Cerebral Stasis

As far as we know, you can't just throw garbage into a blender and get fusion. Fusion is a very complicated process that requires hydrogen, or an isotope thereof. It would be possible, however, to use microbes to convert compost into something that could be used as fuel, but the process would be slow and inefficient.

If there was an artificially intelligent entity, it would realize that there would be no reason for it to create more of itself. Why reproduce when you would never die? A much more promising purpose would be thinking up ways to expand it's own memory, thought rate, etc. to improve upon itself, but as I said, reproduction would be pointless.Personally, I think that this world could use an AI dictator. Who else could rule the world peacefully, without any selfish motives that doom all other rulers?

I don't know what I was thinking there. Thanks for correcting me (in both instances).

Light in a mirrored room would not reflect indefinately, since the light would lose energy (meaning it would be converted to heat energy) and spread out every time it bounced, so, no, it wouldn't continue on indefinately.

Molecules do have unique shapes, however. That's how we smell - scent molecules fits into certain receptors in our nose like a key in a lock.

Ever heard of super glue? Yeah, that's what it was made for.

Intelligence isn't really one's desire for knowledge, but more one's ability to accumulate knowledge.

It's been found that the largest producer of greenhouse gasses are plants, themselves, so apparently the enviroment manages to balance things out one way or another.

Light has properties of both particles and waves. How far the light is able to travel before it loses it's visiblity is determined by it's frequency, just like the frequency of a sound determines how far it can travel before it is no longer heard.

Normally, yes, but microwaves and lasers can transport energy that can be converted to electricity, but like all circuits, it would need a ground to make a full circuit.

The problem I have with most religions is that it teaches intolerance and causes followers to become stubborn. For example, if an extraterrestrial race landed on Earth in a flying saucer and publically broadcast that they were the creators of the Human race, and we were just an experiment of the complexities of a combination of reason and emotion in one creature, many religious people would claim it was false or some demons trying to decieve, even if the answer was right before them, literally telling them what was real and what wasn't. Religions are liferafts for people to cling to, but at a certain point, one must let go and swim for the passing ferry so that one can be towed aboard and taken to safety.

Personally, I'm going to attempt an e-zine one of these days. People like to hear other's stories if they are told well. For example, The Overnightscape (theovernightscape.com) consists mostly of the host, Frank Nora, relating tales of his everyday life and reviewing foods and beverages, and yet people (including myself) love to listen to him. He's not an abnormally intelligent, interesting, or amusing guy, but he knows how to talk and present content in a way that interests people. That's what's important.

Terminal, you're thinking too much about science fiction. Robots are limited to their programming, and since programming all possible instances of good or evil would be virtually impossible, the robot would have to be taught using a learning program, in which case a robot could become "good" or "evil" just like any human, depending on what it sees and is told from the enviroment that surrounds it. Conscience isn't a God-given thing, it is merely the whisper of instinct, which is built as a child, so essentially most all of what our personalities consist of are nothing more than a reflection of what we have experienced.

True, DogEater, a lot of one's intelligence is determined by how they are brought up, but genetics does play a certain role, which is why some people who live in normal families come out geniuses, while others are retarded.

People aren't too lazy, it's just that said setup is expensive, difficult to maintain, and hard to build. All supercomputers work by using thousands of slower processors, but doing it by hand really isn't very efficient (unless you use cheap 500-1000Mhz processors).

I think it may make a neat feature in a game, but in real life, why would someone need a HUD to tell them the consequence of their actions and crimes?

They may have been great physicists, Amin, but they are hardly the greatest scientists ever. What about the guy who discovered penicillin? He saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.And I do admire Einstein, but he was not a God among men, as some people depict him as being.

That's noble of you, but he really wasn't that amazing. He was just a visionary. He lived a fairly normal life. He married, had children, and failed through school.

There is no real proof that supports the concept of time being a dimension, like a line constantly being drawn that one can backtrack on. Time is simply a matter of perception. For example, if the human brain worked twice as fast, time would also seem to go twice as fast, so the day would seem to last 48 hours instead of 24, but the actual number would never really change..

