ElectroMagnetic Radiation -

Lol :p

All objects that work using electricity have an electromagnetic field and hence radiate (including your cellphone). However, not all need radiation filters for you to work using them.

The filter that you linked is more of an anti-glare filter that touts radiation-blocking capabiltities. It's more pronounced effect will however be to reduce strain on the eyes. It can definitely not stop radiation that does not occur from directly behind it.

Some studies claim to prove a marked increase in the temperature of certain parts of the brain due to prolonged cellphone usage (as cellphones use microwave frequencies). To be on the safe side, as the cellphone is a radiation emmitter, you should consider keeping it as far from your body as possible and not using it for too long either - that notwithstanding the fact that you can compare the radiation emitted by a phone before buying it and that good phones do block a certain amount of the radiation they create.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation2.htm

When I was 12, I noticed that holding a bulk tape eraser from Radio Shack, which is essentially an electromagnet of about the same power as a ceiling fan's motor (the magnetic drive portion), next to my temple, I could see ripples in my vision.

We weren't so careful back in the 70's, you know :)

I've grabbed exposed 117 volt power leads (lost control of my arms for about 2 seconds). Now that's an intimate connection to radiation :eek:

I didn't read the article in Popular Electronics explaining that color TV's of the 70's (the old Tube types especially) emitted X ray radiation, especially if you 'fiddled' with them while they were on, until AFTER I had fiddled with it while it was on :rolleyes:

What a surprise to discover, at the full adult age of about 32, that the old 'hand held' 3inch B&W portable battery operated television used a REAL CRT for the display, and even THAT had about the power of a mild stun gun. I 'discovered' that fact trying to adjust the tube's alignment and, well, touched something 'hot'. From 4 AA batteries comes quite a jolt when passed through a miniature flyback transformer. My guess: 10,000 volts - I heard a definite SNAP as it seemed to literally bite me!

I still have that TV, too. My wife uses it now and then.

Now, a tangential side note of similar dangers we can't do anything about (or seem to, for one reason or other)...

Look into solar radiation, ozone, cosmic background radiation and X-Ray astronomy. Occasionally we're hit with some kind of radiation throughout our lives, some of it constant.

Of course, the increasing microwave traffic for cell phones MIGHT be a little stronger than that, but I don't think we're going to stop using cellphone until RaleTheBlade's navel growth resembles a miniature twin.

To my mind, though, the strangest of all such concepts: a very dense particle passed straight through the Earth!

This hasn't been widely publicized because it's probably nothing more than a mere curiosity. Seismic sensors are placed all over the Earth, monitoring for all kinds of 'Earth noises' that mean something to scientists that study that sort of thing.

A few years ago (I don't recall when), sensors marked a 'pop' or 'ping' that took a decidedly curious pattern. After some mapping of the sound, it became obvious that, without MUCH doubt, some tiny particle struck the Earth a one point, passed through the planet (as I recall fairly near the core), and EXITED the other side of the planet.

The speed of the object didn't change much. It was, apparently very small - microscopic. Small enough that if it had passed through a living being, it may not have left a noticeable mark, and it might not have caused enough damage to be any trouble - smaller than a living cell. It's density, however, is not that of 'normal' matter (normal being that which we're familiar with from childhood).

It's not as dense as a primordial black hole, so far as the theory goes, but somewhere around 1/10th to 1/50th or so of that density. That microscopic particle must have weighed over 1 ton. It had such inertia, and pushed its force into such a tiny area, at such a velocity, that it barely slowed down as it punched through.

A difficult particle to capture and study, but apparently part of nature, and something ELSE we have to dodge and worry about, if that's the kind of attitude one has on the subject.

There's probably more that we don't know about than what we've discovered so far.

Ermm.. Can someone please provide a link to the article... ?

How can a tiny particle with a mass of a ton pass though the planet without affecting the gravitational or magnetic or electic fields of the planet (i.e. bending radiation around it?). Or may be it did and was noticed because it impacted the fields?

Now, I am curious... :D

maybe a loose gluon, or anti-matter(i think this is also called dark matter but im not sure). but its certainly interesting

jvene..

i know of space radiation, where astronauts see white swirly lines when they close there eyes because of it(i dont know if they found it what it axatly is but they dint know what it was when i saw documentary about the space nauts), how is this particle diffrent?

I was thinking along the lines of size and velocity. Granted the particle may be small, but if its traveling fast enough to go through the earth, then it must be moving at an incredible rate of speed.

