michel123456

That the person proposing is irrelevant. The evidence is.

Next starry night, look at the sky, that is the evidence.

Merged post follows:

A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang. What does that say about that organization?

It looks to me there are not stupid at all, and that some of its ministers accept scientific procedure. But that doesn't mean there are open minded.

_the mean thing is to remain skeptic? unless the bible is true.

Maybe the Bible is true. Maybe not. That's skepticism.

The world is full of holy books. Christians, Hebrews, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddists have their own. Don't be so sure you had the chance to be born in the culture who got the right one.

(...)The reason for the controversy is believers around the world recognize that the "smart people" have forgotten to figure God in to there equations and so therefore fail as scientists.

 

(...) Time is such an interesting subject (...).

 

To answer you ? no I have never been formally taught on the subject. I was but everyone was so mean to this science teacher that no one wanted to learn anything ever. I failed biology that year, my senior year the teacher was a Christian that out right refused to teach it and no one said anything.

Blood_pardon is actually testing the forum as a priest would have done. His question about space is a tricky one. But nevertheless he is honest. He speaks straight. Good for him.

What I would say is this:

_"no one wanted to learn anything ever" except you I hope.

_your biology teacher's behaviour is criminal. I am really surprised that "no one said anything."

_time is really an interesting subject.

_IMHO the mean thing is to remain sceptic. If you want the Truth and only but the Truth, search for it, I believe you are doing that already.

_speaking for myself, I always suppose that there is progress in knowledge, so that last explanationsd are more reliable than ancient ones. Following that simple procedure, I have some difficulty to accept explanations coming from a 2000 years (or older) book, even if it is a Holy one.

_Many scientists are believers. They see God everywhere in the structure of the universe as explained by modern science. Some of them use last discoveries in order to support their belief. Some others do exactly the opposite (mirrored): they use last discoveries to explain their no-belief. Both roads are wide opened. But none of them stand on a word-to-word interpretation of the scriptures.

Now, about space. The question of "was space existing before..." is related with the concept of creation. Creation is a concept coming from western christian culture. In other civilisations, there is no such a concept, but only an eternal circle like the seasons of the year. As I said in some other thread, the Big-Bang Theory is the modern derivation of the Creation concept, introduced by a creationist priest, accepted by the Pope, you should like it.

Of course, your question will remain.

Here correct me if I am wrong:

Special Relativity works in absence of gravitational field.

Special Relativity works in Inertial frame Of Reference.

Free fall is a situation of Inertial frame Of Reference.

But free fall is a situation where you are accelerated under the action of gravity, inside a gravitational field.

Isn't that confusing?

Precisely, and everything we can measure has an official name: science.* All else is whatever you'd like to call it: supposing, philosophy, what-ifs, mental exercises, creativity, stories, legends, religion, ideas, etc.

 

 

*If we can also test it as well as have it peer reviewed and the tests duplicated.

Fortunately, science is not a dead structure. Science need creativity, new ideas, mental exercise, etc. The problem is when you do such mental exercises you may get very quickly outside the borders.

Good credentials are a must.

From E.Verlinde's pdf page 6, Emergence of the Laws of Newton

"Space is in the first place a device introduced to describe the positions and movements of particles. Space is therefore literally just a storage space for information. This information is naturally associated with matter. Given that the maximal allowed information is finite for each part of space, it is impossible to localize a particle with infinite precision at a point of a continuum space. In fact, points and coordinates arise as derived concepts. One could assume that information is stored in points of a

discretized space (like in a lattice model)."

_"Space is a device introduced to describe......"

_"Space is a storage space for information."

_"information is naturally associated with matter"

_"information is stored in points of a discretized space"

IMO it is the transformation of a human device into a physical element of nature.

I meant:

1. considering a leave in the casserole, when the center of rotation is outside the object, you have a system that acts like a sling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon) when you release the body, the leave goes following a straight line in the direction of the tangential vector.

In the soup experiment, the body is released but don't follow a straight line.

2. considering the soup as a whole, the center of rotation is inside the object, you have a system that acts like a non-rigid rotating object, a system I couldn't find any clear description of.

Taking the description of a rigid rotating body as a starting point : when released (without friction) would the rotating object conserve its angular velocity or not?

