1. ## Strange

Senior Members

704

18175

Moderators

401

18144

Moderators

398

40114

4. ## iNow

Senior Members

386

18601

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/21/17 in all areas

1. 7 points

## Special Relativity - simple questions?

SR does not claim that such an observer will always see the Earth clock run slow, if by see, you mean what his eyes or instruments directly record. In this usage of see, he will see it run at a rate of T = To ((1-v/c))(1+v/c))1/2 where v is positive if Earth and the Observer are receding from each other and negative if they are approaching each other. A factor contributing to this observation is the the distance and thus the propagation time for signals is constantly changing, getting longer when receding and getting shorter when approaching. This factor works out to be c/(c+v) When you factor this out of the first equation you are left with the time dilation equation. This means that there are two things to consider: what you see happening to the Earth clock, and what is happening to the Earth clock. So while while receding from the Earth, the observer will see the the 1000 Hz signal as being 500 hz and the Earth clock as ticking 1/2 as fast as his own,. Taking into account the effect of the increasing distance, he will determine that the Earth clock is ticking 0.8 as fast as his own. He will meet up with the object when his own clock reads 1.01.2022 (as the distance between Earth will be only 1.2 ly as measured by him and this is how long it takes to traverse this distance at 0.6c.) He will see the Earth clock reading 1.01.2021, but determine that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth at that moment. Now at first, you might be tempted to think " But wait, if he sees 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock, and the Earth is, according to him, 1.2 ly away, wouldn't that mean that it should be 3.15.2022 on the Earth by his reckoning?" This is not the case. The light he is seeing at that moment left Earth at a time when the distance between them was less than 1.2 ly, so the time it took the light he is seeing took less than 1.2 years to reach him from the Earth. Now he accelerates in order to come start the trip back towards Earth. We will assume a minimal acceleration period. Now this is the part where people tend to get tripped up. After he is done and is now approaching the Earth and not receding, we will assume that he still reads 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock by visual means. However, he will no longer conclude from this that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth. Instead he will conclude that it is 6.05.23. During the return trip he will see a frequency of 2000 hz from the signal and the Earth clock tick twice as fast as his own. But again, taking into account the decreasing distance effect, he will conclude that the Earth clock is ticking at a rate 0.8 as fast as his own. Thus he will see the Earth clock tick from 1.01.2021 to 1.01.2025, but conclude that it ticked from 6.05.23 to 1.01.2025 during his return leg. (see will see it tick off 4 years, but conclude that it ticked off 1.6 years. Again, it all come back to what happens during that acceleration period. As far as anyone at rest with respect to the Earth is concerned, nothing special beyond the standard SR effects take place. But for the observer actually undergoing the acceleration, things aren't this simple. For him, the rate at which clocks run depend on which direction they are from him relative to the acceleration he is undergoing and the distance from him in that direction. Clocks in the direction of the acceleration run fast, and those in the opposite direction run slow (beyond what he sees. This even effects clocks that share his acceleration. A clock in the nose of the Ship will run fast and one in the tail will run slow. ( in this case, since there is no changing distance between himself and the clocks, what he sees, will be in perfect agreement with what is happening to the clocks. While this may seem to be at odds with common sense, it is how a Relativistic universe works. A problem with your questions is that they only deal with particular points of the whole scenario without taking in the whole picture. It like comparing two men walking and only considering where they end up. Below we have the paths of two men, Red and Blue, over the same interval. If you just look at where they end up, you would conclude that Blue walked a shorter distance because he ends up closer to the starting point than Red does. But when you consider the whole interval, it is clear that Blue walked a further distance. The same thing is true with SR, if you only consider the end results, you are missing what is really going on.
2. 6 points

3. 6 points

## Stephen Hawking Passed Away 3/14/2018

Stephen Hawking has passed away at the age of 76 on Pi day, 3/14/2018. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43396008 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-professor-dies-aged-76?CMP=fb_us
4. 6 points

## Trump Effects

This is the rhetoric pushed by billionaires who don't need the government the way most of us do. Isn't it pretty obvious that the billionaires in politics today are only interested in removing restrictions on themselves, and limiting the money spent on the rest of us? These folks have been hammering this message of "bad government" and "sleazy politicians" for decades, while actively being the representatives with the sleaziest behavior, doing everything they can to make the government bad. They don't care if you have access to libraries, museums, parks, swimming pools, or healthcare. They have all those things taken care of due to their massive wealth, and object to taxes that make these things available to the rest of us. They've chosen to ignore our efforts that brought them great wealth, and instead spend money convincing folks that government needs to be dismantled for OUR good. And now they have this blatant racist sexual assaulter-in-chief who is morally and economically corrupt, and happens to have a deluded following all chanting about bringing down the Fed. Working class folks who think this billionaire has their backs while he whittles away at the very thing that has the best chance of making all their lives a lot better. The wolves have tricked the sheep into removing restrictive fences, and the sheep are all praising the freedom.
5. 6 points

## Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

Puerto Rico agrees. Black athletes agree. The anti-fascist movement agrees.
6. 6 points

## God and science

Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence. And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god? I like this question. Many people seem to question that the universe could either just pop into existence or that it has always existed - but are happy to ascribe these exact same properties to something they call 'god'. Either way something has this property - why not discard the middleman and simply ascribe it to the universe. Depends how god is defined. A god that set up the conditions for the big bang but does not intervene at all thereafter would be impossible to detect, at least with our current capabilities. A personal god that answers prayers and parts seas has been pretty well debunked. Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god.
7. 5 points

## Why doesn't the electron fall into the nucleus?

Because the electron is not a classical particle (“little ball of mass and charge”), but a quantum object. As a first approximation, you can picture an electron as a 3D standing wave around the nucleus - you can only get standing waves of a given wavelength in specific places, which is why orbitals come in discrete levels. Crucially, there is a lowest energy level, which corresponds to the minimum distance an electron can be with respect to the nucleus (let’s assume here there is only one electron) - and that lowest energy level is not zero. Therefore the electron cannot fall all the way to the nucleus, it can only fall into its lowest energy level, which corresponds to an orbital that is still some distance outside the nucleus. This is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics, and coincidentally one of the questions that motivated the development of quantum mechanics in the first place.
8. 5 points

## Apology

I just wanted to express my heartfelt apology to the members of the forum. I was on suspension for a year for very indecent behavior. I hope I can rejoin your community once again.
9. 5 points

10. 5 points

## Evolution

I'm told that when naked mole rats sit around shooting the breeze, they discuss how they are a clear aberration. Apparently domestic cats hold much the same viewpoint. Not to mention African Greys. It seems its a tendency of any reflective species to view itself as unique and special. You can probably eliminate any single species from the planet and the biosphere will continue pretty much as it was apart from some small, local readjustments. So you can replace the word "humans" in your statement with the name of any species . If you don't feel a Great White is not a super-fish would you like to take one on in unarmed combat. I suggest it won't be long before you are truly unarmed. Moontanman has mentioned examples of intelligence and tool use, etc. There are plenty of examples of animals that are faster than us, or anything else,have better vision than us, or anything else, can endure lower temperatures than us, or anything else. And so on. If we insist on comparisons that focus on our strengths and ignore our weaknesses it is difficult to not to consider us super, but that seems a biased approach. Overgrazing is common. Predators sometimes kill too many of their prey. The Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by one of its inhabitants. There are, I think, numerous examples of this. We are better at it than most, but I don't think most of us want to boast about that.
11. 5 points

12. 5 points

13. 5 points

## Non-locality

It is difficult to explain why you are wrong because you don't understand the subject and so you just reject the explanations (this has been true in all of your threads). And yet you are the one who constantly quotes the words of others but ignores the science. For example: Dalo: I don't believe X Others: Here is a simple explanation why you are wrong ... D: That's a bit vague, can you be more specific? O: <detailed explanation with evidence and a mathematical analysis> D: I don't need all that maths and what about [irrelevant sidetrack] O: What exactly are you asking? D: How dare you! O: I'm just trying to clarify D: I don't believe Y, as I have been saying all along O: So you have changed the subject D: No, you keep introducing P and Q, but I want to talk about Z O: OK. Do you understand <basic schoolboy physics>? D: Why should I have to? If you can't prove me wrong ... O: <collective sigh>
14. 5 points