Take a particle that weighs 1 ton as we have stated. That particle traveling at (for example) 1500 km/s wouldnt have as much power as the same particle if it was traveling at 5000 km/s. As velocity increases, so does momentum.

What I was getting at was, if this particle was moving fast enough to go through the earth, wouldn't the force be detectable in some way shape or form? We can detect light with photometers, and to think of a particle that could move faster than light would be incredible.
i was thiking axactly the same thing there is no way a particle at that velocity is unnoticed unless its sub level particle like gluon, but we havent heard the full story did we, for all we know it could have been a fluctuation or even a spast in the earths magnetic field, or maybe both.

and also who said that huge velocity was caused by inertia?
i myself do not believe in inertia, it rather believe in evrything thats connected (forces) that is manipulating eachother's movement

Well, mass x velocity gives you momentum. A collision between two VW Beetles wouldn't be terribly tragic at low speeds, but take a semitruck and smash it into a VW at those sames speeds (and enjoy the wonderful image :p ) and the VW would be totaled. Hence the difference in momentum.

The more momentum an object has, the more force it exerts on the physics around it.

Also, I just thought of something. Wouldn't a particle have to be accelerated beyond the speed of light in order to go through the earth? Seeing as how light cannot penetrate through the earth. Though I suppose light and physical matter are two totally different areas. So that isn't very sound I guess.

But another thing, if particles were accelerated at super high speeds, wouldn't their own movement cause them to produce light energy or if they went fast enough, become unstable and break apart?

Mitsukai:

Radiation would be different that a mass particle. Radiation could be electromagnetic, having no mass. When they speak of particles of radiation, they're talking about quarks as particles of energy. This massive particle is made of quarks, but fashioned as matter (matter made of 2 types of quarks, theoretically this thing might be made of 3 quarks).

RaleTheBlade:

It was fast, that's for sure....

In the links I posted above, one article says:

One event occurred on 22 October 1993, when, according to the researchers, something entered the Earth off Antarctica and left it south of India 0.73 of a second later.

The other occurred on 24 November 1993, when an object entered south of Australia and exited the Earth near Antarctica 0.15 of a second later.

Though, without some trig, I can't turn that into a velocity.

Other articles describe these particles are "presumed to be 10 million times more dense than lead, and travel largely undetected through space at roughtly 1 million mph".

They were detected passing through Earth, and there were seismic 'pings' associated with it, but any damage is so small as to be unrecognizable. Even a 'sonic boom' associated with the column of it's travel path would have a very small size, dissipating so rapidly that a detector would have to be very close to measure the energy in the atmosphere.

The solid material of Earth, on the other hand, would have been more affected, and at such lengths of travel through it's interior, the result was noticed as a seismic noise. It's faint, though.

I don't think the particle was close to relativistic speeds, but it was fast.

When I mentioned one article's observation that it could pass through the human body unnoticed, that doesn't mean unmeasurable. It simply wouldn't have been felt or caused recognizable damage because the site of injury is smaller than the cells it would likely affect. We get more damage from minor infections than that.

From RaleTheBlade:

Also, I just thought of something. Wouldn't a particle have to be accelerated beyond the speed of light in order to go through the earth?

Not really. Search on the theory of the origin of our moon. The best, most accepted theory, is that Earth was once smaller, and ANOTHER PLANET was in orbit close by, about the size of Mars.

The two collided, melding, and from the far side of Earth emerged some portion of the colliding planet, which eventually settled into the lunar orbit, forming the moon.

The core of that planet pushed material clear through this one - though it was more of a kinetic exchange, and certainly no where near the speed of light.

Besides, inertia increases with velocity such that for any mass particle, the inertia reaches infinity as you reach the speed of light. This means it requires an infinite amount of force to reach light speed. Mass particles won't be traveling AT light speed, and certainly not faster, in our universe.

What I was getting at was, if this particle was moving fast enough to go through the earth, wouldn't the force be detectable in some way shape or form? We can detect light with photometers, and to think of a particle that could move faster than light would be incredible.
As far as I know this particle would theoretically 'warp' or better known as time travel. Anything that moves faster then light warps but it also depends on how fast its going.

And just as a side note Anti-Matter is created when 2 atoms smash together at VERY HIGH speeds.

(Who impressed with my 14 year-old knowledge ?:p)

Thanks.