I don't know what "deceleration brings stuff together" even means.

pissenlits

Merged post follows:

Newton's first law of motion says: In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.

When the body is rotating, there is no straight line. The rotating motion involves acceleration.

What is the natural motion of a freely rotating body?

magnified force because of a longer lever, from thin air?

Not from "thin air".

Space (in his physical measurement=distance) is not neutral. In this case, as in many other based on the lever principle, the use of distance acts as the use of a force. But not distance on its own (thin air) you need matter-in-space (the lever itself) strong enough to transmit the force.

The fact that space is not neutral is known from antiquity (probably earlier than that) and the equations have been described since then (lever principle by Archimedes). I am happy that from time to time someone find that extraodinary, because we are so used to it that most of us find that a simple natural thing.

Jupiter is also more massive than earth, and it is made of largely hydrogen. Same with the sun.

 

A black hole is as "hard" as you can make something, because you can't break one apart no matter how hard you hit it, and you certainly can't scratch it.

Intuitively, that makes a BH look like a very solid block of matter, not a gaseous or liquid substance that can swallow anything (although attracting anything). But I never heard of any such description. All I have read about BH mention horizon & no surface. Actually, when describing the radius of a BH, I don't know what it means.

Related question:

What is the state of matter in a BH?

I understand that BH is a very massive object. More massive than the Earth. But the Earth is a solid object, and we are not falling into the Earth, we are walking upon its surface because it is made of solid rock. If a BH is more massive than the Earth, I suppose it must be harder than rock. Isn't it?

That's it? So you spin it, and friction/viscosity eventually brings it to a stop. The stuff floating on the surface gathers in the middle as per a standard vortex. What is it supposed to be an analogy for?

Deceleration brings stuff together. Mass & deceleration creates centripetal force.

I supposed (maybe wrong) that if scientists agree on the existence of a BH in the center of a galaxy, that the galaxy was agglomerating (all the stuff gathers in the center) as in my casserole. Mass is agglomerating by simple Newton mechanics without any black Hole in the center (in my casserole). I only needed deceleration.

There is something else.

Each time scientists provide some new theory (string theory, extra dimensions, a.s.o.) people automatically put all the unknown stuff into it. That make scientists very hesitant to accept anything new. Each time they slightly open the door, all the world's craps come in. Very bad.

For example, why is this thread lying under Quantum Theory?

Martin wrote:

(..)

Someone falling towards the event horizon would not feel any acceleration and not be stressed. Free fall is zero G. The sucker is too big to generate tidal forces on you at this point. It pulls your feet with about as much force as it pulls your kidneys or your brain or your ears. You are small compared to it, like a point particle, so no tidal stretching and no feeling of acceleration.

 

And you would fall thru the horizon without noticing it. It wouldn't hurt.

Now you are inside. You don't feel any tidal stretching yet. There is a long way to fall, on the order of two billion miles or three billion kilometers.

You don't feel like you weigh "billions & billions of tons".

You are still in free fall, which means zero G.

(..)

Thank you Martin.

Michel wrote:

Or am I wrong somewhere?

Of course Michel is wrong.

My post standed for 7 days without any remark. You saved the honour Martin.

3 consecutive screenshots.

Casserole stands still.

Water is rotating counter clockwise by laboratorian through special ergonomic instrument (me with a wooden spoon), then the system is left to evoluate freely.

1.

2.

3.

I am amazed from the gap between the question (What is dark matter?) and the proposed answer (we have a brain that is largely electric).

Από την πόλη έρχομαι και στην κορφή κανέλα

(I come from town and cinammon on top).... pure incoherence

Evident lack of interest.

Rotating body. The rotational input ends, and the object collapses.

What happened?

Your last post ends splendidly this thread Mooyepoo. Good for you.

Yes, that's the point all religions are making, isn't it...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Unless they're supported by evidence,they're not objective. Not that they should be -- in this cases, I'm not too sure it's a bad thing to have only subjective views, but you should *know* that they are subjective. Because if they're subjective, thy have no room in a scientific endeavor.

 

Just saying, michel. If these are subjective, then whether we(the forum) likes them or not is irrelevant.

