Endy0816

I do wonder about that sometimes, could a program pass the Turing test by posting on a science forum?

Anyways I don't feel we know enough at this point to say that the Universe will die. Best we can do is extrapolate based on present conditions, which we know were different in the past.

Black holes have a good bit of stored matter/energy, so worst comes to worst they should keep things going longer than otherwise.

Form change is probably most viable option with what we know at present. Just about going to have to anyways if we want to venture out into the larger Universe. Start small with synthetics, genetic engineering, machine incorporation and work our way up to the more exotic.

Resistance(Joule Heating) and the thermoelectric effect.

Thermoelectric effect would be what you'd want to look into if you want cooling. Peltier coolers and the like.

Air resistance along with that.

Mob mentality or peer pressure would probably fit.

 

Let's consider the "gap" in question here.

 

Whenever we talk about the theory for the evolution of man, the chart that shows the 1st primitive ape, followed by the 2nd and so on until the modern man today comes into mind. In brief, evolution would tell us it happened as a result of natural selection, and other naturally occurring modes of change from our environment that favoured us to walk more upright and also for our brains to be more tuned towards increased intelligence.

It seems highly plausible at 1st glance, but things get a bit tricky if we put it into a realistic background to consider:

1) If intelligence was the preferrential trait at the time of the "1st ape", the concept of natural selection should expect those born with better wired brains would statistically survive better.

2) Evolution assumes these "higher species" will definitely have offspring in order to pass them to the next generation, but that is not always the case

3) we need to remember also these "intelligent" offsprings do not naturally come in batches at 1 go, or in other words, they are usually the minority (very very few in the large pool of his lesser brethrens)

If we put this theory into today's context, it could be like saying Albert Einstein is the 1st of "its kind" (the intelligent one). Say he did marry another woman of the same IQ, so will his children be born "better equipped" than the rest of us already, such that his line, will survive better and even outbreed the rest of us?

To take the examination of this theory further, we see the apes progressed from 1st to the 2nd and so forth, as if the previous one was replaced by the latter.

In today's world, we only see the modern man, and the apes. For this to happen, it would mean the entire groups of ape1,2,3 etc somehow all died out or got entirely interbreeded.

Considering how people move from places to places, and also geographical isolations, the possibility to be able to outbreed all the previous ape kinds of man in the entire world would be.. near impossible (unless perhaps our ancient ancestors lived in very small groups and do not travel around for at least the past 100 thousands of years).

2) Evolution didn't assume. A mutation occurred and the circumstances favored that mutation.

3) Here you are assuming the individual didn't use their intelligence to the fullest extent. Out compete others for food, kill off competition, take multiple partners. Likely there was an environmental threat as well that the individual's intelligence and later the group's intelligence gave them greater ability to cope with.

There is evidence of interbreeding. Probably wasn't as nice as people make it out to be, but evidence nonetheless.

Was probably more a result of time and tides than anything deliberate. Push a group to the marginal areas, famine, disease, genetic isolation start taking their toll. Eventually all that remains are traces.

Meat contains natural B12 cobalamin versus the artificial form of cyanocobalamin. Cyanocobalamin leaves traces of cyanide as you digest it, so logical in my mind anyways to try and avoid this.

 

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that we are omnivores?

Well "we" is presumptive, but humans in general are omnivorous eating both meat and plants.

You also may not need to kill an animal to obtain it anymore, so meat is the correct term.

Plant matter goes largely uneaten and grazers along with everything up from them produces waste. All of this becomes part of the detritus food chain.

Generally results are only used to show possible risk factors. They make these drugs for the lowest common denominator anyways, I doubt it'd be a major difference. Even then the drug's literature should reference anything that could impact efficiency.

You may want to look for better prices elsewhere if that will put your friend's mind at ease.

This link: http://mashable.com/2013/05/15/personal-genetics-resources/

has several cheaper options. Not sure how on how much analysis they provide or for how much.

Note: 23andMe is unavailable at present.

Pretty good topic about this already:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67272-when-water-can-form-an-h30-ion-why-cant-it-form-an-h4o2-ion/

I was just using the term as a catchall to reference man-made materials with properties not found in nature.

OP was asking about a way to generate power from a magnet without any motion occurring in the system.

Indeterminate or not defined.

X * 0 = 0

=> 0/0 = X

X can be anything under the sun and 0/0 has to equal all of those possibilities.

I wrote to Santa for a free energy generator years ago and it never arrived :'(

I did get a lump of coal, not sure if he was making a point or not.

There are obvious genetic and epigenetic components of intelligence, but barring that it comes down to environment. It makes rational sense to find someone who shares your ethos but genetics shouldn't(and likely won't) be a factor.

Just to put it out there, I feel IQ and similar test results can cause problems. Either superiority or inferiority complexes. Personally speaking I try and downplay all my own results and praise others for whatever they are good at. If nothing else this is the most intelligent thing you can do. You have to shine sometimes, but you don't need to be the only star in the sky.

Best guess would be to go with the conduction taking place in the heat sinks themselves. Found a number of potential papers just with a search for "conduction heat sinks".

Discussion of the material differences(thermal conductivity), would easily give you a good amount of material. Especially with the more exotic types(diamond, composites). Corrosion resistance, pricing, should also make for good points. Might also be able to talk about the conduction taking place in heat exchangers for liquid refrigerant based cooling, not sure if that would be applicable or not though.

I'm sure there are more scholarly papers you can also find depending on what resources your school gives you access to.

Fuller's Synergistics again :\

You can't make the claim "via mathematics" because that is not what mathematics as understood by most everyone else dictates.

I'm so over it at this point.

 

We have old Bucky to thank for such woo terms as "synergistics" and "spaceship Earth."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

You are insulting people and proselytizing. Both of which are against the rules.

It also casts your beliefs in a negative light. If you care about nothing else, I would hope you would at least care about that.

Are you talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_packaging

or something else?

My guess would be that searching for the individual elements will yield you better results.

Yeah, Forbes reads much better.

Would need to be some sort of new metamaterial. Provided the energy to switch came from the magnet's energy or physical composition it would still be within the laws of conservation of energy.

Considering some of the latest metamaterials out there(cloaking, memory metals, etc) not a huge stretch to think it'll become a reality.

I think you are confusing an attack on an idea with an attack on your person. The first is allowed and expected here, the second is against the rules.

As far as terminology goes, most of the time you can head over to Wikipedia and research it there.

Only things I've ever heard of undergoing magnetic field self reversal are stars and some planets. Probably some moons as well. Even then there is a large degree of internal motion.

Real world you would need something which undergoes cyclic changes within its own structure which affect the state of the magnetic field produced.

It goes against that whole trustworthy part of the scout law. Namely people should be able to trust you won't turn your home into a Superfund site.

There's repulsion and attraction. I'm sure some contraption could be made to remove energy from magnets using those effects, but it'd be somewhat pointless.

You can steal the same energy with just a moving conductor in a magnetic field or alternatively rotating the magnetic field and keeping the conductor stationary.

Yeah, I was thinking religion would be the most viable reason. Possibly for economic motives(novelty items/genes/tech).

Realistically any invading force would probably do some version of an asteroid attack. Not that hard to sling a rock at us while bleeding off some speed. Wait for the inevitable social collapse and only then launch aerial and land based mop up teams. If biosphere recovery is an issue for them, they have the outer planetary resources to occupy their attention in the meantime.