Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/31/18 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    I am pleased to now add CharonY and Strange to the list of gullible fools wonderful people willing to sacrifice their time for the greater good here at SFN. Congratulations!
  2. 4 points
    I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  3. 3 points
    Nonsense. They are completely different things, intended to solve completely different problems and with completely different properties. You should perhaps find out what their definitions are before spouting off like this and making yourself look silly. Of course it is. Do you think scientists just got bored one day and said, "hey why don't we pretend the expansion is accelerating; that'll be a laugh". The Big Bang model is nothing like an explosion. That is not what the evidence shows. Three guys got a Nobel Prize for this. Did you miss it? That "spring" noise you heard was my irony meter breaking.
  4. 2 points
    Guilt with regards to what? Clinton checking emails via a smart phone and use of a personal account were an internal violation of protocol and she admitted to it. The issues was about using secure equipment and accounts. The manner in which emails were sent and received was the impetus for the official investigation and not the content of the emails. Republicans demanded seeing Clinton's emails but ultimately it was the device and account used which was the issue. Republicans just found complaining about the emails an effective rouse. The point that it was always an empty complaint was driven home when members of Trump's White House proceed to basically do that same thing and no one cares. The DNC emails contained correspondence with Clinton's team. Baggage can be any number of things
  5. 2 points
    Traveling to the Moon was a matter of solving known engineering problems, it was not considered theoretically impossible. Exceeding c is an entirely different animal. It is a fundamental limit built into nature itself. You bring up the matter of "weight". But weight is not the issue. "Inertia" or the resistance to further change in velocity is a better way to look at it. It takes energy to overcome inertia. This was known even before Relativity came on the scene. In Newtonian physics, it takes 1/2 joule of energy to acceleration a 1 kg mass from 0 to 1m/sec. The amount of energy needed to any given speed is found by E= mv2/2 The kicker added by Relativity is that energy itself carries inertia. So when you add energy to the 1 kg mass to accelerate it up to 1/m per sec, you are also adding to its inertia. When you try to accelerate it further, you have to supply more energy than you would have without the added inertia. But this extra added energy increases the inertia even more. The amount of energy rises a lot faster than it does under Newtonian physics. The equation that give the amount of energy is E = mc2(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)-1) The amount of energy heads off to infinity as v approaches c. The flip side of this is that no matter how much energy you add, you always end up moving less than the speed of light. This is not to say that the speed of light limit is all about energy. This is just one consequence. It goes deeper than that. It actually delves to the very nature of space and time itself. Another consequence of this is how we add velocities together. Again, under Newton, it is quite simple. we just add them directly. So, for example if you are on a railway car traveling at 60 mph, and you walk from the back to the front at 5 mph relative to the car, According to Newton, you would be moving at 60+5= 65 mph relative to the tracks. But in Relativity, with its altered nature of time and space, you have to use the formula: (5+60)/(1+5(60)/c2) = ? Now c = 186,000mps = 669,600,000 mph, so if you do the math you will get an answer really, really close to 65 mph, but just a tad less. The difference becomes more apparent as the velocities added up get closer to the speed of light. This also applies when you are adding up velocities for an accelerating object. In Newtonian physics you could have an object that accelerate up to 0.1c, and then accelerate another 0.1c, and then another, etc so that after each stage, its velocity would look like this: 0 0.1c 0.2c 0.3c 0.4c And after ten of these you would reach c However, with Relativity, the velocity doesn't add up like that. You can accelerate up to 0.1c, and then accelerate (as measured by you) another 0.1c, but will end up moving at only 0.198c relative to where you started. You can then accelerate by another 0.1c, and another, etc. Your pattern of resulting velocities will be: After 10 such accelerations, you have only reached a little over 3/4 the speed of light. Also note that each successive acceleration results in a smaller and smaller change of velocity. The increase in velocity shrinks at a rate such that no matter how many times you try to add speed(or by how much), you always end up with a velocity less than the speed of light relative to where you started.
  6. 2 points
    *gloves falls at an acceleration imperceptibly different than g, even after accounting for air resistance*
  7. 2 points
    Your point is not very logical. You only know that we don’t know what 85% of the universe is because the scientists you despise told you so. Not really. We know a lot about dark matter (less about dark energy). And a lot about what it cannot be. Also, none of the equation is missing. We just don’t know exactly what makes up some of the values. It may be frustrating but science is always incomplete.
