Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. Exactly; while brown's gas is more than happy to turn back into water, water isin't happy to turn into brown's gas. 360Hitman, The energy you'll have to put into making brown's gas will ideally be equal to the energy you get from making it. In real life, that energy will be higher. If you run your car with a brown's gas generator, your car's mileage will go down, because the generator will create inductive resistance to the car's motion. Now this drop in mileage will partially be compensated in the brown's gas' energy, but only partially.
  2. You probably are right; I can't exactly find any examples to substantiate anything I've said.
  3. That's the problem with a hastily typed post. You never get your complete word across. You are correct of course. On an average, males do have a higher (an order of magnitude higher) amount of testosterone. And yes, testosterone does increase the mental and physical energy of the person; this combined with the tendency to affect the flight or fight response (Link) does appear to translate into a more aggressive tendency in some individuals. What, however I wish to get across is the matter of what different individuals do with this increased energy. Frustrated individuals would obviousl
  4. I am rather disappointed by the tone that his discussion had taken. In my opinion, males and females are not factions that can be stereotyped with a number of tags. Tags such as 'aggressive', 'thoughtful', 'petty-competitive' can be attributed to individuals; not genders. The fact that these attributes are brought on by the so called gender roles (or their equivalents) in various cultures is a different matter. That's my thoughts in a nutshell; I'll be able to write more later...
  5. That's disgusting... I'd rather have normal-large muscles, just with a lot of power. A digital representation of you could have that.
  6. You look an awful lot like that guy from 'Follow the Fleet'...
  7. What you predict will happen tomorrow is... just prediction. I'd say that the 'future' as of now, does not actually exist (if you don't believe in fate, that is). Anything that would exist now would probably be subject to some sort of a change, would that knowledge be real and available. If, however you do believe in fate, then the future does exist, and the knowledge of it cannot ever be available to us, thus it's not a concept we can actually use anyway. What we call 'future' is the time line, and the events that would have occurred later. We do predictions of the future, but we cannot
  8. Erm... I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the Pauli exclusion principle says nothing about bosons. Furthermore, the principle says that two quantum identical fermions cannot exist. I'd like to draw you attention to the difference with the sentence you've used. 'Quantum identical' things are, well, identical in all quantum numbers to begin with. If, by chance you mean different fermions (say electron vs muon), the principle still says they can't have the same quantum state. I'd say that since the Pauli Exclusion does not apply to bosons at all; and if you assume the different bosons
  9. Ooh! ooh! :phones: Even better; the AI be utilizing the combined mental capability of all the wired in humans, so that it be able to function faster... thus actually requiring us to be alive so that it can do whatever it is that it would wanna do. The matrix be a medium to keep our conscious mind just active enough to have the computer be able to use parts of it without us being able to realize it... Hmmm... there is still a bit to be figured out... Why keep the rest of the body alive? Why not amputate the legs and arms, etc that simply would be consuming excess energy... I'm gonna sto
  10. Awesome video! I'd note that it's probably the pressure of the motivation that causes a kind of a block in the creative process of us humans. I've been through countless math exams, where I find that the pressures of (1) time limit, (2) reward in high scores, (3) punishment in low scores, etc makes it extremely difficult to think of new approaches to solve problems. On the other hand, whenever you'd begin writing an exam with confidence that would arise from the knowledge that you will ace it, you get some great ideas during writing the exam. You could say that the mind often doesn't do
  11. I had no idea where else to put this... anyway; Anyone living at or near Madison? I had to ask.
  12. Ibiar, your article is a long one, and I haven't been able to read the whole thing. But I'm going to comment on some of the arguments against the Expansion of the Universe theory you've given: 1a: Space cannot be created or destroyed. Yes, we may know that energy and mass probably cannot be observed or destroyed. But there is no real law about space being created or destroyed. That is a hypothesis that you have assumed. Only if it could be proved, would it have sufficient validity to discredit the bbt. Unfortunately for your theory, bbt, which has a lot of credence right now, requires th
  13. Ooh! ooh! Also the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton wavelength. While both are not measurable so easily as inertial of gravitational mass, they both are indeed quantities that can be acquired from the mass, by virtue of it's behavior.
  14. That's because gravitational and inertial mass are distinct concepts. Their magnitudes are same because (1) of the value of 'G' we select, and (2) gravitational and inertial mass have always been found to be directly in proportion. And further, even gravitational mass can only be measured with respect to naother gravitational attractor. However, the energy to mass equivalence would provide an absolute measure of mass. Provided you could measure the energy derived from the mass.
  • Create New...