mr.spaceman

Thank you for answer

I don't know why the Doppler shift didn't come to my mind

The dark matter concept arose when astronomers measured rotation speed of the galaxies and they deduced that there must be more matter than we can see. And then appeared solution Dark matter.

I'm curious how they can measure the rotation speed of the galaxies since in terms of a human lifetime its rotation is very slow. For example our solar system completes its orbit every 225 million years or so. Our rotation speed (220 km/s I don't know how acurate is this data) is fast but Galaxies is very large and I cannot figure out how can you detect its rotation through telescope since you cannot see moving stars unless very close ones to the centre.

What is it? any idea?

Team spotted bright object on ground — possibly a piece of rover hardware

photo hosting sites

Does the exotic matter exist?

or what it is?

If you could achieve say 90% of the speed of light it would pretty much open up the galaxy to us

 

With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.

Source: http://news.yahoo.co...109.html?_esi=1

NASA Rover Finds Old Streambed on Martian Surface

http://www.nasa.gov/...sl20120927.htm

l

up pic

I am interested if some hypothesis exist about global flood.

even most immposibles

Not in pseudoscience or among creationists, but in science.

source

Is it possible that these waters once were on the surface?

I mean not very distant past when the earth was very young and lifeless.

Leonardo Da Vinci came to the same conclusion.

That global flood was impossible to happen?

Recently I discussed with one person about global flood, which occurred (according his claim) in the ancient world

I refuse this event, I think it's nonsense and my general argument is that there's no even necessary amount of water to cover the entire surface of the earth.

You need 3 times more water to cover entire land.

Let's speculate that we don't know ancient environment and maybe once there was more water, then where all the rest of the water had gone?

Is it possible that huge amount of water can disappear from the atmosphere? Or is it possible that the rest of the water could disappear beneath the earth?

I'm curious if really exist any scientific hypothesis about global flood and how huge amount water can disappear somewhere else.

thank you

The low gravity of Mars is also the major problem

Cause humans evolved in 1G

Isn't it?

First color panorama from Curiosity

Congratulations!!!

Great achievement

New Discoveries await for us

I have a simple question

Where the first photons were created? Inside the first generation of stars? or at the beginning, when electromagnetism was created?

It sounds like you're wondering how gravitons can exist, or why they're even needed, if general relativity models gravity as a result of the geometry of spacetime. There are two main interpretations that people take when approaching quantum gravity. One of these is that gravity "really is" a result of the spacetime geometry, so quantizing gravity should just be quantizing spacetime in some manner. This is the approach of Loop Quantum Gravity. The other interpretation that gravity is caused by a spin-2 massless field on a flat spacetime background, similar to the way electromagnetism is caused by a massless spin-1 field. The properties of a spin-2 field give the "illusion" that the background spacetime is curved. The excitations of this field are gravitons, just like photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field. This is the approach taken by string theory.

If string theory is right does this means that the space-time curvature is an illusion?

In general relativity (GR) gravity is associated to spacetime curvature. There is not gravitational force in GR.

 

In other models such as in the field theory of gravity (FTG), gravity is associated to a gravitational force mediated by particles named gravitons.

 

Both are two different models and would not be mixed.

Ok then which one is correct? How do you think?

Gravity is one, is it curvature of space-time or is it a force? If it's both then how?

I have one layman question

Is gravity the geometry of space itself?

If it's right then I don't understand how gravity can be the fundamental force and geometry of space itself simultaneously

A force that spreads out with particles, creates waves, and geometry of the universe which curves space.

thank you

Everybody must become physicists to take seriously the age of the universe?

I confess that "obvious" was bold

but Science is not like religion to me.

it's not a faith like they have (believers)

and again:

Creationist claims aren't based on observation and experiment. This is a big difference, don't you agree that these two things are very powerful? In Science isn't so important authorities, here more important is authority of science itself. The ideas that work in reality, I believe in science because I see science works

We humans have rocket ships, computers, medicine and so on.

So isn't this an act of faith then? After all, you are only believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old because someone in authority, whom you trust, has told you that it is. How is this different from a creationist believing that the Earth is six thousand years old because their priest or religious scholar tells them it is? You are both just taking the word of someone you trust.

Their claims aren't based on observation and experiment.

This is a big difference, don't you agree that these two things are very powerful?

In Science isn't so important authorities, here more important is authority of science itself. The ideas that work in reality, I believe in science because I see science works

We humans have rocket ships, computers, medicine and so on.

I am curious about this comment. The age of the universe has been determined by the WMAP experiment launching a satellite into space and making difficult astrophysical observations. Do you regard the result as "obvious"? Of course, one does not have to be so accurate as WMAP - the poll simply says "billions" - but I am not really seeing how one even gets to within a few orders of magnitude of 13.7 billion years by using "obvious" means. Can you please clarify your methodology?

I mean I believe in Science, cause it's based on observation and experiment

I'm not a scientist to know everything in details. I know one thing: - 13.7 billion years old - this age is widely accepted in the scientific society cause it's based on WMAP observation - All this is obvious to me

And they're wrong.

 

So, the purpose of the poll is to find out who disbelieves the scientific consensus. Why don't you just say so?

 

Btw, those who want creationism taught in schools are only being successful in the US. In europe, I don't know a single country where this is seriously being considered.

Of course they are wrong

In the first post I said I'm interested in how many people think that the universe is several thousand years old, and what are their arguments. It's almost same

the World isn't just Europe and US

btw: I don't know any country's educational system which going to study creationism in schools, but I know that religious opinion is strong

Religion has nothing to do with it, and our best evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

 

And having a poll on it is silly - sorry if that sounds rude.

I agree, but the reality is that many religious people claim that they know the age of the universe according to their religion

they say: the age is several thousand years old

These people are many and all over the world, sometimes they represent the majority, these opinions have serious influence on society,

Here's evidence of the Devil. ">http://www.newscient...ebo-effect.html

This article is the evidence of Devil?

lol

What if I edit this poll and change "other" into "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

"other" has two votes and both of them are "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

Would it be a fair?