## Time Does Not Exist

Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.
15. 5 points

16. 5 points

## Why do we think there is dark matter and dark energy?

First off, dark matter and dark energy are two different things and the reasons for expecting their existence are completely unrelated. The only thing they have in common is that they have "dark" in their names. The initial evidence for dark matter came from observations of how stars move in galaxies. Galaxies are formed from stars that are mutually orbiting each other. If we look at a galaxy, and estimate its mass by the matter we can see, we find that there does not appear to be enough to hold the galaxy together. At the speed the stars are orbiting, they should fly apart. We also know how these stars should orbit if the mass is contained to the shape we see it as having. Not only does the galaxy have more mass than that we can see, but the unseen mass must be distributed a lot differently than the part we do not see. For example, in a typical spiral galaxy, a good deal of the mass must be located above and below the disk-like shape we see. If it was made of normal matter, we should see it, if not in the visible spectrum, it should be visible at some other spectrum. This leads us to believe that whatever is causing that extra mass is not made of normal matter, but a type of matter that does not emit or interact with light or any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus the term "dark matter. There have been attempts to explain the discrepancy through developing different models for how gravity behaves, but to date, none have been consistent with all the observations we have made. Dark energy concerns itself with the expansion of the universe. We have known for a long time that the universe is expanding and that distant galaxies are moving away from us. But until couple of decades ago, we assumed that the mutual gravity between the different parts of the universe was slowing this expansion down over time. What we did not know was whether this was enough to eventual stop the expansion all together. In the 1990's a study was made to try to determine if this was the case or not. Basically it worked because as we look at distant galaxies, we are seeing them as they were when the light left them. Thus as we look further away we are looking further into the past. Thus, to explain it simply, by comparing various galaxies' distances to how fast they appear to be receding from us, you can work out how the expansion of the universe has change over time. The surprise came when it was discovered that the universe's expansion was not slowing down, but was speeding up. Not only was it mutual gravity not enough to stop its expansion, but something was overcoming the gravity and pushing the universe apart. They decided to call this unknown influence "dark energy" (mainly because they had already coined the term "dark matter") . We really know very little about dark energy, and the term really just is a place holder for whatever it turns out to be. (Much in the way the terms "X-rays" was coined before we learned that they were just a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum.)
17. 5 points

## Banned/Suspended Users

scherado has been banned for multiple instances of rule-breaking in his quest to become the Troll King. We apologize that his interruption in the normal rational discourse was all noise and no signal whatsoever. Roger Dynamic Motion has been banned, NOT for incessant hijacking and almost daily irrationality, but for failing to respond to requests for clarity, EVER. Discussion requires that we express our ideas so others can understand. We wish him good luck with his ideas, whatever they were supposed to be.
18. 4 points

## are there more views than deterministic and indeterministic

If only it was as simplistic as you think it is First of all, quantum physics is both completely deterministic and stochastic. What is deterministic is the evolution of the wave function - given any initial wave function, you can predict with certainty how that wave function will evolve over time (assuming you know the respective boundary conditions etc). However, what is stochastic is the relationship between the wave function, and physical observables - observables are represented by hermitian operators, and which of their eigenvalues you actually measure is - in general - purely probabilistic. For example - you send a stream of photons through a double slit. Given knowledge about the initial conditions (slit separation, photon frequencies, etc) you can predict with certainty what kind of an interference pattern you are going to get on your screen at the end of the experiment. However, you can not predict precisely where each individual photon will hit the screen, that is purely probabilistic. And we’re not even talking about the question which slit each photon goes through. So this is your third possibility - it’s come to be called “determined probabilities”. That’s the first thing. The other thing then is that determinism does not imply an absence of free will, and conversely, indeterminism does not imply that free will is necessarily possible. There are four different philosophical positions that encompass the four possibilities here: hard determinism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and libertarianism. You can look these up yourself. The main point here is that this an ongoing debate, and there is no consensus about which is the correct one. And just to top things off - the human brain is a macroscopic system, and as such classical. So one would expect it to be deterministic. In reality however, in spite of its classicality, it is an example of a complex non-isolated, non-linear, chaotic system. So even if it were completely classical (which actually it isn’t anyway, since it’s fundamental building blocks are quantum mechanical), you still couldn’t predict its precise state very far into the future, because it is extremely sensitive to initial and boundary conditions, never even mind way too complex to mathematically model with currently available technology. It’s also an open feedback system, since it continuously receives external inputs, and generates responses that can modify those very inputs. So is the brain deterministic? You decide yourself, based on the above. Whatever your conclusion, what does that imply for free will? Again, you decide yourself, based on the philosophical positions on this subject matter. I think it is safe to say that there are no straightforward answers either way here.
19. 4 points

## The Official JOKES SECTION :)

Here we finally have it! Proof of the existence of a creator? Best evidence yet!
20. 4 points