You and JVene seem to be the best scientist here :)

JVene,

I found an article that describes the particles we were discussing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21334310/?GT1=10450&pg=11#Space_10StrangeSpaceThings_071011

"Neutrinos are electrically neutral, virtually mass-less elementary particles that can pass through miles of lead unhindered"

Only thing is that theyre allegedly "mass-less" particles, which doesn't add up (quite literally!) to the theory that the particles passing through earth are super dense and have a mass near 1 ton.

That electromagnetic radiation has got a lot to answer for. I mean, it keeps on converting my rhodopsin to bathrhodopsin, and I can't stop it. It's a worry.

I wonder if the "strangelets" referred to in one of those articles are related to primordial black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Primordial_black_hole). Mind you, they would have a mass a bit more than a ton (approximately that of Mount Everest).

On the subject of wierd (or heavy) particles, how about a proton with the mass of a bacterium (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/)?

Scientists arent exactly sure how particles like the Oh-My-God Particles ( :lol: great name ) reach these speeds. They could be due to superstellar explosions I think...

Light isn't a form of matter, it is transported as things called "photons".

I read somewhere the Andromeda would be colliding with is in a few billion years, yes, and then our galaxy and Andromeda will start eating each other so to speak and become a new galaxy.

Heat from the sun is transmitted in waves such as microwaves and radio waves. Other things produce heat, such as radiation in gamma and ultraviolet rays.

As for magnetism, its a phenomenon of physics. Say you have an atom with 10 protons (+) and 6 electrons (-) and you have another atom that contains 6 protons (+) and 10 electrons(-). These two atoms will naturally be attracted to each other in order to exchange electrons and gain a neutral charge. However, in certain metals such as iron, the atoms are so stable that they will never exchange sub-atomic particles and therefore remain magnetic forever or until another magnetic object with the necessary atomic structure comes along and the two object exchange and become neutral. Thats my understanding of it...

If you would enjoy an 'gentle' way to understand the state of the science, I highly recommend the book "A brief history of time" by Steven Hawkins. It's a fantastic discussion from A to Z, without the requirement of dedicated study. Hardly anything else satisfies quite so well.

Hawking is the Einstein of our generation! I have the utmost respect for that man. After all the trials he has faced, he still goes through life with dignity and continues his studies with fervor.

I just got done discussing some aspects of astro-physics with a co-worker and came to the idea that made one of Einsteins theories famous.

E = mc2 basically stated that not only can energy be calculated by multiplying the mass of the object by the speed of light squared, but it states that as matter moves towards the speed of light, it BECOMES energy. Revolutionary! The reverse is true as well, if we could somehow slow light down, it would become some form of matter. Hows that for a head rush?

Jvene,
As for that central gravity source. Do you think there could be a super black hole at the center of our universe? My co-worker and I also discussed the edge of the universe and if it exists. I say it does, but it doesn't, we're encapsulated in different dimensions, each held together by worm holes that are strewn through black holes.

Ever wonder where some of the matter in our universe came from? Perhaps it was all spewed out from a white hole trillions of trillions of years ago from another universal dimension.

there are already devices that freeze light rays considerably. They also use this to make Holographic images(actually they are freezing nano-particles, but concept is same), some holographic screens are made with counter-lasers, because its less energy consuming.

Sorry for confusing the mass particle from jvene to be a radiation particle, basicly jvene was off-topic and got confused ;)

as for black-holes, and time-travel, they are really far-fetched theories, and i do not believe in them.

they have tried to send information at the speed of light, but havent succeeded, as soon as a bit info is send it slows down alot. So they theorize in order for non-light particles to move at the speed of light it has to be light.
But what you are trieing to say rale is the phase-transition of matter to energy. It does exist, its called quark-gluon plasma, try it out on google.

I know about the movement of mass disappearing into one point. But the model about those black holes they have now, just doesnt sound logical.

While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. Research on this subject indicates that, rather than holding captured matter forever, black holes may slowly leak a form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation.[5][6][7] However, the final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown.

on the page about black-holes, quark-gluon plasma seems to be coming back...

Wow, you guys are seriously clever! Why the hell don't we get this stuff taught at our school? If they taught it I'd definitely listen!

What actually pulls us inwards(gravity)?

How is glass see through? It seems to be a mix of water and solid.

What is custard? Solid or liquid(if it was in a swimming pool you'll go through, if it was in your hand it'll stay).

How is infrared invisible?

