Strange
-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Strange
-
-
Some of your thinking " new age guru's " have gone on to take part in social improvement enterprises ,to make the world a better place.
Others thinkers have looked out at the world and seen beauty, art, variety, kindness, love, passion, the palethers of delight in nature and come to hypothesise that not all by half of the world is working to a different mechanism than determinism.
Worthwhile as those things might be, they are not science.
Even quantum mechanics has an uncertainty HALF to its very core .
An uncertainty which is precisely defined (and derived) mathematically.
1 -
Question from a neophyte - If the Universe is 46 billion light years in diameter (Wikipedia) yet only 13.8 billon years old then is or has the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, does the outer 2/3 of the universe predate the big bang, does Wikipedia have it wrong, or is there one of those counterintuitive "warped or folding space phenomenon going on?
This is simply because the universe has been expanding since the light was emitted. The light was emitted 14 billion years ago, but since then the stars that emitted that light have been carried further away.
More here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN
Note that the rate of expansion is not "faster than the speed of light" because it is not a velocity; the velocity depends on distance.
"For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second."
This means there will always be something far enough away that it is receding at greater than light speed.
"The Universe inflated faster than the speed of light" .
Wouldn't the electrons get left behind?
It wasn't an explosion pushing electrons through space; it was space itself that expanded. In other words, the distances between two points increased. There is no speed of light limit in this case, because that only applies to two objects in relative motion in the same frame of reference.
0 -
When the frequencies are far from a ratio of integers, for instance in an equal-tempered small third interval, the beat is unpleasantly fast and seems out of tune, so violonists must train to play equal-tempered.
Isn't the fact that it is being played equal-tempered part of the problem? (I assume that is done to keep in tune with fixed tuning instruments like the piano?) I thought that if you tuned to a specific key, then the notes could have exact integer relationships and the beating would disappear.
0 -
I see you don't like what I say, you don't have to
I don't like or dislike it. I am completely indifferent. I am just pointing out that it is (a) an unsupported assertion and (b) wrong.
but still, "matter is finite".
Feel free to provide some evidence for that. Otherwise, I will treat it as I would any other unsupported claim such as, "there is a unicorn in my garden".
0 -
Expanding means expanding! The volume become bigger and bigger, that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). Therefore the last thing on the end is far from where it was. The example you give has nothing to compare with our case, numbers are infinite but not the matter!
Earlier, you said this:
This is uneducated opinion, and I'll be happy to learn more, specially from my mistakes.
It seems you have a closed mind are are not willing to learn.
Modern cosmology, based on general relativity, shows that the universe is expanding. It also says that the universe could be either finite or infinite, we do not currently have enough evidence to say.
If you prefer to just repeatedly assert that "matter is finite" with no evidence, then a science forum is probably not the right place.
0 -
the universe is the matter and it is limited. the universe is thaking place in the space wich is unlimited (=infinite)
Most people use the word "universe" to mean all of space and everything in it. Both space and the matter in it may be finite or infinite.
"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."
"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
if you say so how do you think that the infinite is expanding?
Why not. As I say, the model is not that the universe is expanding like a bubble. It is rather that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). This does not require the universe to be finite. As an analogy, take the set of natural numbers: they are infinite (1,2,3,4 ...) but you can make the series "expand" (increase the distance between them) by doubling all the valuesto get 2,4,6,8, ...
0 -
the space is infinite but not the universe!
What is the difference between space and the universe? The universe is space; there is no space outside the universe because there is no outside the universe.
do you hold the theory that the universe expands?It certainly seems that way.
0 -
If you give it a modicum of thought, obviously most internet cranks are going to be from the theoretical side. But not all theoretical physicists are crackpots.
True. I guess the difference is that Aristotle didn't even look for the evidence, presumably considering it unnecessary. A crank, presented with the evidence, will just dismiss it.
I think even theoretical physicists will look for evidence (or work with someone else who will).
0 -
Aristotle was often wrong - but a crackpot never.
I am exaggerating, obviously, but his preference for "reason" over evidence is a trade-mark of most modern Internet cranks.
Values are effecting matter, if you have additional matter, you need for it more space if you do not have more space it become more dense.
As far as we know, the amount of matter (1) is fixed (2) and so it will not become more dense.
Anyway, because there is infinite space, it doesn't mean the universe will be infinite or the values will be infinite.
If space is infinite, then the universe is infinite: the universe is space.
For these you need infinite energy and infinite growing gravity force to hold all stand, if not it will collapse.
And, if the universe is infinite, then it will contain infinite matter.
Currently, it appears there is not enough mass to cause the universe to collapse again (as was once thought to be the case). In fact the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating.
(1) Or, more exactly, matter+energy
(2) Well, perhaps, apart from dark energy
0 -
Not all the universe is physical! Aristotle said, there is physics and metaphysics, these means the metaphysics can't be calculated.
Aristotle also said that men have more teeth than women. So I wouldn't put too much faith in his opinions; he was the just one of the first crackpots.
Anyway, there are some physical theories that are more philosophical than physical.
If they are philosophical, then they are not physical theories.
0 -
It is difficult to conceive of so astronomical a sum as a trillion dollars.
It is difficult to conceive of as astronomical a sum as a trillion dollars.Neither of those sound natural to me.
He is not as quick as his brother
"He is not so quick as his brother."
That has already been answered, hasn't it?
0 -
if the universe expands, it is not yet infinite!
simon
The fact the universe is expanding has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite.
You may be thinking of the universe expanding like a balloon. That is not how it works. It is more accurate to think of it as the distance between things increasing; or the average density decreasing.