## At high enough temperature all elementary particles become massless?

In a sense, getting to massless SM particles could be achieved by increasing the temperature in some region. But it would be more like an activation of the frozen Higgs field than a blocking. It is easier to explain coming from the high-energy side (high temperature), since that is the standard explanation for the Higgs mechanism: The Higgs proto-field (*) can be considered as an additional particle class to a Standard Model in which all of the other Standard Model particles are massless (**). It interacts with most of the other particle fields. But it also has a weird self-interaction which causes the energetically lowest state to not be at "no proto field" but at "some value of the proto-field". At low temperatures, where the Higgs proto-field is just lying around in its minimum, this means that the dynamic interaction terms of the Higgs proto-field with the other particles become some dull interaction of those particles with some sticky stuff that seems to lie around everywhere (***). In the mathematical description of the Standard Model time evolution, the associated terms that originally were terms of a dynamic interaction now become the mass terms for the other particles. If the minimum was at "no field", they would simply drop out (****). This "low-energy" limit actually covers almost all of the temperature ranges we can create on earth, and only recently did we manage to even create and see a few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum in specialized, very expensive experiments (-> confirmation of the Higgs-Boson at the LHC). So technically, I think we are very far away from creating the "massless particles" state in an experiment. But there is no theoretical reason why this would not be possible (*****). But as described, I would understand it to be less of a shielding of the Higgs field and more of an activation. And as a state with such a high amount of interaction between the fields. So I am not even sure if the common view of a few particles flying through mostly empty space and only rarely kicking into other free-flying particles would still make sense. Remarks: (*) I would just call it Higgs-field(s), but since the paper you cited seems to explicitly avoid using the name at this stage I may be wrong about common usage of the terms. Haven't been working in the field for over ten years. So I have invented the term proto-field for the scope of this post - it is also easier to understand than "doublet of complex scalar fields". (**) This is not exactly true because the particles are mixed and get renamed under the Higgs mechanism. But I'll pretend that does not happen for the sake of providing an answer that is easier to understand than reading a textbook. (***) Sidenote: In this state, the few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum are the infamous Higgs Boson. (****) Which is why you can always invent new fields that just happen to have no effect on anything we can see but magically make your particle cosmology equations work at very, very high energies (****) Except for the fact that some people still expect new physics and associated new particles at such high temperatures, which then again would have mass from another Higgs-like mechanism
21. 4 points

## Why can’t we derive velocity directly from it’s doppler factor?

Let's put it this way: the Relativistic Doppler shift only depend on the relative velocity difference between the source at the time of emission and the receiver at the time of reception. For example, if the source is moving at 0.5 c relative to you at the time of emission, but you accelerate up to 0.5 in that same direction just before the light reaches you, you will measure no Doppler shift because relative velocity difference between you at reception and the source at transmission is 0. However, with cosmological red-shift we are dealing with the geometric expansion of space between the time of emission and reception. This stretches the light waves. So lets; say there was zero expansion of the universe at the moment of emission, then during some period between emission and reception there is some expansion. the light wave will share this expansion. Now the expansion stops before reception so that it is zero again. However, this does not mean that the light wave reverts to it original length. For that to happen, there would have to been a contraction of the universe. This means that you the observer will measure the red-shift caused by this period of expansion even though it no longer exists a the time of reception. So to put it simply, Relativistic Doppler shift only depends on the relative velocity difference between emission and reception ( You could change your velocity to many times while the light it traveling towards you, but the only thing that counts is your velocity at the moment of reception.) Cosmological red-shift is dependent on what occurs during the entire period that the light is traveling and not just the conditions at the "end points".
22. 4 points

## What is faith?

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely consistent with there being no God? And do you therefore understand that nature is not evidence for God. It's like saying that it is theoretically possible that someone deliberately planted weeds in my garden. The weeds are there. So the phantom weed planter must exist!. The presence of weeds is consistent with His existence, but it's certainly not proof of it and, given that there are other more plausible explanations, it hardly counts as evidence for it. So, while nature is tangible, it's not evidence.
23. 4 points

## So then if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it?

Given your position, there is not really much to discuss here. But thanks for sharing.
24. 4 points

## Stuff in Space

A pretty cool simulation of everything in orbit around the Earth: http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1983-001A And an article about it here: https://www.universetoday.com/138981/this-is-the-coolest-everything-thats-orbiting-the-earth-right-now/
25. 4 points

