Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SamBridge

  1. It's a trick of shadows. People thought the same thing about the face on Mars, and there are structures that can be naturally rigid. Just look at crystals, there's even perfectly hypercubic or "hopper" crystals that form. The moon is also not a great source of energy unless you can harness nuclear reactions. The moon Io of Jupiter would be a much better source of energy, or Titan the moon of Saturn also would. The moon has Helium 3. When fused, it releases massive amounts of energy, but if aliens were surviving on the moon, there would be sign of nuclear reactions since that's the only efficient way to get large quantities of energy on the moon. I myself can make plenty of real and surreal textures in photoshop anyway, sometimes with rigid parts depending on what equations I use to manipulate perlin-noise, as well as deep craters. The evidence is insufficient and it would need to be investigated more to have any chance of being right. It's been 3.8 BILLION years since life first formed on this planet. This planet is as about as hospitabal as it get's and in that 3.8 billion years no other type of life with different base components of DNA or even non DNA life has developed, so what do you even think the likelihood is that not only would another sentient species would have developed in our galaxy, but that it would be advanced enough to both come here AND completely conceal any trace of themselves? It's too unlikely, only 1 in a large handful of planets has any potential to ever become sustainable for life, and even then it still apparently takes a very very very unlikely scenario to make life.
  2. I tried that, but the only problem with that is that it requires an imaginary axis for the rotation to make sense, it's just like using a word in it's definition. For Example: What does Ostentatious mean? "It's when you act ostentatiously". See the problem? Or saying x=x+1
  3. If you're using classical motion to descried anything about particles, you're wrong, there's scientific experiments that confirm they do not have classical motion. A photon can jump, but it does not travel through the intervening space, and that's because it's not making a classical jump, it's making a quantum jump. A particle itself as far as we know also doesn't even oscillate, only it's probability can be described as a wave function, which solves the problem with jumping. The helical motion you describe would mean the particle is constantly accelerating, and acceleration requires the constant application of energy, and if nothing is applying energy to make it rotate which that seems to be the case in you're model, that means a particle is radiating it's energy away by accelerating, which means electrons should just fall into the nucleus.
  4. It can't be descried using only English words, you would have to see it for yourself. The best way I can describe it, an honorable apple looks like it has a slightly scarred and randomly rugged surface and patches of discoloration, it looks as though it has been through a lot, and accomplished what it was meant to, that's about all I can put into terms of words. Predict what "i" apples looks like.
  5. The solar sail was for telescopes. But yes if it is detected early enough it would take minimal energy to steer a meteor off course, but there's no garuntee it would work, the meteor could have a very rugged shape and the weight that it's hit with would just make it spin. That's why I'm researching something better, which is an indestructible shield, the only problem is making it large scale would require massive amounts of energy, if such a device was build to deflect a meteor it would essentially have to be powered by nuclear reactors that travel with the generator, if a meteor snuck up by surprise it couldn't be built in time, but if it was built pre-hand it would just be a matter of getting it into orbit at the right position, so with all the research being done and the capability of computers I think there's a good chance we can take care of meteors.
  6. Oh ok yeah, then it's completely wrong, matter doesn't physically wave otherwise it would radiate all it's energy away from constantly accelerating.
  7. No it's not enough to relieve the pressure, the sheer volume of the number of holes it would take to relieve the pressure is essentially equivalent to blowing a volcanoe up, which of course would just accelerate the eruption if it's too far into the process of building up pressure.
  8. But not only does you're body WILLINGLY harbor bacteria, especially to digest food, but there's still no scientific basis for your claims, they are merely metaphors at best. There's no reason why the universe would even think living things are bacteria. How do you know we aren't cells instead of pathogens? Then we would be essential to the universe. What if the universe only exists because we are perceiving it?
  9. It's also important to note that an electron isn't actually "orbiting: around a nucleus like a planet around a star, it's oscillating around it which doesn't require physical acceleration or really even velocity.
  10. Good, I should, I've spend a lot of time exercising it to understand visual extra-dimensional shapes and abstract art as well as art that just doesn't make visual sense like juxtapoz. You don't really need to state that, it is already apparent you prefer cold mathematics to philosophy. But it's quantitative and exact by it's own standards of defining quantitative and exact using it's own axoims. I'm not saying it's a cause, but if mathematics was itself a reduced form of logic, then we wouldn't need all these various mathematics systems, we should just be able to use 1 logic to deduce what is logically happening, but we can't, so we know math isn't logic, we assign whatever meaning we want to various symbols. But as according to you math "models" reality, "i" should model something in reality.
