Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

storyteller's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. Translating texts and interpreting meaning of artworks don't involve "scientific method" for one.
  2. Oh, I am not denying that archaeological finding of artworks, pottery, tools and weapons and any writing, all have historic significance, as archaeological evidence. We can certainly apply science to date any objects, but there are more to archaeology than dating objects. So I am not sure about analyzing paintings or sculptures as to their meanings, or translating texts, which are also parts of archaeology, as being “scientific”.
  3. I am not interested in any alien conspiracy, so I have no interests in what Musk have to say. Perhaps. But even in the Old Kingdom period, Egypt wasn't a kingdom in isolation. The 4th dynasty, was more powerful and wealthier than the predecessor and succeeding dynasties, so they could have gained timbers from contemporary neighboring kingdoms, like in the Levant (eg Phoenician cedars) or further south from Upper Nubia, which was fertile regions than arid Lower Nubia (northern Nubia), through wars, trades or diplomacy. Just saying there are ways to get wood.
  4. The finding of artworks and translating of Egyptian texts, which are also part of archaeology, would put these areas in Humanities, wouldn't it, not in science?
  5. I am finding it difficult to define what Egyptology is. Is it science? If it is, explain. If it isn't, explain.
  6. So are you saying that Multiverse required M-theory as framework to build Multiverse, just as the Big Bang theory required General Relativity as framework to build the model upon?
  7. I am not a physicist, and the physics I have studies in colleges, are only physics applicable to civil engineering course (mid-80s) and computer science course (late 90s), so nothing in regards to astrophysics. what are differences M-theory and Multiverse? If they are different, which is likely to be true?
  8. Any life on Mars would be micro-scales, and mostly likely under the Bacteria. You definitely won't find animals or plants in Mars' condition. Neither would survive without water and with average temperature of -60 deg C. If there were water like rivers, lakes or seas, is still debatable. Although the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, and there are sunlight, photosynthesis won't occur without water, so it would be pointless to plant vegetation on Mars, and expect to thrive. Photosynthesis needs ultraviolet rays, water and carbon dioxide, for plants to cause chemical convert to carbohydrates, the energy needed for plants to sustain life.
  9. I think you are confusing the star’s core (or Sun’s core) with our Earth’s core. The Earth’s core is made of iron and nickel. Where as the Sun’s core is made mostly of hydrogen, with helium coming second as the most abundant element. Most of the Sun’s energy come from thermonuclear fusion that take within the Sun’s core, fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei. This hydrogen to helium fusion is a form of Stellar Nucleosynthesis known as proton-proton chain reaction. There are many other forms of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, where more massive stars can result in fusion of elements heavier than helium (heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen oxygen, etc), but for the sake of convenience, I rather you just focused on Nucleosynthesis process that take place in the sun. Eventually, the Sun’s core will run out hydrogen nuclei to fuse, and according to astrophysicists’ predict it will occur 4 to 5 billion years from now. This will cause the Sun to change it structure, leading to the main sequence star evolving into red giant star. I don’t see why anyone would be concerned about the sun turning into red giant star, since is so long into the future, and feeling the needs to stop it from occurring.
  10. I am glad that you understand my reply to conjurer. I just hoped that he does too. you cannot simply move planets Jupiter and Saturn, and expect that action will transfer all the planets’ gases, particularly hydrogen to the star’s core, where the Stellar Nucleosynthesis take place. the only thing that I can see happening is new gases will only reach the photosphere surface, where no Nucleosynthesis take place. conjurer’s scenario of using Saturn, will only refuel the surface of the sun, not refuel the core.
  11. Like I said before, Stellar Nucleosynthesis occurred at the Sun’s core, not on the surface. So unless you and conjurer can think of way to move the gas from surface (photosphere) through dense convective zone and then to the radiative zone to eventually to the star’s core. Each layer of the sun, are hot dense plasma, but each layer below is higher temperature. I don’t see this conjecture from conjurer is going to work.
  12. There are couple of problems to your conjectures. One. I find highly unlikely we can physically move any planet into the sun, especially the size of Saturn or even Jupiter. Two. Much of Sun’s Nucleosynthesis occurred at the Sun’s CORE, not on the Sun’s surface. So regardless if you managed to bring Saturn or Jupiter to the Sun, you won’t be able transfer the gases into the Sun’s core. Three. If the Red Giant sun is going to strip the Earth’s atmosphere, what do you think the Sun is going to do Saturn’s atmosphere as you bring the planet closer to the red giant?
  13. No, that’s wrong. It is only when you are observing from Earth (like through telescopes) of some distant objects (like galaxies) in space, that you are looking those objects from the past of something that already happened. This is because what you are observing take long time to reach our telescopes. but you are talking about space travel. That’s different. As you travel, you will only experience the present...you don’t travel back in time. You cannot go to the BB singularity through space travel.
  14. Thank you, joigus. When I was in college, a whole boatload of physics weren’t needed and weren’t studied in civil engineering course, including Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc. So the course only focused on Newtonian theory on motions & on gravitation, and nothing on SR & GR. So everything relating to astrophysics and cosmology are only recent interests that I have been reading about, trying to understand the explanatory side of the theory (BB) without delving into the mathematical aspects.
  • 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.