## What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

Here's the problem with this. Anyone who has honestly delved into the scientific theory behind evolution would NOT be a "lifelong doubter". Also, the reasons those questions "keep nagging at" you is because you keep rejecting the best supported explanations for them, and for some reason refuse to honestly study the theory. You've come to prefer your imagined role as a skeptic, not realizing that true skeptics don't spend their whole lives on the fence.
26. 4 points

## God and the Big Bang

This is getting ridiculous, look, if God wanted publicity it would do some impossible shit that can be verified and tested; it doesn't so it can't. I think it's about time you stop invading multiple threads, with even a tenuous link to religion, with this unfathomable drivel. Please please, please...
27. 4 points

## More than half your body is not human

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count. The rest are microscopic colonists. Understanding this hidden half of ourselves - our microbiome - is rapidly transforming understanding of diseases from allergy to Parkinson's. The field is even asking questions of what it means to be "human" and is leading to new innovative treatments as a result. "They are essential to your health," says Prof Ruth Ley, the director of the department of microbiome science at the Max Planck Institute, "your body isn't just you". No matter how well you wash, nearly every nook and cranny of your body is covered in microscopic creatures. This includes bacteria, viruses, fungi and archaea (organisms originally misclassified as bacteria). The greatest concentration of this microscopic life is in the dark murky depths of our oxygen-deprived bowels. >>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270
28. 4 points

## How is it proved that space-time is curved and not energy impacted by gravity and the path changed?

I find this video explaining the OP question very clearly. They even constructed a mechanical device visualizing the Lorentz transforms:
29. 4 points

## The law of conservation of energy is the greatest mistake of physics

Wow you have done a lot of algebra! Read here for a better history of how the confusion over ideas of motion were resolved over the 200 years from about 1650 to about 1850. https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/2.pdf Note that this article still presents the same assumption you have made right at the beginning of your own article and caried through all that algebra to a wring conclusion at the end. Your mis-assumption is that kinematic formula for constant acceleration may be used. This was not the case when you developed the tables of lifting force v energy. Since your thesis is that the modern version of The Law of Conservation of Mechanical energy is incorrect, can you state it, including the conditions under which it holds true? You need to show that your analysis satisfies these conditions. Have you done this, I can't find it?
30. 4 points

## Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2... Just kidding. To be honest, I do not like the substantive 'truth', even less when written as 'Truth'. I think the first thing is to look on which 'objects' the adjective 'true' applies: these are propositions, or complete systems of propositions, where I think about e.g. scientific theories. What it means is that they fit to what they describe. If they do not, they are false. (Or they are meaningless ('colourless green ideas sleep furiously'), or they do not describe a situation unambiguously ('One cannot see light' )) So simply said, one can define 'truth' as the correspondence between a description and reality. So it characterises a relationship between propositions and facts. Which e.g. means the 'Truth' is not out there. We find out if a proposition is true, if we find out that the description corresponds to reality. It is an attribute of propositions ('in there') and reality ('out there'.) I think this meaning of 'true' is simple. But that does not mean that it is easy to find out which propositions (or theories) are true. The two topics should not be confused: what 'true' means on side, and how we find out on the other. I think that some of the examples given are wrong: e.g that about simultaneity in relativity. Are two events simultaneous or not? Well, we know exactly how this depends on from which inertial frame you are observing these events. So we have to amend it to 'for observer A the events are simultaneous, for observer B they are not'. If we know how the perspective has influence on what people observe, then we know that there is nothing to quarrel about. It is as if two people are facing each other, and quarrel about the question if the chair stands at the right or at the left. If you take the perspective in account, the whole problem has vanished. Same with what is true today is false tomorrow. If it was an 'eternal truth' (something like F = mv, like Aristotle thought), and today we know it is false, then it was false all the time. We erroneously took it for true. But truth hasn't changed, because reality did not change. Same with the opposite: reality changes. It is drizzling. It is really true! I see it when I look out of the window! But of course this event is local: where I live, and am now, it is drizzling. It makes no sense to quarrel about the truth of 'it is drizzling', if I do not take the context in account. When I am going somewhere else tomorrow, then it is still true that 'in Switzerland at 17.03.2018 16:30 local time, it is drizzling'. Even if it is beautiful weather at the place where I am tomorrow. Personally, I would prefer to separate some concept pairs: For factual knowledge, 'true' or 'false' apply, because there can be a kind of correspondence between factual propositions and reality For morality, I would use 'right' or 'wrong'. There is no way that science can find out what is morally right or wrong. It can help if facts play a role in a moral decision ('if you do this some people might be killed, if you do that, the risk is negligible'). But this already presupposes that both agree on the norm that killing people is wrong. For aesthetics it becomes more difficult: beauty, interesting, fascinating or ugly, boring, ...The difference with morality is that it has a very strong personal factor. The compulsion to come to an agreement is less than in morality, but do not underestimate the intersubjective character of these aesthetical norms. If these is a discussion on how to renovate the old city centre, it can become very important that people agree. Well, then they are wrong. Truth is not subjective. Beauty has a strong subjective side, morality less, but truth is definitely not subjective.
31. 4 points