  11. There is an honorable apple and a smart apple and an industrious apple, I can picture things in my head that fit all those criteria. Those terms are subjective of course but I easily can, and in fact I was trying to use imaginary numbers to investigate the art of juxtapoz and the meaning beyond the abstract seeming art. Rotation almost makes sense, but I still don't see what "i" apples looks like from it. Before I was at that "i" is similar to one which there is even more evidence for looking at the very complex plane in the website you posted, I would have liked to think of imaginary numbers as extrapolations of extra dimensions, a whole world that is intangible but that is responsible for shaping things, this is where I ran into rotation in my research. However, it's still doesn't make sense that you can just insert an imaginary axis into any random place of reality and get negative 1. Lets say I have a straight stick. If I decide to rotate from my relative position of which I measure it being at 90 degrees from 2pi, and I rotate it 180 degrees, where's the "i"?
  12. As I've said multiple times I'm knowledgeable about complex numbers and I had found in my research prehand that complex numbers were used in electrical circuits, but all your blabbering still doesn't answer what "i" apples looks like. I can picture what a beautiful apple looks like, I can picture part of an infinite number of apples even though neither of those things are things that I can count to on a number line, so what's so complicated about imaginary apples? It isn't sensible, its just useful, I know more about what 5-dimensional objects look like than what imaginary numbers look like, I know how to use them but I have no idea why they work like that, I would think as a math expert that you would be able to use some fancy number theory proof at least as some evidence of them physically correlating to rotation. I've seen them in trigonometric mathematics before, and sine waves can represent circular motion or harmonic oscillation and a variety of any other period phenomena, they can also have imaginary/complex solutions on both Cartesian and polar graphs, but I still don't see the "i" of the tide or of sound waves or ect. Slapping a unit circle on a complex plane doesn't mean "i" represents physical rotation either. I'm not saying it's proven true or anything, but "i" seems like it has a lot of similarities to the number one, you can even raise it to the power of 4 and have it equal 1, and you can raise 1 to the power of 4 and it will equal 1, "i" is derived from the square root of 1, except that specific "1" happens to be on the opposite side of the number line, and that's it. I've been doing research in my free-time for months even before I came to this website, this is the closest I got, nothing you are saying is anything new to me, although as you mentioned rotation did almost make sense, but when you deal with describing locations on a complex plane with cosx+isiny, the mathematics can get complicated quickly. A rotation really really almost made sense, but there's still that problem of using an imaginary axis in the first place, it's like using a word in its definition or saying x=x+1.
  13. You don't need a way to store the plasma, it can be created upon pulling the trigger, what you need is a way to instantly ionize a high volume of matter and shoot it in a straight line. You can heat up matter to millions of degrees but it usually takes a long time, or at least a non-instant amount of time for a macroscopic volume of matter, it usually uses powerful lasers, so why not just quit while you're ahead and use lasers themselves?
  14. The earth would heal eventually, there's at least the capability to make underground environmental stabilizers and in a few countries around the world there's giant underground domes that can hold thousands of people, there's few meteors in the solar system that can actually destroy the entire crust of the Earth that we are in the orbit of, most meteors are under heading near us are less than 100km large, not saying it's good if one hits, it will do a lot of damage and probably wipe out many species, but it's not going to boil the oceans away or strip the atmosphere or destroy all of the crust, it would just theoretically leave a crater 1000km large, like that one near Mexico, Earth still survived. Even if humanity get's wiped out another species will just take its place eventually.
  15. I think essentially what your math boils down too isn't necessarily that there's just two particles, it's just there there's really only two types of oscillation which can oscillate in not only different frequencies and amplitudes and phases but also in different dimensions, and all those oscillations composite in different ways at different angles to make different particles. This isn't much different than what contemporary theories predict. But the real question still remains: what is it that is waving? Also do you know of a way to make 4 dimensional shapes in blender? I need to run a simulation
  16. Ok, so this is my second post on the topic, why do I still see that it has "0" views? Is that some glitch in the system?
  17. No I'm not saying math isn't logic because that's my own opinion, it was actually proven true, There's statements which can't be put into terms of math and even arithmetic theorems which can't be proven with arithmetic and Kurt Godel's statements and research on it. But otherwise, math is what we use to descrie patterns that we observe, and it's one of the most highly developed methods of exploring patterns which is why I use it. Yeah I know it's subjective, but there's no other thing to really put it into sensible terms or to describe it's physical meaning that I can think of, so unless you can come up with something better I'll just have to stick with that.
  18. But what signals? What evidence is there for any signal and what form is it in? And what evidence do you have that it's in that form? There's just too many assumptions.
  19. I understand evolution, but I don't understand why it's in the definition of life, I don't see why it isn't just a process that is the result of life on this specific planet. But otherwise I guess the thing that seems to stick out the most is that stars I don't think can communicate. But do bacteria communicate? I guess it would sort of make sense to distinguish between biotic and abiotic things with evolution, I don't know if stars evolve or not. I would think not, and even though I don't know for sure, it doesn't seem likely now that stars are alive with that exact of a definition.
