SCIENCE

yea i know all that Aqua lol BUT Einstein realised a lot about what i call, the human condition.

i believe we create our own thought patterns to a certain degree, therefore we all have vary'ing amounts of trouble in adding our own mental realization or lack there of as being part of the problem.

i see it something like writers block. you can think and think and your thoughts still seem to be a little clouded and then, for whatever reason? it just becomes clearer. which makes me wonder weather logic or enlightenment rules the day?

and its a lot harder to convey an exact point in writing then i ever imagined it to be lol

“I didn't arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind”

Albert Einstein

“Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one”

Albert Einstein

like i said, were all dillusional to a degree! we decieve ourselves on a regular basis.

Originally posted by Heavenly_tRiNiTy I vote 4 4

This is the most logical one and the hardest one to flaw...

I vote 4 4  

Is that latin ? idk

How can you rule out 7 ?

multiverse is the correct one...

Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by ASHYTEBUBLExD Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by TX2k7 consider everything u see, no matter how close u are to it u are merely seeing the light reflected off that object and with that in mind, u are not truly seeing what u are observing as it exists at that very moment, u are percieving it a fraction of a second after that moment (the time the light takes to reflect off the object and be percieved by u, including the fraction of a second ur brain takes to process the information from ur eyes and send an image back) btw....nice radioactive sybol on the topic syz :D hehehe Yes, in short, we are always seeing the past. Over the flat ocean we can see about 150 miles before the curvature of the earth prevents us from seeing further. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second relative to anyone and everything, it takes light from one of the farthest objects you can see on earth ~.0008 secs to reach you. Thus, we are always seeing, as TX2k7 said, the past. Expand this to distances between us and the closest star, Proxima Centauri; and, the difference in time between when the event (light emission) happened and we see it becomes 4.2 light years. For practical purposes In everyday life, these statement of reality is not particularly helpful - only insightful. But then I could argue that im being less affected by time that you are, if we say time is relative, i can say im moving faster through time than you are therfore I WIN... Yes, both our statements are true. If you increase velocity or gravitational strength on some object A, passage of time slows for A relative to some third party observer, B. However, for the observer in A or B, time appears to pass normally, as we are now. Yet, regaurdless of discrepancies in "the present," both A and B view events who's origins are in the past, as we covered earlier.

I still win =D

Science alone of all subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation...learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact. I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

who? _-)

syzygy, what you don't realize is that we know more about religion than you do... you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to physics.. you watch a couple of documentaries and you think you know the "truth"

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc where did you take your iq test a cracher jack box? lol its sincesless to even try to clue U in dude

Coming from a dude who has multiple errors in grammar and spelling in almost every post; and who is over forty years of age, while telling a guy who is more than half your elder, who's talking to you in a second language,stupid!!!  Who also makes pretty good points (they agree with mine, of course their good)!

Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by Aquaknot HanFei - does radiation have specific gravity?  I know it's measured in Rads, but does it have weight?  Is it particles or something like the mystery meat in fast food chicken nuggets - origins and composition unknown?  That's been bugging me for some time. Edit: short answer yes, mass of photon, neutron, electron or helium nucleus. However, it is I portent to note that as things approach c, like particles being released from fission, mass decreases. I know it's counter intuitive, I may have phrased it wrong, but the principle remains. /edit Four types of radiation - all have specific mass amounts - alpha radiation is the emission of the equivalent of a helium nucleus from an unstable isotope. Very damaging, highly ionizing, stopped by a few inches of air, specific weight known, isotope looses two neutrons and two protons. - beta radiation is the emission of the equivalent of an electron from an unstable nucleus. Ionizing, stopped by paper, specific weight known, but position subject to quantum randomness. - neutron - emission of generally 2-3 neutrons per fission or some in neuronic fusion processes (some fusion processes don't release neutrons), most damaging on a per particle basis, specific weight known, stopped with atoms that have a large cross section for absorbing neutrons (more probable to absorb than bounce off) like hydrogen in water or boron - gamma - high every photon, ionizing, although this is the least damaging, there are generally far more of these hitting you, making them cumulatively more damaging. All of these can damage DNA. As an aside, flight attendants have the highest rates of radiation exposure out of any profession. Sorry for the sloppy post.

Originally posted by Aquaknot HanFei - does radiation have specific gravity?  I know it's measured in Rads, but does it have weight?  Is it particles or something like the mystery meat in fast food chicken nuggets - origins and composition unknown?  That's been bugging me for some time.

Edit: short answer yes, mass of photon, neutron, electron or helium nucleus. However, it is I portent to note that as things approach c, like particles being released from fission, mass decreases. I know it's counter intuitive, I may have phrased it wrong, but the principle remains. /edit

Four types of radiation - all have specific mass amounts
- alpha radiation is the emission of the equivalent of a helium nucleus from an unstable isotope. Very damaging, highly ionizing, stopped by a few inches of air, specific weight known, isotope looses two neutrons and two protons.
- beta radiation is the emission of the equivalent of an electron from an unstable nucleus. Ionizing, stopped by paper, specific weight known, but position subject to quantum randomness.
- neutron - emission of generally 2-3 neutrons per fission or some in neuronic fusion processes (some fusion processes don't release neutrons), most damaging on a per particle basis, specific weight known, stopped with atoms that have a large cross section for absorbing neutrons (more probable to absorb than bounce off) like hydrogen in water or boron
- gamma - high every photon, ionizing, although this is the least damaging, there are generally far more of these hitting you, making them cumulatively more damaging.

All of these can damage DNA. As an aside, flight attendants have the highest rates of radiation exposure out of any profession. Sorry for the sloppy post.