storyteller

On 10/6/2021 at 1:44 AM, zapatos said:

What concerns do you have that makes you doubt it is 'scientific'?

Translating texts and interpreting meaning of artworks don't involve "scientific method" for one.

On 9/29/2021 at 11:55 PM, dimreepr said:

Why not, they find evidence, posit a hypothesis and seek more evidence to support it.

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”.

22 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Elon Musk the year before last generally said that the pyramids were built by aliens

I am not interested in any alien conspiracy, so I have no interests in what Musk have to say.

22 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Or reconstruction of bronze melting technology. The problem here is that there are no forests in Egypt, and charcoal is needed for metallurgy.

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.

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?

I am finding it difficult to define what Egyptology is.

Is it science?

If it is, explain. If it isn't, explain.

10 hours ago, joigus said:

They are not different; they are on a different category.

M-theory is a generalisation of superstring theory; a theory about both the classes of geometries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and fields (super-symmetric conformal fields) that make the two irreconcilable field theories we know (gravity and so-called Yang-Mills fields) compatible.

Once you establish this very general context for field theories, you notice that there is huge freedom in the space of parameters (coupling constants) of the theory, as well as in the way the many dimensions of space-time that this meta-theory[?] suggests compactify (are reduced to tiny curled-up dimensions that we can't see).

The multiverse is the proposal of a general context, within this M-theory, of how a universe like ours may have arisen from the enormously big freedom that M-theory allows.

So M-theory gives you a plausible context for the physical laws as we know them to have arisen.

Multiverse is an idea about how the particular universe that we know may have arisen within that context.

I hope that helped.

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?

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?

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Thanks, zapatos 

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.

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The core of the sun is mostly iron and inert, so I don't see the purpose of that.

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.

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 AM, zapatos said:

Now I understand. Thanks.

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.

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

I suspect that once Jupiter is brought to the sun, gravity will be able to handle the transfer just fine.

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.

On 7/7/2021 at 12:54 PM, Conjurer said:

Saturn is close to the mass of being able to ignite into a star.  I would just take moving Saturn into the sun to prolong it's life, or for everyone to really go out with flair!  It would beat sitting around for millions of years, just letting it just happen...

On 7/8/2021 at 6:18 AM, Conjurer said:

In astronomical terms, 80 isn't a very big number.  You could count it on your fingers and toe's only using them 4 times.  It would most likely be easier just to ignite one of those planets, but I believe Saturn would be a better candidate from it containing mostly hydrogen.  Then we could have a dual star system.

It could be like in the newer version of the Star Trek movie, where they drop something into the star to blow it up, like dark matter containment.  They could rig something like the LHC to launch a microscopic black hole at it to increase the mass and ignite it.  

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?

On 7/22/2021 at 2:33 AM, MarkE said:

I think it does: the further away you travel from the Milky Way into deep space (theoretically speaking of course), the further you travel into the past, and therefore the closer you’d approach the Big Bang itself, i.e. the ‘initial singularity’, when there was no space or time, nothing at all, and thus you’re predicting a non-physical boundary, a furthest atom away from us, if you will, instead of space continuing forever.

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.

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.

Can someone explain to me the connection between equations of Einstein and Friedmann, please?

And how they are relevant to the cosmology?

On 3/30/2021 at 10:44 AM, george909 said:

the prevailing theory among cosmologists is that the observable universe began from a point of singularity and this singularity rapidly expanded in all directions to the present universe we see today. We are, to use the anology, in a balloon expanding outwards in all directions. We have detected the Microwave Background Radiation in equal distance in all points of directions. This observation proves one of three things, that our solar system is the very center of the universe (and therefore the point of origin) or the instruments are inaccurate, or astronomers are not interpreting the data correctly.

Astrophysicists state that before the big bang, there was no vacuum of space nor time as we understand them, but that space came into existence as time passed after the big bang. This 'expansion, obviously, was three-dimensional, that is, it expanded in all directions in the  spherical, not linear, so we should be able to see differences in distances of the CMB. We should, in fact, see specific regions devoid of the CMB, regions where CMBs are closer to us than other regions. Such data would support the Big Bang theory but as it is, it proves noting except the foolishness of man's perception of the world and the universe he inhabits. 

My reply below, is focused on what I have quoted in bold:

No, not just the Solar System, everything else in the universe that we observed today were part of the singularity, so when the inflation began, everything else in the universe expanded with it.