## Arming Teachers

I can't believe that D Trump's idiotic proposal has been discussed for four pages. Only someone like the current president would think that, in a country where the problem is too many guns and their easy accessibility, the solution is MORE guns. Schools need to be gun-free zones. Guns and kids don't mix. Kids need to be taught their problems cannot be solved with violence. Nor are their problems so great these days, as to cause all the teenage angst.
32. 4 points

## Scientific Method in climate science

Well I'm sorry you took umbrage at my quickly dashed off scribbling yesterday. It was designed in a hurry to 'get you started'. One very important point you need to realise is that many words with wider meanings in the general English dictionary are used scientifically with only with specialist meanings. Furthermore scientists will assume that you are using these specialist meanings, if you introduce them. So if you need clarification about a technical term ask, don't waste precious time arguing about a definition. From your posts I don't know if you know what a null hypothesis is, but my hint contains everything (scientifically) needed for a starting point. How about There is evidence for global warming. or There is not evidence for global warming. Which of these do you think is null? Which of these can you best falsfy? A further hint, don't make your scheme too grand. Go for something achievable by a 14/15 or 17/18 year old scholar (you didn't say which and it makes a difference). Another important question is. What subject is this for? Geography, Geology, Environmental Science, Chemistry... ? Where will you look for evidence (material to put into numbers) Well, as I said it depends upon the subject. You might look for changes to migratory patterns of birds, insects and animals You might look for changes to how far North od South various vegetation limits eg Tundra vary You might look for direct measurements of some physical property - Can you suggest one? Incidentally marks will also be awarded for the thinking behind rejecting certain markers, in the writeup of such a project. So, for instance, should you accept or reject the obvious one Is the concentration of Carbon Dioxide changing? Will knowing this actually assist? All this is totally consistent with the roadmap I offered initially. So shall we start again?
33. 4 points

## Yay, GUNS!

These 'negotiations' are nuts. We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy. Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away... People are dying because of easily accessible guns. Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths. And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem. I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?
34. 4 points

## Alternate theory for the birth of our universe

So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny. So i pondered upon it for a while, and came up with a theory that would explain events prior to that of the Big Bang, based on what we know about physics so far. In this theory, the Big Bang isn't t=0, but just an event in space. Just a quick warning first: I am no physicist, i am just an amateur that daydreams a lot and think about stuff a lot. Also english is not my native language, so i apologize for any mistakes. I also invite anyone and everyone to poke holes, deconstruct and falsify my theory. If not, to provide help on how to better construct it. Thanks! So here it goes: Snowball Universe: The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together. I'm going to refer mostly about matter, but you can assume the same happens for antimatter too. The clumps of matter will interact with each other and merge. Clumps of matter that come into contact with clumps of antimatter won't mutually annihilate each other. When their surface come into contact, the burst of energy released will make them "skip" against each other. Much like how the Leidenfrost effect works. Clumps of matter will keep on getting bigger, eventually forming objects with a mass equal to that of a black hole or greater. This hapens in an uniform pattern in the infinity of space. Our pocket of the Universe starts when two black holes with each a mass vastly superior to that of our observable universe came into contact. I'm going to refer to those hypermassive black holes as "Nemesis". The collision resulted in a massive burst of matter, to which we attribute the Big Bang. Instead of being a singularity, it is actually a collision point. What this theory explains: -Where all the antimatter is. Our Universe is an agglomerate of matter. If we could peek further into the Multiverse, we could see agglomerates of antimatter similar to ours. -The missing mass in our universe. This theory explains the mystery of dark matter, the gravitationnal anomaly actualy comes from the Nemesis. -Where our Universe came from and where we are headed. This theory is based on what we already know about space and particles. Matter has a tendancy to clump together, and the Nemesis will keep on getting bigger and bigger and merge with each other. -The actual Multiverse is much less dense than our Universe. Our Universe is just an agglomerate of matter around a Nemesis, much like an accretion disk. If we could zoom out and see the whole Multiverse, it would be similar to our Universe, less dense, and instead of galaxies, it would be made out of multiple pocket universes made of either matter or antimatter. What we could look for: - Remnants of matter that orbited our Nemesis from before it's collision, the Big Bang. Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang. -Presence of other universes or antiverses. If their existence is real, their light has probably reached us, but has probably redshifted to the point that we can't perceive it with our current technology. -If we really are orbiting a Nemesis, we should be able to detect its gravitationnal field and its effect on objects around it. Our universe should also begin to form an accretion disk around its Nemesis. -The possible "death" of the Multiverse. The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.
35. 4 points