0 -
AFAIK so ... as is commonly used, but not proper English,.
I wonder what the difference is between "commonly used" and "proper English"; I guess it depends on which English you are talking about. You might avoid it in formal writing, but it seems perfectly acceptable in normal speech (or even informal writing).
0 -
He was not so quick a learner as his brother.
He was not as quick a learner as his brother.
Which one do you use? or is there any difference between them?
Those both sound correct to me. I would use "not as" but "not so" isn't wrong. Maybe just a dialectical difference. Is "not so" more acceptable to Americans, I wonder?
Hmmm.... Thinking about it some more. I would use "not so" with an adjective phrase:
"How was the movie?"
"Not so bad. But not as good as the original."
0 -
Why electron and proton have different mass and radius from each other?
Partly because electrons are fundamental and protons aren't (most of the mass of the proton is the binding energy of the quarks).
Why sub-particles of matter have been able to create stabile elementary particles, why the counterpart of sub-particles have not been able to create stabile antimatter elementary particles.
Anti-matter particles are just as stable as matter particles. They can combine to form atoms, which are just as stable as matter atoms.
As your starting point is erroneous, it is unlikely that any conclusions will be worth anything.
In beginning I have supposed that sub-particles : ( -e / -g ), (+e / -g )
What are e and g?
Can you show that this idea makes predictions consistent with observation? If not, why even bother mentioning it? Any idea needs to pass that minimum level of plausibility check before being presented for review.
0 -
can we close the thread to avoid repetition?
Seconded.
1 -
Infinitesimals have a value.
Which is?
0 -
I can't directly help you with answers to your questions, but I can give some advice.
First, a meta-comment on your approach.
You will find that the reaction to posts like yours on a science forum will be two-fold:
1. Explain that if you don't have any evidence to support you idea then it is not a theory in the scientific sense. (And related points like, it is up to you to support the idea not others).
2. Point out the flaws in your idea (if it is developed enough). Note that an idea proposed by someone with little background knowledge and with no theoretical/evidential support will almost certainly be wrong.
As such, you might find it more productive to just start by asking where you can find the information, without raising hackles by raising the spectre of "personal theory".
You have to realise that people on forums like this are sick to death of the following dialog:
Newcomer: I have a theory ....
Assembled Members: No you don't. You have an idea. And it is obviously wrong.
N: .... closed minded ... imagination ... new ideas ... book learning ... scared ...
AM: sigh, here we go again ...
Second, on your idea.
Data on the mass and composition of stars should be readily available. Thousands, perhaps millions, have been analysed in this way. I can't tell you much about that, except that:
1. The main element is hydrogen, typically 70 to 90%.
2. The second element is helium, making up almost the remaining mass.
3. There are two types of stars: Population I stars contain more of the elements above helium that Population II stars. Because Population I stars were formed from the material ejected by the supernovae of old Pop II stars.
4. The composition of a star changes over its lifetime as hydrogen is turned to helium and then, towards the end of its life, hevier elements are formed.
I don't know how 4 affects your idea.
3. The Flashpoint of Those Componnets/Materials/Matter
Flash point refers to combustion of materials. I don't see how that relates to stars so you need to work out what you are really asking there. (Otherwise you will attract even more criticism.)
I get the impression that you might be thinking of the big bang as some sort of explosion like a supernova. If so, then you can just drop the whole idea now, as it bears no relation to reality.
0 -
Does 0.999 recurring equal one?
Of course it does:
But, it does not turn out to be 0. Instead, it turns out to be infinitesimal.
How does "infinitesimal" differ from 0?
If you think that 0.999... is not equal to 1, perhaps you could write down the exact value of the difference.
0.000... = 0/9
0.111... = 1/9
0.222... = 2/9
0.333... = 3/9 (1/3)
etc.
0.888... = 8/9
0.999... = 9/9 = 1
0 -
1. Matter v. Anti-mater
--- They repel each other? Or they are in a way like photons v. photons and do not interact with each other, except in extreme circumstances.
As far as is known, matter and anti-matter behave identically as far as gravity is concerned. There is no particular reason to think otherwise, but the Alpha experiment at CERN is aiming to test this.
Enough matter can create warps so strong that space and space-time warp back on themselves
Don't know what that means.
and like wise an opposite thing happens when you use Anti-Matter
Given that matter and antimatter (are expected to) behave identically with respect to gravity, then they curve spacetime identically.
4. Assuming that Matter and Anti-Mater behave similarly to magnetic poles
No reason to assume that. Other than the fact that they have opposite charge - when they have charge. Neutrinos and antineutrinos are both uncharged.
What would be the best way to gather great amounts of Anti-Matter?
It is hard. See the Alpha experiment, for example.
0 -
A bit more browsing around came up with this commentary on the paper: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/
2 -
I had already hypothesized this way before, but was considered a crackpot for it. I guess I was right in some areas.
Do you have a link to the paper (or an article) being discussed in that quote? I would be interested to read more about this.
OK. I found this: http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ as a start...
I'm confused. Hasn't it always been known that some genes control gene expression, rather than coding for proteins?
0 -
Which journal was your theory published in?
Why not write to the journals which have published the papers that you say are plagiarised and provide a reference to your published theory. They normally take plagiarism very seriously.
0 -
Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs?
They do (well, maybe not simultaneous - but if they were simultaneous then it would be a single big bang rather than a series):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
No the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. It is expanding, but not accelerating.
"Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate."
0
Creationism vs. Evolution
in Religion
Posted
Evolution in action?