Hm. "Evidence" can be subjective as well. For example, I can say that the Earth is spinning, it is an observation and that makes it an evidence, as you mean it. But I can say that humanity is destroying the planet, it is an observation as well, but I really don't know whether this observation can be considered as objective. Someone else can come and say, no, that is not the case, and begin an endless debate based on exactly the same data's. What is considered as "evidence" will drive in different interpretations, and I truly believe that in science there are few true "evidences" and there are a lot of "interpretations".

All what I was prepared to say are based on such "evidences", as "Humanity is destroying the planet" and I still don't know if statements like these would be welcomed here, even in Speculations. Maybe that would be considered as toooo bad. And I have a lot of statements of this kind.

No panic. You can't say we know nothing. Maybe we know little, but we know something. Many valuable efforts and improvements have been made these last 5000 years. A certain difficulty arises when we are asking such existential questions as yours. IMO the difficulty is here: "A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe" said Albert, and he is right. The difficulty is that we are inside the universe. The phenomena we call "universe" is not only something we are looking at, it is a phenomena we are part of.We are not outside of the box, we are inside. Worse, the phenomena is inside us also. The universe goes from infinite big to infinite small transpiercing our own existence."A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe"

After you realize that, you can proceed, and as Tree said, focus on one thing at a time.

With a little optimism, I think most of the questions are reachable.

The world you are living in has 4 dimensions, not 3. It is not difficult to represent. Look around you. Three dimensions is dead space, the fourth dimension is motion, life. If you want an extra dimension, you have to talk about a 5th dimension at least.

Consciousness: you have to define what it is precisely before asking such questions like where it is. If you don't know what you are talking about, you don't know what you are looking for, and even if you see it in front of your eyes you won't recognize it. It is just like you were looking for a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc. Where can you find a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc? Does a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc exist? Silly questions.

Surely the word "God" is used to try to explain a why we exist...he is supposed to have created us, We need to explain why we are here so a "God" is a good explanation for our existance.

 

But if we realise that there are other explanations for our existance then "God" will be what he should be.

 

The cell did not divide because it wanted to, life did not evolve because of some random genetic choice...I believe there was a blueprint to do this, like parts of a computer program coming together for a purpose that was intended.

 

But what is the end product?

 

I dont believe in the concept of a "God" but there is purpose, reason, that something has a goal for life, otherwise why are we here and where are we going?

From an objective point of vue, you can find maybe not answers to your questions, but hints. I found some but if you want me to explain what I mean you must be prepared to get uncomfortable. And I am not even sure whether this forum would accept my views on the subject although they are not related to any kind of deity.

It's kind of beyond me how this is relevant - it's an actual theory, doesn't matter where it originally came from.

A theory stands by the merits of the evidence that supports it, not the person that suggested it.

Politically correct. But naive.

It seems you are flying too high AJB.

I like the "Their is a piece of the "dictionary" missing." but i can't help you on this, except agreeing with you: there is a piece missing.

Hey what happened? We remained the 2 of us. Where are the others?

_I was not aware of the Sagnac effect. Quite interesting BTW that the effect was interpretated by Sagnac as a proval for the existence of the luminiferous aether. (conclusion in which I disagree completely but that is another subject)

_Obviously, the difference between "constant" and "absolute" is not clear.

Vuquta understands, because he talked about the ballistic theory, and I thank him a lot for that. I am really happy when i learn something.

_"constant" means the measurement is the same. The same as a horizon. If you stand at rest at sea level the horizon on Earth is at about 11km from you. If you walk toward the horizon, it is still at 11 km. If you take your car or a train, the measurement is the same. And it will be the same for all the observators around the globe (at sea level, it is only an analogy). The distance from the observator to the horizon is something that the observator carries with him, it depends from the observator (its height) in relation with the curvature of the globe. Physically, and astronomically, the distance 11km means nothing. In this case it is not an absolute, it is just a constant.

_"absolute" would mean the horizon for each observator is at 11km. When the observator takes a car to get to the horizon , the speed of the car influences space, which expands, and the car will never reach the horizon. And of course, it is impossible to get to the horizon. In this last case, 11km is an absolute of the universe and means something very important both physically ans astronomically.

That was only a silly analogy.

Meaning to explain the difference between "constant" & "absolute".