BusaDave9

I believe there is a scientific explanation for everything. Mankind may not have all the answers now but I do believe there is a scientific answer for everything.

It used to be that God was the answer for everything: why does the sun come up every day; why does a flower bloom; why is the sky blue and the sunset red. "Because god made it so" was always the answer. Now science can explain these things.

All the sciences fit together. To talk about evolution scientifically you can see how carbon dating can explain recent species. Fossels, geology, rock dating and several other sciences fit together to explain the species. To deny evolution is to deny many branches of science. Just the rock layers over the earth can't be explained by religion. Some religious people say the rock layers with fossles were caused by Noah's Flood. But that can't explain how rock layers cover almost the whole earth. Where did the mud and sediments come from? The only explanation is the Earth must be much older than the bible says. In the 4.5 billion years of Earths history every spot was, at one time a low area and received sediment.

Religion can't explain much at all. And when religion tries to explain anything the explanation is always the same: "Because God said so!"

This is problem because of how much we have over populated the earth

Hoola, I don't agree with much of anything you have posted. Starting off with "if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate"

No the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. It is expanding, but not accelerating.

The expansion is not "from the dark energy output from all over space". It is from the energy from the big bang. But the gravitational force of the matter in the universes it slowing down the expansion. Much of the matter in the universe is dark matter that is hard to measure. We can tell how much matter is in the stars and galaxies but not how much matter is drifting in between the starts and galaxies. If there is enough dark matter then the universe will stop expanding and contract back into a big crunch.

I was only talking about one universe and just cutting it up into OU sized sections

I understand. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory isn't about separate universes originating from the same Big Bang. I did not mean to imply you were saying otherwise.

I was trying to help Airbrush understand.

 

If an infinite number of big bangs starting out smaller than a proton,

...

Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs? Could side by side universes push against each other?

You can't have separate univereses "pushing" against each other. If 2 universes are separate they have separate dimensions. You could not fly a spaceship from one universe to another. If you could they would be the same universe.

What would be between these "universes"? More space? It sounds like it would just be one big universe, just not as uniform as scientist say it was.

If the universe is infinite now it always was.

It is more likely that the universe is finite but unbounded. There is no end to the universe but there may be a finite amount of matter in it. It is like the universe is curved like tthe surface of a sphere.

But it's not like there were infinite separate big bangs next to eachother. The big bang occured everywhere. One big bang. Imagine going back in time. there was a time when the entire observable universe were in the singularity. But there was only one singularity and one big bang. The universe was infinitely compressed.

... we brand it as a law but in reality its not.

 

I agree.

I think semantics is confusing this thread.

There are the laws of nature. These laws are absolute. We humans try to understand physics and will formulate theories. When our theories are proven to be correct we call them laws as if they are the exact representation of the laws of nature. I think that's overly arrogant. And telling from the posts on this thread, I think some of you agree with this. Kepler's "Laws" of planetary motion are very accurate. They were labeled "laws" as if they were the end all, be all, for explaining orbital motion. Later Einstein explained gravity as warped space-time.

I don't think we should ever use the word "law" for a theory, no matter how much we prove it to be correct.

 

It is my belief that Newtonian physics, Einstein gravity and all the rest are human inventions: Physics is not discovered but invented, in my way of thinking.

 

I still ask, where or when are these magical LAWS OF NATURE sequestered? Where are they?

 

What do you mean "where are these laws of nature"?

An apple would fall to the ground even long before any human existed. Gravity exists independently of human understanding. Einstein's General Relativity is his understanding of gravity. You can say Relativity is Einstein's invention and I'd have a hard time disagreeing with that but it's more accurate to say GR is his explanation of gravity. But it has proven to be a very accurate theory. Scientific theories come and go. The ones that can be verified and provide predictions are the theories that will stay around. These theories are the ones that most closely represent how the laws of nature really are.

The universe is expanding and there doesn't seem to be anything that can stop it. The only thing that could stop it would be gravity. And for gravity to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe there would have to be more matter in the universe than we realize.

