Facility Spring Cleaning Spring Reading 2016 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Made in Italy Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Science forum

The Big Bang


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 851-875 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 3:02:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 3:04:30 PM PDT
werranth413 wrote:
"The speed of light is accurately known to 186,282 miles, 698 yards, 2 feet, and 5 and 21/127 inches per second. So, I think that if we change the direction of such a measurement we should be able to detect a change in the speed due to a moving ether, and the speed of that ether with many attempts, if any such thing existed. We're moving from point to point at about 200 miles per second, so some evidence should have been found, no? "
============================
That was the reasoning beyond Michelson-Morley experiment which failed for 40 years to return any meaningful detection of aether with respect to earth rotation. Michelson was unhappy with is own findings until he died. He devoted his entire career to find the elusive aether which could explain how photons travel in absolute vacuum.

But the failed detection did not kill the belief since the underlying phenomena of travel of radiation in absolute vacuum is still an unsettling fact in science.

Soon after Michelson died, or around his last years, Dirac invented the crazy entity of anti-matter, virtual particles, and claimed that absolute vacuum was not void but a site where energy could give rise to matter. That was coined as "materialization of energy". Dirac was rebuked for 7 years for intermingling magic with science. But, that led to the discovery of antimatter, which brought aether back to the table.

Then the question rose on what should aether look, feel, and behave in order to reconcile our perception with natural reality.

Einstein was also rebuked for rejecting his own special relativity when advanced general relativity. Einstein claimed that spacetime could curve with material content, which renders spacetime a non-void container of aether.

So, your argument on the impossibility of detection that should nullify the aether hypothesis has gone through 300 years of back-and-forth scientific debating, ending with the dark matter and dark energy. That was all preceded by criticizing Michelson-Morley experiment as a first order experiment, too insensitive to discern aether since the speed of earth was too small with respect to the speed of light.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:15:50 PM PDT
I already explained to you that we have observed phenomena which we attribute to both dark matter and dark energy. That's how we currently define both: dark matter is that which causes the phenomena attributed to it, dark energy is that which causes the phenomena attributed to it.

Lest you think this is an illegitimate way to define something, I would again bring up the example of the neutrino. The neutrino was initially defined as that which causes the phenomena attributed to it, namely the missing momentum, energy, and spin of beta decay.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:21:38 PM PDT
Mohamed, so, if I get you right, we haven't observed dark matter and energy, and that it is unlikely that we will?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:25:07 PM PDT
werranth, all this post does is tell me that you believe that dark matter and dark energy have to be there, but I'm not sure that it answered the question of whether or not we have actually observed dark matter and energy. Honestly, I'm not sure that anything has to be anywhere. Shouldn't we be concentrating on what is there instead of what has to be there?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:27:48 PM PDT
aarpad, so I think you are saying that the dark matter and dark energy are there, and even though we don't exactly know what it is, in the meantime we call it dark matter and dark energy, and that is what we will call it when we know what it is?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:31:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 5:35:35 PM PDT
We see phenomena which must have a cause. We label the cause by a certain label. Then we seek to discover more about the properties and nature of the cause. We generate a hypothesis about what the cause is, and ask what other phenomena (effects) this predicts. Then we make observations or perform experiments to see if we can confirm or refute these predictions. Eventually we reach a point where we believe we've fully described and confirmed the nature of the cause.

Some examples in the history of physics: electromagnetic waves, X-rays, radioactivity, the electron, the atomic nucleus, the neutron, radium, polonium, the neutrino, the muon. There are hundreds if not thousands of other examples.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:54:46 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
yes, it was too insensitive, but what about today's equipment? No variances in the SOL (due to direction) have been seen.

If Dark Energy is the result of repulsive force activity in space-time, it would explain why DE strengthens proportionally with 'more' space-time, as space-time expands.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 5:58:55 PM PDT
aarpard, thanks. I can buy that.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 6:02:02 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
you realize that nothing is substantial at the quantum scale. Quarks, electrons, photons? Only the four forces seem to be substantial, everything else is merely is a perception of how we feel or sense the forces.

