Bufofrog

29 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

If you would please re read the conversation. I acknowledged I was wrong in my understanding.

Do you now also realize that your statement that "every theory violates physical laws" is wrong.

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Where I do not quite agree with Bufofrog that philosophy is the trash can for all questions that sciences cannot answer

My comment was directed at J.Merrill's question, which was why does mass warp space.  IMO physics tries to answer how and philosophy would try to answer why.

14 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

The Big Bang

It violates the first law of thermodynamics,

So now you see that your comment was not correct, so that's good. 

14 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Every theory violates physical laws,

This more general statement you made is also obviously incorrect.  

16 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

What are you serious? Please read this.

The Conservation of Matter During Physical and Chemical Changes. Matter makes up all visible objects in the universe, and it can be neither created nor destroyed.

That is incorrect. 

When a positron and an electron meet they are annihilated and 2 photons result from this annihilation.  The matter is destroyed.  A energetic photon can be converted into matter/anti-matter pair when in comes in close proximity to the nucleus of an atom, in other words matter is created.

5 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

The Big Bang

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. 

That is not what the first law says.  You can create and destroy matter, it happens all the time.

5 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

The first long-lived matter particles of any kind were protons and you guessed it neutrons. And together they make up the atomic nucleus. These came into existence around of 0.0001 a second after the Big Bang, Before that there was really no material in any familiar sense.

That of course does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

For Physics to even be what it is you must question explanations in their own right of answers, until you have a definitive proof and no questions are left.

Proof is not really the realm of science.  Theories are never proven, they are only supported by the evidence

8 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

I disagree

That's fine, but most physicist agree with me. 

19 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Why does Mass have an affect on Spacetime which causes Gravity.

The answer is, that is not a physics question, that is a philosophy question.  Just like the question, "why does a positive charge attract a negative charge" is a philosophy question.

3 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Its the fact that mass causes warped spacetime, and this in return causes gravity.

Warped spacetime IS gravity.

31 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

But if you take away the mass causing this Warped Spacetime, what causes the "Curved Fabric of Space"  return to its previous state,  into its unbent position?

The fact that the mass is gone that was warping spactime.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

Then that is to say light leaving a stars gravity is red shifted too,

That is correct.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

even if it’s moving closer to us by nature of the universe.

The light leaving the gravity well of a star is red shifted.  If the star is moving towards us then that red shifted light will be blue shifted.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

And this we know is false.

No, it is not false.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

I would have to agree here, by a biblical definition of GOD. Light would be Omnipresent.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  According to the bible light was not omnipresent, but since we are in the physics section I have no idea why this would come up in the discussion.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

What is pure energy because it is The simplest form of electromagnetic waves. This makes it true that light is pure energy. And if Light is made of photons, then photons are indeed pure energy.

This is incorrect.  If photons were pure energy (whatever that could be) then they would have no other properties, such as spin, frequency and momentum.

3 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Person A shoots a few thousand partials of light 90° In to space at Person B. who is just outside of earths “gravitational  gradient”. Would person B experience a red shift in light waves or blue?

Light leaving the earth is very slightly red shifted due to the gravity of earth.

11 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such. So if creative design exists today what about the past?

You believe in the past mankind knew about DNA and gene editing.  That is an absurdly far fetched idea!

I guess this is what the OP is talking about:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08824-8

21 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

When 2 magnets interact they confirm natures full logic of 0,0…0,1….1,0….1,1 which isn’t 0,1..1,0 logic.

Huh?  What in the world is 'natures full logic'?

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Nonsense,they are different forces even though they both attract and repel.

It seems like you are purposely trying to misunderstand me.

3 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Yes, and both forces attract and repel depending on their interactions with other electromagnetics.

They are not different forces.  Just like electrostatic forces can be negative or positive, magnetic forces simply have a different sign for N and S.

10 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

My question is very straight forward and I have clearly stated

No it's not.

18 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

There are 2 different magnetic forces in nature

Please explain what you mean by that.  My guess is that you mean the north end of the magnet is one force and the south end of the magnet is the other force.  Is that what you are saying?

On 6/14/2022 at 6:38 AM, Jasper10 said:

Scientist claim that the 2 off magnetic forces in nature are the same.

If I assume when you write the '2 off magnetic forces' you mean the north and south poles, then the answer is scientists do not think they are the same.  That's why they have different names.

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense.

I wonder what that means.

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

Coincidence?

I would say the 2 sentences were unrelated, so there could be no coincidence.

17 minutes ago, martillo said:

For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

That's nice that something about this thread makes you feel important and worthwhile.

1 hour ago, BV63 said:

vaxx damage the natural immune system so people get Chronic Covid.

You should stop spreading false rumors.

3 minutes ago, BV63 said:

I know VAIDS is real

No you don't, you believe it is real but I have no idea why. 

On 6/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, Moontanman said:

Bufofrog, I'm going to have to withdraw this post, I spent three hours last night googling this and found out that the idea of " alcubierre drive" is still being debated and if I'm honest I have to admit the people who are on the side of "time travel" seem to have the best argument. In all honesty I'm pretty sure this is above my pay grade, I apologise for being so sure and flippant about it.

No problem, I've enjoyed talking about it. 

3 minutes ago, BV63 said:

Is this true and would you be alarmed by it?

So you don't even know if it's true?  Sounds like you are purposely spreading misinformation about a health issue.  Why in the hell would you do that?

1 hour ago, BV63 said:

 I know VAIDS is real but not sure if these studies prove it.

No that doesn't support and VAIDS is not real.

1 hour ago, BV63 said:

Is his interpretation correct you think?

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/aids-like-chronic-covid-is-taking?s=r

Since it's an anti-vac site we can confidently say the interpretation is not correct.