A constantly expanding of the universe bothers me. It also has bothers cosmologists. For this reason they have always come up with theories that would prevent the universe from expanding for ever. Once such theory is the theory of dark matter. This theory says there must be lots of matter in the universe that we can't detect. Enough matter to eventually stop the expanding and cause a contracting of the universe.

If we could come up with a theory that would show that the universe will eventually contract into a big crunch. Then another universe could develop from the matter of the previous universe.

Then eternity could be explained. A big bang would create a universe that would end in a big crunch and then another big bang would create another new universe. An eternity like that does not need a definite beginning or end (just like a circle does not need a definite beginning or end).

If the scientist don't come up with a theory like that then it would be hard accepting that the universe had a specific beginning but no end.

A farmer stopped by the local mechanic shop to have his truck fixed. They couldn't do it while he waited, so he said he didn't live far and would just walk home.
On the way home he stopped at the hardware store and bought a bucket and a gallon of paint. He then stopped by the feed store and picked up a couple of chickens and a goose. However, struggling outside the store he now had a problem - how to carry his entire purchase home.

While he was scratching his head he was approached by a little old lady who told him she was lost. She asked, "Can you tell me how to get to 1603 Mockingbird Lane?"
The farmer said, "Well, as a matter of fact, my farm is very close to that house I would walk you there but I can't carry this lot."
The old lady suggested, "Why don't you put the can of paint in the bucket.. Carry the bucket in one hand, put a chicken under each arm and carry the goose in your other hand?"

"Why thank you very much," he said and proceeded to walk the old girl home. On the way he says "Let's take my short cut and go down this alley. We'll be there in no time."
The little old lady looked him over cautiously then said, "I am a lonely widow without a husband to defend me. How do I know that when we get in the alley you won't hold me up against the wall, pull up my skirt, and have your way with me?"
The farmer said, "Holy smokes lady! I'm carrying a bucket, a gallon of paint, two chickens, and a goose. How in the world could I possibly hold you up against the wall and do that?"
The old lady replied, "Set the goose down, cover him with the bucket, put the paint on top of the bucket, and I'll hold the chickens."

As a scientific web site we need to stick to facts. Facts that can be shown and proven. With data to support our positions.

This entire thread is really about the Principal of Equivalence.

If you google the Principal of Equivalence you'll find lots of reading on this topic.

Here's just one link: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-acc.html

Einstein came to realize the principle of equivalence, and it states that an accelerated system is completely physically equivalent to a system inside a gravitational field.

 

The 2nd debate that has arisen asks if gravity is a force or a warped spacetime or maybe gravitons or all of the above. Here's what Dr. Sten Odenwald says:

 

Theorists believe that both of these descriptions are valid, in much the same way that we can think of the force of electromagnetism as being either the product of a continuous field, or the exchange of numerous force-carrying particles called photons. For certain 'classical' calculations, the description of electromagnetism as a field is more workable than its 'quantum' description, and vice versa.

 

And the above quote came from here: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q1669.html

A healthy debate is good. I never meant to come accross as rude.

I love Dilbert. Here's another good one

 

But you are accelerating. From the perspective of an observer, who is freely falling, or freely floating, not acted upon by external forces, you are accelerating upward due to the force from the scale upon your feet.

Agreed, A force on a bathroom scale due to gravity is the same as a force on a scale due to acceleration. The accelerating motion is relative. A free falling observer could consider himself at rest and consider the persons on the scale to be accelerating. This is Einstein's General Relativity.

What's going on with all these posts, comparing gravity and acceleration? Apparently the word 'gravity' is not understood here. Gravity and acceleration are not even in the same phenomenological category.

Decraig, it sounds like you don't understand gravity. Einstein called the comparison between gravity and acceleration "The Principle of Equivalence".

If you would like to learn more on the topic check out this link where they say that:

Einstein came to realize the principle of equivalence, and it states that an accelerated system is completely physically equivalent to a system inside a gravitational field.