  8. 1 point
    Some models are better than others. For example you could model scientists as children. That would be a very silly model. dark energy noun PHYSICS a theoretical form of energy postulated to act in opposition to gravity and to occupy the entire universe, accounting for most of the energy in it and causing its expansion to accelerate. dark matter noun ASTRONOMY (in some cosmological theories) non-luminous material which is postulated to exist in space and which could take either of two forms: weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter ). Does that mean we are all dead?
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Nice ghost costume. Happy Halloween! It turns out... he's Batman! At least that's how he was dressed when we came to his door. Welcome to the new mods!
  11. 1 point
    Watch who you are booing, sonny!
  12. 1 point
    Congrats both, to be fair they were already sacrificing their time for the greater good here but without superpowers. Kind of like Batman. What about iNow?
  13. 1 point
    Absolutely. And, if one is being pedantic, then all types of detection are indirect to some extent. How dare you, sir! *slaps face and throws glove on the floor*
  14. 1 point
    What they are saying is that it's not visible. Not with the technology we have so far developed. That doesn't mean it's missing. If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.
  15. 1 point
    Common scientific thought, perfectly consistent with observation Flat earth precedes modern science by a pretty long time, and "God did it" is not scientific This is science, not law. (which is a fairly common error among people who attack science) Narrator: it took about eight seconds
  16. 1 point
    True. But unless you were wealthy and healthy neither would be great! (Although the same could be said now...)
  17. 1 point
    They are not usually detailed mathematical models of the entire universe. Models that allow us to find out that the majority of the universe consists of things we cannot (yet) detect directly. If it weren't for these models, you wouldn't have been able to open this thread to whinge about this!
  18. 1 point
    I have no doubt they are vivid. You know what else is? Mushrooms. No one is claiming that they are a portal to another world. Actually some might but anyway the point is that the mind plays tricks.
  19. 1 point
    .... I'm an industrial chemist... I just know some things. I usually assume I know less than I think I do... maybe I know more than I think I do when it comes to poisons, explosives and drugs - I don't know. You can't get through a chemistry education without knowing/learning some things. Regarding the nitrating... I think I might have been told that at school. ... also - that's how you get TNT from toluene, no? There are other energetics that are also nitrated as far as I am aware. Not something I am interested in playing with anyway. I work with a substance called pentaerythritol - I am certain that I do not want to nitrate that one as it is a precursor for a number of things that go bang. I'm not saying all knowledge should be deleted from the internet - it wasn't me that said that - I agree with the sentiment that the knowledge is not necessary for the public domain and that I personally do not care for making bombs.
  20. 1 point
    The 'evidence' has been deconstructed and found wanting in other posts. No one has yet argued against this.
  21. 1 point
    Correct. That is the nature of science. Nothing is proved. Everything is subject to change. Not sure what that means. “Theory” is the best it gets in science. It is a hypothesis with little credible evidence (and solid theoretical arguments against). Definitely not a theory. Originally, the universe was thought to be static and infinite (Newton) based on the best evidence available. When more evidence became available the hypothesis of an expanding universe was confirmed and became a theory (currently the only viable theory of cosmology). That is the good thing about science, it adapts to fit the evidence. Not a theory. Not even a hypothesis (because it is not based on evidence and is inherently untestable and therefore unscientific). The “facts” that they teach is the evidence we have. They also teach past and current theories, and any hypotheses and speculations that might be relevant. You seem to be confusing “not knowing everything” with “knowing nothing”. Rookie mistake. Hopefully you won’t do it again.
  22. 1 point
    You are confusing theory with hypothesis and I think the nonsense that you speak comes from that confusion. A theory (for example General Relativity) is something that has been proven experimentally, something that has been tested and works. A hypothesis is something that has not been proven (Bigfoot) You also need to understand that things can be added to a theory - for example we already know that Einsteins General Relativity is not a complete picture of reality but its not wrong, in fact we are sure it is right because it has been tested endless times and always works. Bigfoot hasn't been tested nor proven. I can agree as to the possibility that we might never understand the Universe in its fullness, its certainly possible that we are not evolved enough or the Universe is an endless onion-like layer of abstractions which we will never fully unfold. That's complete nonsense. You can't undermine the whole concept of science because it just works. You know - computers work, airplanes fly, etc.
