# Strange

Senior Members

16976

11

1. ## God and the Big Bang

Not really. Some religious people are scientists. Some religious people disagree with science. I am not aware of any religion that specifically has a connection with science.
2. ## A Speculative Question About the Nature of Gravity

This is the Newtonian view: that gravity is a force (inherently) associated with mass, in the same way the electric/magnetic forces are associated with charge. (We have an alternative model now, which I will talk about in a moment) Also, note that an inverse square law means that gravity extends for infinity (but with a decreasing effect). This means that the mass of a single star, for example, becomes insignificant at some distance but the mass of a whole galaxy of stars might still have a measurable effect. That is sort of correct but could be misinterpreted. The difference is that you can get closer if the radius is smaller. There is no difference in the actual gravity from two objects of the same mass. So if you had two objects with the same mass but different densities, then at the same distance the gravity would be the same. For example, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole, it would have no effect on the Earth's orbit. (But it would get very cold and dark!) There is, as you say, potential energy inherent in the gravitational field (because energy needs to be expended to move something higher) but there is no transfer of transmission of energy between objects (I don't think that is what you meant but, as lawyers say: "for the avoidance of doubt"). Yes. But the occasions when matter is converted to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation) are pretty rare and insignificant on a grand scale. And the conversion of energy to matter (e.g. pair production) is even rarer. The conversion between mass and energy is more common; e.g. fusion in stars. True, but I doubt this is measurable (off the top of my head - perhaps we should work it out ...) Electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of the more general electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic radiation is the propagation of changes in the field. The reason why light, for example, is affected by gravity and a magnetic field isn't, is because it is moving. (A better explanation of this is possible with the "other" explanation of gravity I mentioned before...) Magnetism is due to the movement of electric charges. The force between two electric charges follows an inverse square law (like gravity) and so extends forever. As you say, because a magnet is a dipole, the force follows an inverse cube law (and also extends forever). If you could have a magnetic monopole, it would have an inverse square law. I think that statement is too general to be useful. Energy is not a thing that exists by itself, it is a property of things. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" in this statement. It sounds like you might be thinking of electric charge? The gravity of a spherically symmetrical object (a good approximation for the Earth) can be considered to come from the centre. So if the all the mass of the Earth were at the centre, or all concentrated in a thin shell at the surface, we would not see any difference. So the modern view (if 100 years counts as "modern") is that gravity is caused by the curvature of the geometry of space-time. And that curvature is caused by the presence of mass (or energy). Lets try an analogy. Imagine two people who start walking parallel to one another but a few feet apart. If they are on a flat plane, then there will be no change in the distance between them. For the sake of this analogy, lets call the distance between them "space" and the direction they are travelling "time" (so they are walking into the future at a steady pace). Now, instead of walking on a flat plane, they are on the surface of the Earth, in the Arctic, walking towards the North Pole. As they move towards the pole (into the future) they get closer together. There is not force pushing them together, it is just the nature of the curved geometry of the surface of the Earth. Now, simple extend that analogy to four dimensions and it will all make sense! And this is why light, for example, is affected by gravity: it is travelling in the equivalent of a straight line in curved space-time. You might ask, "why does mass cause the geometry of space-time to curve?" And I guess the only answer is, "that is the definition of mass." Science doesn't really deal with the ultimate "why" questions. Newton refused to guess what might cause the force between two masses; it is just there. That will probably just raise more questions but I hope it helps... The energy to accelerate something to the ground, comes from the fact you have to use energy to lift it up in the first place. So, being on the ground is a lower energy state but there is no energy transfer due to gravity itself. It doesn't require a source of energy to maintain a static gravitational field. In the same way, it doesn't require any energy to maintain a static magnetic field. A magnet doesn't use up its "power" by being attracted to things.
3. ## Units (split from What is Time?)