  20. I think you took the "doesn't do very much damage" out of context, I meant that in reference of actually killing someone, of course shooting someone in the head will greatly impair them in some way. There's plenty of documented cases where people get shot in the head and survive, and it's because the parts of the brain vital to running auto-somatic processes don't get damaged and they get treated fast enough. Your brain does heal but it's very complex which is why it usually takes 10-30 years. Sometimes it doesn't heal, sometimes it heals in less than 10 years, it depends on how much damage is done. With the "not getting proper care", I think that's more to do with the blood flow, not necessarily the actual damage to the brain itself, because if you lose too much blood you just die, if there's too much blood in your head that means its leaking out and not actually reaching your brain cells and it just slows everything down or the brain is compressed by the higher pressure, sometimes enough to die. Your head has a lot of blood vessels in it so it's more likely that if no vital part of the brain got hit that you'd die from hemorrhage, not from actual damage to brain tissue. That's why the pierce is important. If a bullet just cleanly pierces through a non-essential part of the brain, there isn't as much room for blood to leak out and it may just be enough time for paramedics to get there, but if just the side of someone's head get's destroyed, they will pretty much lose too blood instantly and the brain will instantly begin to shut down.
  21. But don't stars reproduce with variation? No two supernova are the same, no two stars have exactly the same composition or size of layers or even just general size. Fire is always a specific reaction with always the same fixed ratio of materials being used up to give off energy. Or what exactly do you mean by "variation"? Because there's no garuntee that offspring will be the result when two things mate, stars could be classified as asexually reproductive. I guess fire does reproduce, and grow, could you establish that it responds to stimuli? Could you establish that it self organizes? There's some trait of fire that makes it so that we know it isn't a living thing by our current definition. Can you show that that trait also exists in stars? Unless then maybe we don't know for sure fire isn't alive. Is it perhaps that if it requires an outside process to achieve any of the functions then it isn't a trait that makes it a living thing? But don't many living things require outside nutrients to self sustain? I'm trying to look up the formal definition of "life" but there's a lot of variation. What I remember is essentially that: its self organizing and self sustaining, it reproduces, it grows over time, and I thought I remembered "responding to stimuli" but I don't remember what the response was when I asked about plants.
  22. There's iron atmosphere's around the surfaces of super-dense objects like neutron stars, but that's about it, there's no observed iron cloud, a star would have to be a lot more massive than any other star ever before to leave that much vaporized iron that it could travel as a distinguishable object and not just fly out in all directions into the vacuum.
  23. They disperse materials by shedding their outer layers near the end of their life cycle, different types of stars do it in different ways, that gas then can collapse to become other stars. Again, the argument isn't if they are conscious but just that it's possible they are alive because they fit under the standards they we define to be "life". On a tangent (line) I'm also not sure why I got a minus sign, I didn't even notice those until now. So someone doesn't like my post because they don't like looking at possibilities they hadn't considered before? That seems very rude and counterproductive to science to add personal opinions in like that to what I had hoped to be a logical debate. I wasn't comfortable with that possibility either, but that's just a feeling, I highly doubt whoever marked it down had any scientific basis for or against the hypothesis. Besides, I never stated that I supported that stars are alive. Whether people like it or not, given the sets of data, unless someone wants to be logical and provide evidence against it, with this current knowledge it's possible stars are alive under current scientific definitions of life. Again, unless someone wants to actually be logical and provide logical evidence against it which I'm all for.
  24. Of course they all have their uses, but mathematics merely describes our observed patterns of reality, mathematics itself is not a reduced form of logic, it is it's own composite of systems which have their own axioms. Looking at "i" a component of a vector still doesn't help nail down the meaning, the only thing I can seem to come up with is that it's related to the number "1" in it's properties. Perhaps we can look into it more by analyzing division. A negative number divided by "i" yields that number time's the coefficient of "-i". Similarly, a positive number divided by the square root of "1" yields that number times the coefficient of 1, and a real number divided by "i" yields that same number accept multiplied by the coefficient -i. I'm seeing a lot of properties that remind me of the number 1, but that could be because of the obscurity of the actual value of "i".
  25. Essentially yes, electrons, neutrons and protons are all examples of fermions. You can have just random neutrons and protons floating about separately or in clumps such as in plasma or radioactive decay, but when electrons are no longer around a nucleus, it's not an atom anymore, it's just ions, an atom is the smallest unit of an element that sustains those element's properties, which doesn't happen without elections around a nucleus. As far as I know, there's no other way to have an atom. A lot of your first post just doesn't really make sense, how would the universe even know if life is growing out of hand too much? Why would it really care anyway? A lot of your beliefs don't seem to be supported by any logical evidence.
  • 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.