a certain ductile material would actually deform the electron cloud of the atoms which make it up accounting for the change in shape of the material overall. That doesn't happen though, the change in shape is already perfectly explained by looking at the way the atoms move relative to one another. This is quite a big area of chemistry, but basically the properties of different lattices is dependant on the atoms which make it up (is it pure or a mixture) and what configuration the lattice takes on, the type of bonding present etc. The electron clouds aren't actually deformed in any way.

Hmm, when you heat something and cause it to expand it isn't the atoms themselves which increase in size, just the distances between them. Is that what you meant pal, or have I missed the point lol. Now with atoms I don't think there is a direct correlation between energy and atomic size. For example lithium has a significantly greater atomic radius than fluorine (1.52A vs. 0.62A) even though fluorine contains more electrons at higher enrgy levels (I think the configuration are Li 1s2 2s1 and fluorine 1s2 2s2 2p5) so I think (though im really not positive) that if volume were a type of energy first off you would see an increased volume corresponding to the increased electron energy levels and you would see the same effect if volume were directly correlated to energy levels in the electrons.

I'm not 100% certain tbh dude, though I'd imagine that collisions (as well as causing changes in momentum and the like) can cause quantum changes in the atoms electrons just like absorption of EM radiation, but the changes in the energy states of the electrons would still correspond to qunatized amounts of energy. To be fair though dude, you weren't trying to interpret the data in a different way, but trying to make electron energy quantization fit your theory by suggesting that they didn't only absorb energy in discrete packets. There is no evidence to support that though, and I personally think it is always best to work the other way. Only formulate a theory after you get evidence. I'm not having a go btw pal, I appreciate this is speculations and so some degree of speculation is likely lol, I'm just highlighting what I believe to be the better technique. Isn't that your name lol? You seem a little bit uptight its a simple term of enderment which I use quite often. I can go with the alternatives mate, pal or friend. If we sleep together some time sexy would also be appropriate.