  23. 1 point
    Why didn't you look at my warning about what the device that goes "pop" did to that kid?
  24. -1 points
    Nothing in theoretical physics is proved, if it were it would not be theory. Bigfoot is a theory, one that I do not put much faith in. That said that the universe was a static bubble (theory) until Hubble created another theory based on more significant evidence then Einstein offered. Now there are physicist theorizing that the universe is really a computer simulation. Moral, get laid, because you are never going to know where the universe came from or where it's going. Someone might someday, but college professors have no clue, nor do they have the ability to teach any fact on this topic
  25. -1 points
    Not only do we not understand how so called junk DNA works, we actually have no idea how DNA does anything. Sure we see the coding and know that things are recorded in a chemical sort of computer program, but explain how a dog knows what to track without ever tracking anything or following the pack to learn? The mouse and the cherry blossom experiment proves that random mutation is not needed for change and it also proves that the reproductive cells can be changed in a living adult so that first generation offspring can be beneficially mutated to a new environmental challenge. This effectively tosses every text that even mentions Darwin. So much more is going on then we can see that we might as well be blind. The cherry blossom experiment is another full discussion though Again you believe that you know how the universe began billions of years ago, but can not tell me what is in my left pocket, even though in terms of the universe, we are touching right now. Arrogance Actually I am not one of those people who rejects any of science, I am just keeping perspective. Where do you get a 65 percent number of what's not known? Because what is not known defies any label at all, your statement is wrong and arrogant, you will see this if you apply logic
  26. -1 points
    The problem is that people believed Einstein when he said that the universe was a static bubble. He believed himself too, accept that the likelihood that relativity is right is at least equal to it being wrong because it's math fails. Do you accept that there is no math proving universal speeded expansion, but that we can land a space probe an inch away from it's target with an atom of fuel to spare after traveling and orbiting between planets. So the math works, but it also proves the universe is wrong, or our understanding is wrong. I submit for peer review that the universe can not be wrong...…………………….but that you can I said that I do not reject science, and I built this computer. Back to you
  27. -1 points
    be treated seriously. Would you pass class if you completed 15 percent of the exam? Really, one fact that I know is that none of the universe is missing, it's all there just where it belongs. The thing is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what the universe is. So is the universe wrong, the math wrong, or is the math right and we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we see.
  28. -2 points
  29. -2 points
    So Einstein based science on the common thought. Examples of common thought. Earth flat, God did it The defense rest
  30. -2 points
    How did people imagine flyingto the moon millennia ago when the moon and stars were not even known to be places that could be traveled to? They were painted on the sky for all anyone knew Where do you find an empty universe to even put a symmetrical sphere? Is this universe empty? You can do this forever and never really makesense Einstein was a negative pessimist, which is why with all his ability he never created built or patented anything. His world knew hunger but all he ever did was to remain in school as a perpetual child who was too simple to comb his hair. Would you be reading this now if everyone agreed it couldn't be done? Your problem is you are listening to the imbecile who said that the universe was a bubble.... Term bubblebrain
  31. -2 points
    Wrong, neither dark matter or dark energy have ever been observed. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics would know that. I will educate you. Dark matter and energy are a missing variable that without the current mathematical model of expansion just does not work as the visible mass of the universe is just too small to allow for what is believed to be observed. Thus no one knows the ratio of dark matter to energy, or even if they really exist, as they have never been observed. So why don't you give us your info that no one else has
  32. -5 points
    Dark energy and or matter are interchangeable terms because nether has been defined. Claiming that the universe slowed and is now accelerating is not inferred form any evidence. In reality it was slowing because the big bang was compared to a big explosion on Earth where the energy is reduced as the blast spreads outward, and people made a correlation. Newer evidence shows the expansion speeding up, it was always speeding up even when no one knew. Jesus think instead of repeating nonsense Give me a million negative ratings, but you will all be dead before I am disproved. If you think I need to be accepted by people who completed 15 percent of an equation think again. Keep thinking because they are banging their heads and many are saying that we were wrong
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.