☺!
36. 4 points

## Hijack from DOJ and FBI under attack

It is difficult to say that there is nothing if so far four people close to the administration and campaign have been indicted and/or plead guilty. In most investigations I would presume that this alone would create cause to look deeper into a given organization. Who in the Clinton campaign was arrested due to dealings with Russia?
37. 4 points

## why do two objects fall same rate in a vacuum

"why do two objects fall same rate in a vacuum?" What else could they do? The "obvious" answer is that a heavy thing would fall faster. Well, let's think about that; what would happen...? Lets get two different rocks (say 1Kg and 2Kg) and tie them together with a string, then drop them. The heavy rock falls faster- and so it pulls on the string and that makes the light rock also fall at the same speed as the big rock. But, considered together the thing is now a 3Kg "thing made from 2 rocks + some string" so it should fall even daster than the 2Kg rock. How can that work? The little rock is being dragged down and, consequently, it's pulling back on the string. Yet somehow, by pulling back (up) on the 2 kg rock it makes it fall down faster (so that the whole 3kg collection falls faster than a 2kg rock). That makes no sense at all. It also didn't make sense to Galileo, and that's what he pointed out to people at the time. They didn't believe him, and that's why he did his famous experiment; not because he wanted to know the answer (which he had already worked out) but to convince the other "philosophers" of the day who accepted everything that Aristotle told them. It also doesn't work if you assume that lighter things fall faster; the only way that it makes sense is if everything falls at the same rate.
38. 4 points

## Trump Effects

This conversation seems to be going something like this: P1: A well balanced diet is critical to good health. P2: Your problem is you think vegetarianism is the only valid path. P1: No, I don’t. I think it’s important to balance ones diet and include both vegetables and meat. Each have a place in good health. P2: You can’t even name one society that’s survived on vegetables alone. Meat makes us stronger! When will you realize this? P1: Sigh. Never mind. You’re not even addressing my actual comment.
39. 4 points

40. 4 points

## Artificial gravity...

Here's another visualization of what walking around the spinning square would be like, showing 1 full side and part of two others:
41. 4 points

## Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

I am happy to credit Lincoln with abolishing slavery although today Republicans are the party of choice for white supremacists.
42. 4 points

## Scientific Proof that Life is Real

"Scientific proof" is like "iridium glider" or "library tuba" or "poisoned vitamins". If you're looking for any of these things, you're missing the point completely.
43. 4 points

## Why is ScienceForums going so slowly these Days?

So things look like they have improved quite a bit over the last few hours. Looking at our server load averages for the last 12 hours, it's been quite clear that the load has reduced and SFN feels a lot more responsive. We'll see how we can do in relation to the 'bad gateway' issue over the next few days.
44. 4 points

## Why do we think there is dark matter and dark energy?

If you are suggesting that light coming from some distant galaxy is traveling slower when it reaches the Earth than light produced locally, then this would produce noticeable effects. One would be in stellar aberration. When look at a star that is located on a line which is at a right angle to the Earth's orbital motion. It apparent position shifts a bit which is determined by the relationship between the speed of light and Earth's orbital speed. Since the direction of the Earth's motion changes over the course of a year, the direction of the apparent shift also changes. The point is, that if the speed of light arriving from a further galaxy was slower upon reaching Earth that light from a closer galaxy, we would measure a larger apparent shift in the position of the further galaxy than we would for the closer galaxy. This would be noticeable in any Hubble picture which contained galaxies at varying distances. When the Hubble takes a picture of some distant part of the universe, it can't just take a quick snap shot, it needs a very long exposure. Much longer than the scope can remain pointed at a single point of the Sky as it orbits the Earth. So what is done is that the Telescope points at a part of the sky for a while, records what it sees, and then waits until it's back into position again to continue the image, and repeats this process over and over until the total exposure time is met. A single image can takes months to complete. But this means that the apparent shift due to aberration also changes while the image if being formed. This is fine as long as the speed of the light arriving from all those galaxies is the same, as the shift will be the same and can be accounted for. But if light from further galaxies was slower when it reached Earth, those galaxies would exhibit a larger shift than nearer ones. The image compiled of multiple exposures taken over a long period of time would show "smearing" of these further galaxies which increased the further the galaxy was away.
45. 4 points