So far, that is. If one person fails to complete something, someone else will (for example, if Einstein became a violin player instead of a physicist, someone else would have eventually come up with the same things that he did - there was another scientist already working on the theory of relativity around the same time that Einstein did). Therefore, if someone discovered that one could genetically make someone more intelligent, but kept the exact proccess secret, someone else would discover how it was done within a year or so.But yes, I believe that making someone more intelligent by genetic modification is possible, but there is still a limit.

It's impossible to anticipate every possible situation that could happen, since there are infinate possibilities. Therefore, the only way we could create an intelligent machine would be to model it after an infant, so that it slowly learns from the world and people around it simply by experience, giving it a unique personality, just like any human being (so close to being a human being, it almost seems pointless to attempt it, instead of building a duplicate of ourselves). As for malfunctions that cause fatal rebellions, how often do random computer program errors cause the computer to electricute someone, insult their messenger buddies, and email bad rumors about them over the internet on it's own? When softeware has a problem, the software performs an error and thus breaks down - it doesn't continue on in an intelligent fasion.

Firefox, do you really expect there to be halos around everyone's head that tell them their health? Life isn't going to become a video game, and there won't be a numerical display of one's health. Ditto relationships and such. If someone can't figure out those things on their own, a holographic HUD won't help.

It all depends on what laws of physics you use. If one goes by Quantum Physics, then there is quite a bit of evidence that a multiverse does exist, maybe even that every choice that is made by every creature on earth (or random action by an object, for that matter) is different in another universe, making an infinate number of universes, each with something slightly different, such as what a certain person chose to do, who died, or even what time the universe exists in, but that is all just theory at the moment.With building a space station every 50,000 miles, that would be inefficient, expensive, and unnecessary, not to mention improbable. A space station would have to orbit a larger body, or it would drift off. Between the Earth and the moon, gravity is so small that any space station would either fly out into space or be pulled toward one body or the other, eventually reaching speeds high enough to make the station too fast to be stopped before it would impact a body.As for pooling of resources to reach Mars, the problem isn't just a lack of said resources, but also a lack of reason behind spending those resources. For example, WHY should we pool our resources and go to Mars? What purpose is there at the moment? True, there may be great scientific discoveries awaiting us, but what if there weren't? What if the whole Earth threw itself into a worldwide depression to get to Mars, only to drag their feet in the red dirt, unable to do anything more? This world is built, more or less, on Capitalism, and Capitalism requires a reason for everything. People don't just throw money in a pile for no reason. You may give a homeless person a dollar because you symapthise with him, but you probably wouldn't give money to people who wouldn't tell you what it was for, or if they told you that they were going to try to dig a hole to the center of the Earth. It's just not necessary.Wormholes and black holes are still all theory. Neither has really been discovered, they are just assumed to exist.The reason that people won't pool their money for the greater good is that humanity is, by nature, selfish, and until some society comes up with a way to completely rid themselves of that nature, we as a race will never achieve perfection (or the closest we can come to it). Would you do your job for no money, only for food, a house, and a vehicle? I know I would like some incentive - money - so that I can buy things I like and want. If you don't agree, then Communism is for you (seriously, that's how it works there).

Amit, Einstein is not a "sir" - he was never knighted.Okay, getting past that, the pyramids certainly are marvels of archetecture, but I think they are often overanalized. I watched a documentary a few years back that suggested that the Egyptians used large kites to life the stone blocks, or simply rolled them along on logs. As for all that stuff about the insight of past civilizations, it may have been advanced knowlege, it may have been given to them from a higher being (God or extra terrestrial), or it simply may have been lucky guesses, relative mathematics, and science fiction.

Thanks for pointing that out, True. Let us sum this thread up.Is wireless transmission possible?YesHow?Lasers or MicrowavesIs it being used?YesWill I be able to drive my car on energy supplied wirelessly?Probably not for a few decades, but in theory, sure. A satellite could, once again, in theory, direct a beam of microwave energy onto one's car, giving it power, much the same way taht satellites work together to beam a satellite television or satellite radio signal.Will I be able to run my cell phone wirelessly?Probably not. It would take enormous precision to beam the microwaves right to the phone, without having it be deflected by any objects in the way, not to mention it may be dangerous if the wave is bounced erratically, so that probably won't happen.Should I read what was written previously before repeating a question someone else already asked?Yes