If infrared is light and is invisible doesn't this mean we could use infrared in theory to turn things invisible?

How does a computer screen make colors without real life examples(its like they create their own dimensions in which colors are defined as something)?

What is the shape of the Universe?

How are most planets spherical? Gravity would have to be constant to create the shape. What I mean by this is that depending on how far the gravity energy goes then energy in that radius remains constant(so all of a 1m, 3m, 5 inches and any other radius would be constant).

What is the smallest life existing? Numbers simply can go down for ever and the question is how small is the smallest creature(is it 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000223342423823948298492843?).

Thanks.

Infrared is not light, its radiation.
Light is a wave of photons, a photon is a particle that holds a particle with itselve. (there are new theories made about what a photon exactly is...)

Glass is silicum, they used to make glass from some certain types of rock.

U can not make mass 'invisible', because light is always manipulated within the mass and reflected by the mass. the closest thing for a human to be invisible is transparent blood and bone.

The smallest living organism we know is a bacteria. (look for theoretical nano-bacteria)

We still dont know how gravity actually pulls us.
They used to think that gravity is a particle.
But now they are making other theories, that gravity is rather a property of matter.
Gravity could be a sign that matter is actually not a stable substance.
A stranglet creates so much gravity that it creates a black hole.

Planets are round because of gravity is angular, and because when they were born they were liquid or gas form.

Computer screens, what type? CRT uses vacuum and magnetic fields to bend a beam of light. LCD uses cone shaped crystals, use electricty to put them in the right position, then send light through. Plasma uses substances mostly found in space to create colors and sends light through.

Technically light is electromagnetic radiation
wrong, light is a wave of photons, the assumption that photons were electrons has been corrected. it is diffrent than from normal elctromagnetic radiation

Its almost impossible to believe that liquid could have such tension. Hmm it seems man could actually walk on liquid :p

What makes mercury a metal?

What is around the universe(on the outside)?

How are dreams generated?

Just like light is it possible to focus touch? I mean that when you hit something the energy for the hit is dispersed around the object, but what happens if this was focused? Think about it, a measly touch could even crack(or make a hole) in concrete.

Is it possible to be immortal? I mean I think it IS possible, as far as I'm concerned the brain is the most important part of the body because everything else there has the job of keeping it in working order(it requires oxygen). If we were to somehow put the brain into some sort of metallic armor that is also a machine then we could have powerful bodies which supply the brain a constant amount of oxygen. And because it is a machine we could see everything (eg Ultraviolet, infrared, gravitational level, heat source, pressure, etc).

What do you think about it?

Thanks.

wrong, light is a wave of photons, the assumption that photons were electrons has been corrected. it is diffrent than from normal elctromagnetic radiation

I full well admit I'm just a tourist of the sciences. It's been decades since I was a student, and I can only summarize what we used to call book reports. So I don't want to start a raging argument about it, but check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

The basic notion is that the frequency of the wave determines what we call it, but the division of light from, say, infrared isn't because it's somehow inherently different. It's kind of like thinking the sun is above the Earth because of our viewpoint. We see light, so we assume it's different, and have for centuries. Infrared is called a radiation, but it's not something entirely different from what we think of as red light, except we can see red light.

I don't recall when light was ever thought to be made of electrons. Perhaps you're thinking that the term 'electromagnetic' implies that its made of electrons, but I don't think that's the case. It refers to one of the forces of nature, and electrons flowing through a wire can give rise to that force, but I don't think it's comprised of electrons. I was always taught it is comprised of photons, and photons are what transfers the electromagnetic force, as in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

At least what I'm saying is that these articles coincide with my understanding of the material.

Light is a wave a photons, you're correct about that.

Photons are the elementary particle that transfers the electromagnetic force.

Thus, light is an electromagnetic radiation, as is the other radiations transferred by the photon, and the differentiation of visible light from the other radiations, like X rays, microwaves, radio waves, infrared or ultraviolet radiations are essentially the same, differing in frequency.

What makes mercury a metal?

I'm not exactly sure how to answer the underlying nature of your question. Mercury is an element, meaning that it is recognizable as mercury even if a single atom exists, it's not a compound (a collection of molecules). The various elements are what they are by virtue of the number of protons in their nucleus, which corresponds to the number of electrons we usually find around that nucleus, which in turn defines how that element reacts with other elements. How or why this gives the various elements their respective properties I don't recall anyone ever explaining. I'm not sure there ever has been a theory that explains it satisfactorily, but my knowledge here is quite limited.