And there are no centre of the universe. Our Solar System, our Earth, is just one tiniest of point of the universe that we observe the rest of the universe from.

The universe’s space/matters before the Recombination Epoch were completely in plasma state (because electrons won’t bond with atoms’ nuclei), and the universe was completely opaque, TO the Recombination Epoch, where the binding of electrons to the elements’ nuclei, forming atoms in electrical neutral and stable atoms, resulted in the universe being transparent, and photons that decoupled from matters, were free to travel through the universe, that photon decoupling result what we observed as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

CMBR images that we get from NASA and ESA, is like the earliest snapshot of the universe that we are able to observe. Before the Recombination Epoch, the younger universe cannot be observed because the universe before the Recombination is opaque, acting like event horizon of black hole.

we currently don’t have the technology to observe beyond the CMBR, beyond the Recombination Epoch.

On 6/12/2021 at 11:58 AM, QuantumT said:

Could most of the heat from the big bang have turned into the strong nuclear force? (The rest would then be the CBR.)

 

From what I understand so far about Particle Physics, strong nuclear force is what elementary particles together, such as 3 quarks to form a hadron particle, like a proton or neutron. And as you would know, protons and neutrons make up certain atoms, eg deuterium nuclei, helium nuclei, lithium nuclei, which would have existed before, although hydrogen nuclei don’t have neutron. These atoms with no electrons attached to them (ionized atoms) were formed during the Primordial Nucleosynthesis.

And from what I understand about CMBR in the Big Bang model, the CMBR occurred because electrons bonded with ionized atom nuclei, for the first time, creating electrically neutral atoms, during BB’s Recombination Epoch. The bonding causing the EM radiation, by decoupling photons, as well as leaving heat signatures everywhere in the universe, that we now view as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

So, I don’t think strong nuclear forces have anything to do with CMBR.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

My apologies.
I may have quoted a quote.

No apologies needed.

your post was informative regardless who you were replying to.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

It is my understanding that once neutron degeneracy fails, the collapse is almost immediate.
Further, it starts from the inside, and moves outward.
IOW, the Event Horizon ( Schwartzschild radius for a non rotating, non charged, BH ) starts at its center and grows outward, as the outer extremes of the collpsing star are less dense than the center. The outer extremes essentially 'fall' into the Event Horizon, which grows as a result.

So, I guess, if you looked 'inside' a gravitationally collapsing neutron star, you would see a growing Event Horizon.
 

That’s insightful and very helpful reply.

But what you quoted, isn’t my reply/post, it’s gatewood’s comment.

It is only my 2nd day as member, but it would seem there is bug in “quote” function.

On 6/6/2021 at 10:02 AM, OdinSon2k11 said:

They could reverse engineer the sun, they could ignite a NEW one.

For that to happen, you would need a very massive body of molecular hydrogen, to become dense enough for gravitational collapse, which in turn, produce enough pressure and heat to, as you say “ignite a NEW one”, triggering nuclear fusion, fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium atom.

That’s the only way to sustain a long-term and star-like energy.

On 6/6/2021 at 10:02 AM, OdinSon2k11 said:

They could discover a way to live WITHOUT a sun, by artificial means.

Probably not life worth living. 

The sun is responsible for large part of the Earth’s ecological system: the atmosphere, the hydrology, plant life and other life form.

Without atmosphere and water, I highly doubt that much would survive, when the sun reaches the red giant phase. 

11 hours ago, gatewood said:

Just a fun question: what state of energy/matter, could it be argued, that a gravitational singularity is in?

I would say that, it broke down to the most fundamental form of energy. Could it be said that, it is an extremely exotic form of atom?

2 hours ago, gatewood said:

Sure, but the question doesn't need it.

Say we paused a black hole just after its schwarzschild radius gobbled all the core of the star that formed it, and, hypothetically, we could take a peek inside. What would we see? What would matter compressed down, further than neutron (or quark) degeneracy, would be like?

I mean, the core of my question would be: all that fell inside a black hole... still exists in some form? And if so, what you think it that form is? A Bunch of elementary particles? Energy resulting from annihilated particles? A bunch of photons and neutrinos?

It is currently not possible to know what happen to any object that get pull into gravitational singularity, like stellar black holes, since no observations are capable of observing beyond the Event Horizon.

If the gravitational forces are greater as astrophysicists say they are about the blackholes, then the probability of them retaining their shapes and forms would be slim...but then again, it is really impossible to say for certain, since the lack of observations of the black hole’s surface.