 

Here's where I got the above quote:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-acc.html

O.K. let's move the goalpost a little bit.

 

You need to find your position because you are lost on a island or because you want to draw a map.

Is that achievable?

Yes, for 600 years people have been able to navigate and find their location on earth from the stars and other heavenly bodies. Here is one link concerning celestial navigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation

You need to have a timepiece for most forms of celestial navigation. If you know the time you can find your location.

In the 1800's lunar distance navigation was invented and you no longer needed to know the time to find your location.

Studies have repeatedly shown a drink or 2 of beer or wine each day is good for you.

Beer, wine and other alcoholic drinks are good for you but not if you are getting drunk. Even getting a little drunk is bad for you. If you slam 3 beers in a row, that will be a detriment to your health. If you sip 3 beers or glasses of wine over 4 hours you will not get drunk and they will actually help your health.

Or at least that's my take on the studies.

I strongly doubt that the relative positions of Mars and Jupiter determine the date to a few seconds, since the planets move too slowly in our observable sky. That's why I prefer our Moon, which move faster

No one can tell time from the planets position against the stars. You can tell the date from the planets and their position. You can tell the time from the stars. It takes only a few minutes or so for a star to set.

Re-read my post #16 on the last page. I explained this there.

 

What kind of "picture" do you mean? Compact digital camera, with unknown image distortion? Or a sextant, a telescope...?

Yes, even a compact digital camera with unknown distortion would work. You would need to see the horrizons.

The real issue is you would need a picture of polaris and the stars below it.

You would need pictures of the planets and pictures of the horizon near the ecliptic.

Or one fisheye lens photo could be enough.

 

You surely don't mean that.

 

I surely don't.

The moon takes a year to orbit the sun riding on the coat-tails of earth.

The moon takes a month to orbit the earth.

I was just thinking of the fact that the sky in London should look the same as the sky in New York in 5 hours time. So can you tell the difference between London now, or New York 5 hours later? Isn't this why accurate clocks were so important for navigation; in order to determine longitude?

yes, you are right.

I disagree with enthropy on this one. He seems to be saying the planets and moon would be not be moving fast enough against the star background to tell time but that's not how to tell time from the stars.

All the stars appear to rotate around the earth once each day due to the rotating Earth. As I watch the night sky and compare it to star charts I can tell what time it is knowing my location. If I know the time I can tell my location.

By looking at the position of the planets you can tell the date. It takes 29 years for Saturn to orbit the sun but if you also take into account the position of the other planets you can tell the year and even the time of the year. Next if you take into account the moon's position and phase you can tell pretty much what night and time the picture was taken. The stars will tell you more accurately what time it is.

The original post says your photo would be marked with the planets like this:

If you could even mark the distant planets such as Uranus and Neptune then an astronomer could tell you the date the picture was taken within thousands of years. He could say that picture is from June 14th 1275 BC (as if they had cameras back then)

Each planet is an accurate time keeper. The moon takes a month to orbit the sun and each planet takes a different amount of time depending on their distance from the sun. Even if you stuck with the planets that are visible with the naked eye an astronomer could tell you within hundreds of years when the picture was taken.

The height of Polaris is your latitude. While it may be hard to tell the angular height of the star from a photograph you can tell by the other stars. What star is near the horizon? Where is Cassiopeia? We know how far these stars are from Polaris so we can tell our latitude from whatever stars are below Polaris.

The planets in the solar system orbit the sun in more or less a plane. This area of the sky is called the ecliptic. The sun moon and planets are always in the ecliptic. The planets closer to the sun take much less time to orbit the sun. For example Mercury orbits the sun 4 times every year. The earth once a year and Pluto takes 247 years to orbit the sun once.

Here is a pic of planets and the moon in the ecliptic

This next pic is the night sky spread out. This makes it look like the ecliptic is a curve but it just looks that way on this map because of the tilt of the earths axis. You can see in the above pic that the ecliptic tilts into the northern hemisphere and into the southern. That's why it looks like a curve when mapped out on a flat diagram.