Focus touch? Interesting phrase! That goes back to the nature of that particle passing through Earth from several posts ago here. It's precisely because it's force was so concentrated in such a small area that it's effect on the Earth (or any 'normal' matter) is so surprising. Basically, applying force in a physically smaller surface is, I think, what you're saying by focus - if by touch you mean some measurable force.

Dreams are a mystery. We're not even certain what sleep is, from what I understand. The best I have ever visualized it is thus, and I'm certainly wandering into conjecture, as I think is admitted even by those professing the subject. The mind is the result of various specialized brain structures working in close unison. Consciousness is, perhaps, an illusion of this coalescence of cooperative actions. During sleep, it seems, these separate regions disconnect from each other, somewhat, and portions exhibit thoughts which aren't exactly connected with real experience. Without strong cross checks against the conclusions of other regions, disconnected regions of the brain are free to reach conclusions (and form ideas) entirely unique to dreams. There does appear to be some important mental functions that happen during sleep; short term memory seems to be better imprinted into long term storage (or at least that function is impaired in those deprived of sleep).

One famous dream led to a realization in chemistry. The benzine molecule wasn't well understood in the early 20th century (I think it was the 20th). It puzzled chemists as to how it existed and interacted as it does. One scientist had a dream about a snake consuming it's own tail, forming a circle. It seems his subconscious had a revelation about the shape of the molecule - it was in the form of a circle, and that was the solution to the puzzle. The tail of this molecule connected to it's head, forming a closed molecule that, at last, explained how it functioned as it did. I'm sure many such dreams have provided revelations, suggesting that, occasionally, the reduction in noise compared to our waking state can give rise to comprehension, but the imagery that results isn't clearly communicated during the dream, so it has to be artfully interpreted to make sense.

Immortality: a relative concept, I submit. The sun will not survive more than 10 billion years, probably less, so I'm told. I assume by then we'd have the means of leaving, but none of the universe will last as it is forever, so it comes down to whether or not we could adapt to the new conditions. It seems that eventually time runs out.

It does makes sense, though, that if we could keep the bio-machine running, we'd remain conscious and functional. Damage by accident would be the primary means of failure if we mastered the entire mechanics of the underlying machine. I believe, however, that we might not want the results. At some point, our experiences would run the limit of adventure and learning, so that everything would become routine - just the mechanics of survival mixed with the same, repeated actions that once gave pleasure and fascination. Ride a roller coaster two or three times, and that's fun. After 15 or 20 times, it's just another run through. Find another roller coaster, and then another, and eventually they're all just exercises in centrifugal forces. I assume there's plenty to occupy the mind for a few thousand years, but the infinity represented by the notion of immortality would require excruciating patience. Life is too short as it is now, true - I'd be quite content to have 2 or 3 times our current allotment.

As to your notion of sensory perception; we do that now with machines, and what you're suggesting factors down to something along the same lines. I know your thinking of something tied directly to the mind, instead of a readout on a display. Some such things would be interesting advantages, but consider the notion of the night vision camera mentioned a few posts ago. Seeing in either infrared or ultraviolet light would expand our sense of color, but we have never had that sense before. Our brains never developed with that ability, so we'd have to learn how to use the new information. What we think of 'vision' now would be altered considerably.

In our current use of machines to extend our vision, we have to compress the information. We can't perceive ultraviolet or infrared, so we have to represent that as shades of another color that we can see. This, in turn, would overlap with THAT color choice, causing us to loose the ability to differentiate between the 'new' spectra and the 'original' spectra we already understood. That, in turn, might cause us to compress the entire spectra, squeezing in the edges to make room for the new extremes, but again that reduces the subtle differences we see between the various colors. Our perception of red would have to shift toward the yellow, making reds look orange, while blues would have to shift toward greens, making blue look a bit teal, and the subtle shades we perceive between would be squeezed beyond our current limits, loosing just a little of the information we now see in the 'visible' spectrum. We'd see 'more' of what's there, sure - but less of what we used to - unless, and this is a big if, our brain could learn to see more than the 3 primary colors we perceive now. That's a tall order - lots of systems in the brain would have to be augmented and trained.