That is because it isn't seconds by seconds; the notation is confusing (as explained in that thread). It also gives you a good example of what s2 means (OK, s-2)
4. ## God and the Big Bang

There is no such thing.
5. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Of course not. But they can be modelled. Which is what science does. It may be easier than actually studying, but making sarcastic comments is probably not a very efficient way of learning.
6. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Well, assuming you are not one of those crackpots in denial about science, you can find several lines evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
7. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

And it is certainly nothing to do with faith or religious views.
8. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Well, where do we start... Have you heard of the big bang theory? Should we start with Einstein or Lemaitre's solution to his equations? Or can we skip straight to the CMB?
9. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Are you suggesting that as the universe expands, more matter is created? We know this is not the case, because the universe used to be very dense (and very hot) and now it isn't. Because it expanded. (And you still shouldn't hijack other people's threads.)
10. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

You shouldn't hijack other people's threads with your questions. You should start your own. It depends what you mean. If you mean, at the current time with the current density, then yes: the bigger space is then the more matter and energy it contains. If, instead, you are referring to space expanding over time, then the amount of matter and energy is roughly constant (dark energy may be proportional to the volume of space but it is tiny, anyway). No. How can distance have weight? How much do you think 1 metre weighs?
11. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Why not tell us what this formula was, then. Why not try and explain your thoughts more clearly, step by step. And try to avoid terminology you have made up (like "processing h" or "bioelectronic perception"). Stick to standard terminology. If you have to introduce new terms, then define them (using standard terminology). I assume "processing h" means something to you, but I have no idea what it means and you seem reluctant to explain what you mean. This is a little frustrating.
12. ## Why are my soil infiltration rate averages diferent if I use diferent units?

The average of a set of numbers is not equal to the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocals. Because the reciprocal of the sum of reciprocals is the not the same as the sum. For example, $\frac{1}{\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}} = \frac{ab}{a+b} \neq a+b$

Impressive.
14. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Well, sight perhaps. But quantum theory is not really needed to explain it. Unless you are going down to the level where all chemistry is based on quantum effects. What evidence do you have that chemical processes related to sight act in random ways? (If that is what you are saying. Something seems to have gone wrong half way through that sentence) Why would these be different from other chemical reactions which are generally not very random. What is "processing h"? And how does it relate to "getting close to 0"? How close we can get to zero depends on the context. For example, the lowest temperature reached is about 0.006 K (I think). The closest we can get to "time 0" in the Big Bang model is around 10-36 to 10-32 seconds. The upper bound on the mass of a photon is around 10-27 eV (I think). How do all these relate to "processing h" (whatever that is)? What are "packets of bio data"? How does it relate to the periodic table? I'm afraid I am not getting much out of your answers. You don't seem to be explaining things in a way I can understand. I think you need to be a lot clearer - more detail, introduced in logical order) in your explanations. Of course, it is entirely possible that I have just failed to understand. (This often happens.) Maybe others reading this will know what you mean. I think the fact that I haven't understood your explanations puts me at a severe disadvantage, rather than giving me the "high ground". I am interested in many areas of science, but mainly physics and cosmology, I guess.
15. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

What, exactly is "quantum perception of light"? How does the uncertainty principle relate to it? What are "processes of h"? How are they "broken down"? What are "biosystem understandable packets of physical data"? What is "bioelectronic perception science"? Why do you think I am offended? I am slightly disconcerted by your use of technical terms in apparently random ways but ...
16. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

There is no evidence either of those things have any relevance to biochemistry or neurology (despite the desperate hopes of Penrose et al.) And I have no idea what "quantum deduction" means. You will need to be a lot more specific than the waffle in this thread, in that case. That is exactly what this is.
17. ## Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

The bioelectrical system depends on physics. Then it is odd you haven't presented any predictions and evidence on this forum.
18. ## This is an old article but it blew my mind

If you observe a radioactive atom, you cannot predict when it will decay.
19. ## This is an old article but it blew my mind

“Predetermined” “Predetermined” does NOT mean “it exists”
20. ## GRAVITATION AS COMPENSATION INTERACTION

You need to provide some evidence that this event happened, first.
21. ## How would you describe human languages using the computer terminology?

Can you explain / give an example of how you are representing sound changes using REs. It’s an interesting idea but I can’t quite see how it works.
22. ## How would you describe human languages using the computer terminology?

No. Too many irregularities, for one thing. And the parsing of language is highly context dependent.
23. ## Organic computer?

Ah, you are thinking of the electric eel. (Rather than a real eel) That would be a rather inefficient (and shocking) way to power a watch. You would need to feed it!
24. ## Time to rethink the Earth's motion?

Yes. That’s the point. I assume a sphere or flat are possible (incorrect) shapes that JL believes the Earth to be.
25. ## Designer baby's poll

People have already been "genetically altered" to cure various diseases. Sounds like a good thing (as long as it is tested for safety).