To a certain degree he can tell. He would need to see the horizon. The height of the north star will tell him how for north you are (your latitude).

He would have to know the date and time the picture was taken to determine your longitude.

To understand the answer to your question you only need to understand how the earth spins on it's axis. The axis of the earth's rotation goes through the north star. If you were to take a time laps photography of the night sky it would look like all the stars are rotating around the north star (see picture below). In the southern hemisphere it looks like all the stars are rotating around a curtain spot there too but there is no star at the southern axis.

Since the earth rotates once every day these stars would take one day to rotate around the north star. As the sun comes up in the morning it's brightness would block the view of the stars.

Also keep in mind that the earth obits around the sun. Six months from now the earth will be on the other side of the sun. At that time the sunlight will be blocking out all the stars that were visible at night 6 months ago.

Also when I travel south I can see more stars in the southern hemisphere. When I lived in Minnesota I could barely see all of Scorpius because it was on the horizon. If you are right on the equator the north star would be hard to see because it would be right on the northern horizon. The southern half of the sky would be the southern hemisphere. When you are right on the equator, and watched the sky all night, you would be able to see more stars than anywhere else in the world.

EDIT: Studiot and myself both said you would have to tell the astronomer the date in order for him to tell your longitude but now I take that back. You said you would mark the location of the planets. From that info an astronomer could tell the date that the picture was taken.

If you had another picture taken at twilight of dawn or dusk he would be able to tell what constellation the sun is in. In other words if you took enough pictures the astronomer would be able to tell the date, time and location the pictures were taken.

...

if there is some center the celestials or matter must be denser at center or at edges.if it is that means it will contract if the push of big bang stops (due to imbalanced gravitation, it will choose its center automatically .possibly energy serves as the space or surface to the expansion of matter.

The big bang happened everywhere. All throughout the universe. The early universe was much more uniform than it is today. Even the singularity was everywhere. That's the hard part to comprehend. The universe expanded. Now we have galaxies with lots of space between. It's the gravity that made the universe go from being very uniform to galaxies and star systems.

A law of physics is what exists independently of human understanding.

A theory is our understanding of a law.

If a theory is proven to be correct it doesn't become a law.

Gravity is a law of physics. Newton wrote a theory of gravity. Later Einstein wrote his theory of gravity (General Theory of Relativity). Even though Einstein's theory is much different than Newton's that doesn't mean Newton was wrong. Newton's equations are still used to put a satellite in orbit.

Time is a mental construct not a physical reality..

 

As a mental construct time can only exist in a brain and it is used to measure motion.

No, time is the 4th dimension of the universe. But it is true that our mental image may not match what time really is. Einstein helped us understand time as a dimension of our universe.

Red is a real color. It's wavelength is about 700 nanometers. Now our mental image of red is a vibrant exciting color. On the other hand our mental image of blue is a cool, soothing color.

DevilSolution, maybe I misunderstood you. Please extrapolate on the solutions you speak of.

....We just need to grow up, literally speaking. Just farm upwards instead of outwards.

 

You must either admit everyone offers something or be willing to sacrifice yourself, you cannot simply say the world is over populated without being part of the solution....its contradicting and condescending.

You, and just about everyone else that thinks earth is not overpopulated, has the attitude that if we just overcome the problems of overpopulation, then it's not overpopulation.

Here is my take on the issue:

Let's compare us to the white tail deer we have here in the US. What if white tail deer were to populate every continent. What if most of them lived in herds of hundreds of thousands, or even over a million deer. They would never be able to find food within such large herds so the deer would take over all the fertile land to grow food. Herds of more than a million would even populate the most desolate deserts (think Phoenix AZ). Populating these deserts would entail bringing water down from the mountains or other places with water. Who in their right mind would say that is not overpopulation? Anyone saying those deer are not overpopulated must believe that deer are so special that there could never be too many.