## Vacuum Fluctuations can Become Real

In a recent discussion here at science forums, in a thread related to a similar discussion I explained how some scientists consider all observable matter as just ''longer lived'' fluctuations of the vacuum. This article seems to be related to these kinds of discussions. Scientific American is no stranger to the discussion of virtual particles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/?utm_content=bufferbfd4d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
46. 4 points

## What is inner-peace?

Inner peace is when you claim you have inner peace but repeatedly argue with other members on a forum.
47. 4 points

## Where does gravity (most likely) come from?

I thought it was an improvement.
48. 4 points

## Undetected asteroids and Earth

When Congress created the NEO Search Program in 1998 they tasked NASA with finding 90% of the near-Earth asteroids that are one kilometer or larger. Then in 2005 Congress extended NASA's objective to include 90% of the NEOs larger than 140 meters. While the majority of NEOs have been identified via ground-based telescopes, they are not the only sources. Both WISE and NEOWISE were space-based infrared searches for NEOs before their cryogens were exhausted by 2010. It is a question of size. Since 1998 NASA has discovered ~98% of the NEOs that are one kilometer or larger. The percentage of known NEOs drops according to their size. At 140 meters in diameter fewer than 1% are known. However, while a 140 meter diameter meteorite impact could easily wipe out a large city, it would not cause an extinction level event. What was meant by the asteroid approaching from the "daytime sky" is that the asteroid approached Earth from the direction of the sun. Even with infrared sensing satellites we would not be able to see something approaching Earth from the direction of the sun, unless the satellite was closer to the sun than the NEO. It is our thermal blind-spot. Depending on the density and composition of the NEO, it will need to be between 20 and 25 meters in diameter in order to impact with the surface and form a crater. The Chelyabinsk meteor came very close to impacting the planet and it was estimated to be just over 15 meters in diameter. In order to be the cause of an extinction level event the NEO would have to be very large indeed. The asteroid that impacted the planet ~65 million years ago was estimated to be 12 kilometers in diameter. Currently, the known NEO with the highest probability of impacting Earth is 2010 RF12. Sometime between 2095 and 2117 there is a 5% chance that the asteroid may impact Earth. At only ~7 meters in diameter the NEO does not pose much of a threat. The odds of an unknown NEO causing an extinction level event is extremely unlikely considering the size it would have to be. However, it is only a matter of time before a 50 to 100 meter NEO that we didn't know about impacts the planet and could very possibly kill millions if it impacts a major city. Sources: NEO Search Program - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Center for Near-Earth Object Studies Sentry: Earth Impact Monitoring - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Center for Near-Earth Object Studies Absolute Magnitudes of Asteroids and a Revision of Asteroid Albedo Estimates from WISE Thermal Observations - Icarus, Volume 221, Issue 1, September-October 2012, Pages 365-387 (free preprint) The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center Asteroid Impact Effects and their Immediate Hazards for Human Populations - Geophysical Research Letters, April 19, 2017 (free preprint)
49. 4 points

## Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

"Didn't do anything" is incorrect. Obama, for instance, https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595 (Trump rescinded an EO limiting access for the mentally ill) Legislation is hard to do when you don't have the cooperation of congress. What would GW Bush and Trump's excuse be on that front?
50. 4 points

## What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

Bullshit, it's not your precious money to control after it's spent merely because you claimed to have worked for it, princess. It's the government's money. Your receive services from police, fire etc from healthy people, able to work because of a health care system. Yet, police brutality and corruption remains and you say/do nothing about it. The vacuum which is your economic vision of the country is flawed. You drive on roads, camp in parks, visit libraries, churches and museums. I''m not religious, does that mean my money won't be subsidizing those career mooches and purveyors of nonsense any longer? America is more socialist than you say, comrade. You don't want people to have health care, but you want roads paved to move yourself about the country at your whimsy. You want guns and laws to protect YOU from threats, yet "driving while black" (for example) remains a great threat to otherwise hard working, law abiding minorities. I have no kids, but I pay school taxes levied to my property axes.