What I'm saying is that our brain's sensory faculties are designed to match it's sensory input systems, so it comes down to a matter of interpreting information. It seems everything is 'sensed' as pressures and patterns. How much pressure and where in an array of sensors defines both sight and sound, for example. The 'software' and 'hardware' of the brain interpret that raw information into what we think of as vision and audio - a much higher level concept, a magnified example of what it is to recognize letters but not words, as opposed to reading and comprehending ideas. That's what is actually more important that increasing sensory perception - increasing the mind's ability to interpret what we sense (and we can do that already).

My favorite Einstein quote is, "Imagination is more important than knowledge". It's inspiring. It almost sounds irresponsible, like a teenager making an excuse for avoiding homework. It was the mechanism by which he created new sciences. I think he's in the same subject area, too.

Around the universe? We have no real idea, and it's likely that the information about it can never reach us, at least in the conventional meaning. Around, however, might not be simply beyond the known 3 dimensional extent. Have you looked into the tesseract? Outside the universe could be dimensions, not distance. It's hard to say outside the realm of math, but then our brains weren't designed to make this easy to understand. It requires Einstein's recommended tool :)

Surprise gives rise to fascination, which tells me you're engaged in the kind of thinking you're destined to study. If you can brave through the math, you're in the general direction of physics, medicine, astrophysics, engineering, perhaps philosophy. My own son is 6, so I can't tell where his directions of interest will take him (he shows significant interest in building things, but it will be a few years before I can explain atoms, photons and electronics). I hope he follows similar lines of intrigue, but I'm going to have to retire to have time :)

Do you think it is possible that in a few billion years we would move?

Move - as in out of the solar system...

Carl Sagan suggested it would take about 10,000 years, maybe less, to develop that kind of technology, if it's possible at all.

Modern technology, which most agree begins with Einstein (or is roughly attributed to the results of his theories) is barely 100 years or so old. Science, if you include some of the more primitive studies, isn't even 500 years old. Some forms of math, beyond mere arithmetic, aren't even 3,000 years old. Many parts of algebra aren't even 1,000 years old, and the calculus is less than 400.

It fascinates me to realize that a rudimentary steam engine, sufficient at least to illustrate the concept, was demonstrated a little over 2,000 years ago. It just didn't seem to strike anyone as important at the time. It was a very crude, simple example. Not at all like a piston driven steam engine from 200 years ago, but enough to demonstrate how fire could boil water to produce pressure and rotate something indefinitely. Considering it's age, if it HAD been recognized as significant, we might have had engines 1800 years ago, instead of 200 years ago. Just think about how fragile an idea can be, or how a fragile thought can give rise to such important developments.

Something happened to our value of ideas 500 years ago. I'm not exactly sure what, or who has examined this line of thinking - I'm going off on my own here. However, it's clear that everything from the design of musical instruments to weapons took a completely different direction at that time. We refer to this era as the renaissance. Leonardo Da Vinci is from that period, as is Galileo, Copernicus and just after that, Isaac Newton.

From then on, every idea that was generated was reconsidered, some were rejected, lost, and rediscovered, but on the average we valued new kinds of thinking in ways we never had before.

Then came Einstein, and the whole thing exploded.

Actually, it was already preparing to explode just before his time, from people like James Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz (there were lots of them), thinking and theorizing about the subject, but Einstein produced the essential spark of realization.

It was around that same time (give or take 30 years) that the inventions of the electric light, radio, electric motors, the vacuum tube (and basic electronics) and a huge range of engineering marvels were created.

From there we have the rather dark moment in which nuclear energy was realized. Mechanical engineering had already advanced from the stage of wooden clocks to automobiles, and we were still primitive compared to what we have today. The rate at which ideas are exchanged, scrutinized, proven (or dis-proven) increased exponentially. Unless something happens to impede the pace (and it doesn't yet appear so), I can see how Sagan proposed 10,000 years is sufficient to either develop a means of travel to other stars, or learn that it is beyond plausibility.

As to anti-matter at the center of the solar system - that would be the sun. It's just matter there. Anti-matter causes a violent explosion if it contacts 'normal' matter, so it's tough to find any around us. We can make it, but in limited quantities and we have to use it fairly soon.

I think zero point energy is likely more important to us. Despite being referenced in the cartoon 'The Incredibles', it's a real concept. It's based on the casimir effect. I think it's probably more practical than fusion power, but both are still beyond us.

Now that I think about it why don't us Humans simply just get rid of the water that's piling up because of the ice caps? We could simply get rid of the water in large quantities and just simply send it into space.

How is it possible that molten lava stayed the way it is for such a long time?

Is there anything more stronger then titanium?

