jajrussel

The Arthdal chronicles, and Dark matter, and other similar fantasies. Note the only thing the two have in common is that they are fantasies that tell a good story. I suppose that either could have deeper meanings but for those types of thought I prefer Firefly more modern, or Babylon 5 more nostalgic.

Apparently I got everything wrong. Apparently they just meant really, really close and my imagination did the rest. Sorry.

It’s possible the recent video I watched exaggerated the planets location. It was one of those live feeds, and now I can’t find the exact video, which annoys me and means I am less likely to ever watch a live feed video again. Note - apparently below the stratosphere doesn’t necessarily mean below the stratosphere, because now I can’t find any mention of such an exoplanet position existing except in terms such as we might use as in below the horizon. Or, the thought is so new that Google hasn’t heard of it, no matter how I phrase it. (Sighs)

Generally, for good reason the black hole is thought of as the exit. Oft, imagined is the question, “to where”? I would reason that over a very long time a black hole losing sufficient mass, still having gravity could be attracted to a sun, but consumed? Stranges post is interesting. mistermack’s question is also a good one? ———————————————————————————— I believe that theoretically small black holes are said able to exist, but how would they interact if they didn’t cease first. A sun generally containing the majority of mass of any solar system would seem a natural target, but I have read that even two galaxies can merge without stars having to collide due to vast distances. How many planet size rocks are moving through the universe not ending up in suns? The universe gets bigger and bigger, things spread out more, and more the odds change. Planets do fall into suns, But it’s not a given. A recent video suggests that planets can actually exist inside a sun until harmonics of the system cause them to eject. I would imagine that a planet size black hole might do the same if the physical interaction didn’t expedite what strange posted? I have also read that very tiny black holes can exist to no effect. Which leads me to believe that an apparent possible effect such as a black hole exiting into a sun isn’t a given. Note - sometimes I stray to far into imagination

In order to lighten the mood implied by the question of how science works. I would say, try taking a crowbar to it, but I gather from the threads content that science isn’t always about Mechanics.

I think that the idea of inertia is what generally gives way to the thought that Perpetual motionIs achievable. Newton’s first law? Sometimes I forget but I think it is the first law of motion? Gravity is the perpetual motion killer. Always acting as an opposing force to inertia. I just read another thread that spoke of gravity acting as a body force which I’m still coming to terms with which would mean that even if the objects inertia was directed toward the gravitational source at some point the gravity would act as an opposing force stopping the inertial motion, where I mean the object would come to rest. Defeating the concept of perpetual motion. I am not an expert and generally usually only have half a clue, but I am sure that if my explanation is wrong we will both learn something more 🙂.

I watched a video today I think hosted by Sean Carroll where he spoke of a new particle model featuring supper symmetry and the intent of using higher energies when they again start up the accelerator in effort to find the new particles. I was watching YouTube on my TV and the cable app essentially manages to show videos but beyond that isn't exactly easy to use, but I think it was an RI video an shouldn't be that hard to find if a search of that channel is conducted. Which is much easier to do from tablet. I may have misunderstood but I got the impression that proving supper symmetry would go a long way toward supporting string theory. I'll see if I can find it. Okay the video was actually put out in 2013 and I don't remember any mention of any of the things he hoped for so I'm the one learning the lesson here. Sorry. It was a cool video even if out dated. Watching the last ten minutes of the video then reading the Forbes article might help ease into acceptance? Once again I'm embarrassed...

I have to be careful I'm not jumping to the wrong conclusions, but I am guessing based on the story labeled doubting Thomas that it would only take an act or leap of faith on the new believers part. If my assumption is accurate, I'm wondering why science's approval would even be sought by a believer? Now for a believer not to believe, nothing more than anger, frustration, and sorrow. Based on personal experience. Otherwise perhaps peer pressure?

It is the term God that is the problem. The universe exist science can prove that the universe exist. It is an ongoing project. Creation is a scientific process that is if you consider chemical reactions to be science. Science can prove that I exist. Science can even explain how to a limited degree. I say limited because if I ask why am I me, what's the answer? I'm sure there is an answer. How exact does that answer need to be? Philosophy fills in the blanks if that is enough then God isn't necessary. Actually, I'm often puzzled. I'm content most is the time. I often find myself surrounded by the drama that is life. Knowing full well that tomorrow the sun will come up and life will go on, and knowing that if it doesn't then none of the days drama has any meaning. If it could be scientifically proven that God exist. What changes that isn't already going to change? Everyday new concepts about God/s are created by men. Read the scriptures read the histories. What can be proven is that men keep changing what they think about God based on the drama presented with each day. God says love, God says kill. God says take God says give. God is perfect God created man perfect, but then man sinned. What? The whole Primus is flawed, and after thousands of years of men believing in God proof no stronger than man's opinion of Gods existence exist. Which at this point should be proof enough that science will never prove that God exist, but give it time every time you turn around a new study says this, then a new study says that. Each supposedly scientifically proven. For years we spiked our kids breakfast cereals with vitamins. I would have considered that a scientific study of proven success of the practice. Yet supposedly not that long ago a recent study showed that vitamin supplements were essentially a useless practice. Then there is eggs are bad eggs are good. Every little thing I eat is going to kill me, not to mention that there is at least one thing that I am not eating that not eating is going to kill me, and all of it scientifically proven according to the latest study. I figure that if they ever do scientifically prove that God exist. Well? No, probably not...

Hi, my name is Joe. I tend to be in a state of confusion, or realizing that I am confused. I remember things for quite a while, but forget facts. I make assumtions, and tend to be naive. When I realize that I may have made a mistake of assumtion, I am anal about trying to fix it, but it is usually to late. Apparently, my sense of humor is way too complex, and my communication skills are lacking. Of course it would help if this smart phone was as smart as they advertise it to be. Understanding relativity is on my bucket list. I seem doomed to be the perpetual newbie. And really, the post button is way too close to where my cursor is, or needs to be.