Why don't Humans make a VERY thick shell of titanium with a camera and send it through a black hole?

Thanks.

Despite the concern over coastal flooding, I think the rise of the ocean is among the lesser of the problems we face. We can loose coastal regions from erosion, too - though not ALL coastal area at once. While I'm not negating the implication, I think the problems with weather pattern changes, potential changes in the behavior of the Earth's crust (volcanic and tectonic activity), and the likely extinction of many species, giving rise to rather dramatic changes in the equilibrium of nature have more consequences to us.

Earth has been through changes like this before, and this one, while probably exacerbated by our activity, is going to work out like previous examples, in that eventually nature will establish a new equilibrium. It may be difficult for us to find out place in the new equilibrium, and we may experience catastrophes in the process.

By lava, if you're referring to the molten core of the Earth, magma, etc. stays molten because the Earth is constantly receiving heat energy from the sun, and our atmosphere (and the Earth itself) retain some of that heat energy. It also looses some - and if you think about it, it shouldn't be a mystery as to why the outer shell is cooler, and the inner core retains more heat. Global warming is, actually, about the temperature of the globe. I marvel at the fact most people think it's about the temperature of the air. It's the globe's increasing temperature we have to care about - indeed, more of the earth's minerals may become molten as the Earth's heat energy increases.

Titanium is the strongest metal, but it's only incrementally different in it's ability to withstand force than, say, steel. Various measurements apply; hardness, tensile strength, brittleness - these and many other factors work together (or against each other) to give the properties of materials we know. Diamond, which is essentially a carbon lattice, may be considered the hardest material (there was an 'artificial' substance or two that is considered harder, with long and unfamiliar names). Diamond is hard because the molecular bond of carbon is the strongest of all atoms.

I'm not all that current on the science your question is based on, and I think there's entire PhD's earned on these subjects. The molecular engineering Mitsukai mentioned is among them.

Your question about a titanium shelled camera brings up an interesting discussion by itself. Mitsukai's right, it would still be crushed. That's because the nature of the matter we know and love isn't anything like what's in a black hole. Even the electrons flowing through a wire attached directly to such a camera, if it could survive, would never be able to escape the black hole's gravity - nothing would come back to us out of that wire.

The point I want to bring up, though, is generally why titanium isn't strong enough. If you could see the atoms that comprise the matter in that camera, you'd notice that in the space between the nucleus of protons and the shell of electrons spinning around it is void, and the relative distance with respect to the size of the electrons is vast. Something like placing a soccer ball in your front yard, then driving a few miles down the road and dropping a marble on the roadside. The distance between the marble and the ball, relative to the size of both, is something like the scale of the atom.

That means most of what's there in the atom is empty space.

The form of the camera is based on the fact that the atoms of the titanium bond to each other, with plenty of empty space in there. The empty spaces are too small to be visible, but it's there.

Inside a black hole, however, matter is so compressed and at such high density that much of that empty space is squeeze away - the particles that make the atom are crushed together, and so is the structure of the matter that once comprised it. Part of this is fusion, but from what I understand, it goes beyond fusion. Electrons aren't going to fly around nuclei, individual distinctions of atoms and molecule are mashed together. The structure of that camera will cease to exist as separate components or even separate atoms. It will become part of the substance of the black hole.

Despite the concern over coastal flooding, I think the rise of the ocean is among the lesser of the problems we face.

i disagree the oceans water flow slowing down is a major problem in weather conditions. read about global cooling on this subject. The next problem in weather conditions is the moon.

However i dont think global warming is a big issue, if poeple would be smart they would make a balance between SO2 and CO2 in the atmosphere, as SO2 blocks sun light, but we have to take in count of acid rain.

i came to this link: http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols_prt.htm
read the last chapter.. its just scary. Why dont they cancel flight?

Quit interesting.

From what you've said I would have thought the a black hole would have been white as it keeps the light going round. Does the light stay there forever?

Are Humans 100% dynamic? I mean how does the brain control what it/we do? Does it(in terms of programming) just use MASSIVE amounts of if, else if and else statements? Or is it actaully a 100% dynamic?

Is it possible for a Human to understand Binary? I think it is. If you were brought up reading binary every single say of your life since you were born you brain would theoratically adapt and understand.

Can we each consider are selves Humans? If you think about it, animals and plants have species and everyone in the same species looks the same(minding sex), but us Humans each look different and each have different characteristics.

Why is the brain made to not let you die but almost always kills you? By this I mean that the reason we get scared is because it affects our chances of living a good life and the brain feels threatened but say something like a piano was 100 ft above your head falling down and you saw it, you would(in most cases) freeze/paralyze and that would cause your demise but on the other hand if your brain was never scared to start with you would simply step to the side and pretend like nothing happened.

How does the brain "re-program" itself on a daily bases yet we don't even understand what's going on?

Why does the body care about the color of your eye? There is ALWAYS a reason for why you do something, even if you force you self to lift a finger it is because your brain saw even a small reason to do it.

Thanks.

The brain is just one amazing thing!

How deep have we been able to underwater?

How to deep underwater animals have light in their heads(obviously due to adaption but how do they make it)?

I wonder how many new species there are down there. Possibly hundreds. Have we another technology to see that deep?

How do bacteria as deep as half a mile survive the pressure(and possibly heat from underwater volcanoes also poison from it)?

Thanks.

How do bacteria do what they do with just a nucleus as a brain?

Oh, and something else. I cant remember where, but theres a lake or ocean somewhere that has so much salt dissolved in the water that you could literally lay ontop of the water.
The place you are talking of is the Dead Sea (and it isn't an ocean, it is actually a lake).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Dead_sea_newspaper.jpg/800px-Dead_sea_newspaper.jpg

It is also called as such because the amount of salt in the water permits no acquatic life forms such as fishes, for example.

Siddhartha,
Whats wrong with that dudes foot? It looks like the salt is kinda getting to him, lol. His other foot looks ok though :P

poeple who come up with theories like this are a bit crazy and cant think logically. The proof that black holes might leak radiation says enough.

But we can't disprove this idea either? Whats to say that they don't exist? That the very fabric of the known physics world is ripped apart in a black hole? We don't know but its fun to think about ;)

Well we can't really say they are crazy, we need proof. I'm sure you would remember the time when they said that man would never go on the moon and that scientists are crazy, right? But in the end they did(of course I just heard the stuff from my dad).

Where does are sense of design come from?

Why does the brain work like two processors and not one?

Is there a mother black hole(think of it in a dimensional orientation)?

What happens if a black hole eats a black hole?

How are cramps formed?

Thanks.

But then again, I have ADD, so my attention span is somewhat warped that way, lol.Nothing to worry about, it's merely a thread synchronization issue - easily solved. :)

What happens if a black hole eats a black hole?

Not that I'm certain, but I'm fairly sure it forms a more massive black hole. (Kindof anti-climactic, isn't it?).

Why does the brain work like two processors and not one?

I'm sure, as the other posts assumed, you're talking about the effect of thinking one thing while doing another. Some similar happens in typing, if you're fast and practiced. You hear a sentence spoken, and type 'behind' what's being said. You're remembering what's said while you're typing some words spoken earlier.

What struck me when I read your question, though, is that from what I've read about the brain, it works like billions of multiple processors, at least at the lowest level (each neuron functions independently in real time, in a massively parallel system).

RaleTheBlade's point that the brain is, in the largest sense, divided in two halves represents the parallelism of several subcomponents. I've often thought of it as a pair of twins, not so identical, joined face to face within the skull.

There are divisions, front to back, on each side. I think it's 3 or 4 general regions (each with a few specializations there). Progressively, it seems, each of these regions are grouped into smaller hierarchies, until, after several successions, you reach the individual neurons.

I think that means, in a sense, the degree of parallelism depends on what functions are active.

One of the things that makes AI so difficult is that most of the work requires parallel actions on scales so much more massive that the hardware we have to implement them, that simulating a brain is way beyond current state of the art, with one big exception.

Not long ago, IBM completed a stage of an experiment in what they called the simulation of a mouse brain. It was capable of about 30%, if I read correctly, of a mouse brain's functionality, but probably not quite real time. You'll find a few light articles on it through a google search. This means we're not yet 5% of a human brain, but that's very close, considering.

A lot depends, of course, on the completeness of their algorithm's simulation of neurons. We don't really know what software is in a neuron, we just think we might. If they are close to the neuron's facility, and this experiment was reasonably valid, a mere $50 billion or so could purchase the hardware to create the artificial equivalent of an infant brain, but it would probably run, at best, around 1/100th the speed of the 'real' thing, or even slower.

That should give you some hint as to the value of your own, though as most things in technology go, the price is dropping rapidly :)