We evolved these senses 'way back, that's why we're here today, but it doesn't mean that they're giving us a true version of our reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 6:19:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 6:21:35 PM PDT
werranth413 wrote:
"If Dark Energy is the result of repulsive force activity in space-time, it would explain why DE strengthens proportionally with 'more' space-time, as space-time expands. "
================================
werranth413,

You should think seriously about taking a vacation before rethinking your above statements.

Repulsive forces do not exist in spacetime without matter, since spacetime defines matter, not just an empty container.

We cannot attribute repulsive forces to dark energy before we could explain why all material bodies spin around multiple axes. You must first explain why all planets, stars, subatomic particles spin endlessly without provocation.

Spacetime cannot expand without matter doing the expansion. You cannot talk about beautiful dreams without defining the dreamer because dreams must occur in the mind of the dreamer. Here, matter created spacetime and we know little about matter to explain why matter emits energy easily, while energy materializes under extreme conditions.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 6:23:28 PM PDT
werranth, I understand that a whole different set of rules is going on at the quantum scale than there is with relativity, and they have as yet not been reconciled. As far as a true version of reality, your guess is as good as mine.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 6:37:20 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
virtual particles are a new concept. They're Hawking Radiation. They dissipate black holes by carrying away mass.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 6:40:20 PM PDT
werranth said: "They dissipate black holes by carrying away mass."

werranth, how do we know this?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 7:46:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 7:47:44 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
Hi ac,
space-time isn't nothingness. Nothingness is a flawed human concept, from our lives. In space-time there are always particles flashing into existence and disappearing again. They ALWAYS come in pairs; one particle and one anti-particle, because of the balance within space-time which is their origin. An electron and a positron, or a photon (a particle of light) and another photon with opposite spin and etc. These particles are called "virtual particles". They only exist for a very short time because they're so close together with only a small initial impulse separating them beyond the quantum length, they fall back together and then annihilation (at least as humans perceive it).

Now, at the edge (event horizon) of a black hole when there's a fluctuation, the particle pair forms but one of them might have a trajectory that causes it to fall back into the black hole while the other one escapes. Over trillions of years even large (massive) black holes will evaporate out. The curvature of a large bh is gentler than that of a small bh, so the rate of dissipation of a small one is higher.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:16:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 10:26:35 PM PDT
Re werranth413, 8-3 2:08 PM: This is wrong. The speed of light is presently DEFINED to be the number which you gave. This is justified by the fact that it is measurable to high precision, has the same value in every reference system, and generates more precise values than trying to re-measure the meter stick at the International Bureau outside of Paris.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:19:46 PM PDT
Re albino, 8-3 5:25 PM: "[Has] it answered the question of whether or not we have actually observed dark matter and energy." I have previously answered this in detail; I do not see a need to repeat it here other than that it depends on what you mean by "observe".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:20:04 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
what's wrong?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:24:57 PM PDT
Re albino, 8-3 6:40 PM: "how do we know [that virtual particles] dissipate black holes by carrying away mass [?]" See:

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, in the chapter "Black Holes Ain't so Black".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:31:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 10:33:04 PM PDT
Robert A. Saunders wrote:
"Re werranth413, above: This is wrong. The speed of light is presently DEFINED to be the number which you gave. This is justified by the fact that it is measurable to high precision, has the same value in every reference system, and generates more precise values than trying to re-measure the meter stick at the International Bureau outside of Paris."
=======================================
Robert,

You are truly a factory of thought that will never go kaput. Even when there is nothing to talk about, you invented yourself something to screw up. I am not sure that the American Bureau of Standards would take all the troubles to sail to Paris in order to re-measure the Napoleonic meter stick when our great Bureau inhabits a great location in Boulder, Colorado with plenty of sticks any where you head out of the doors of the American Bureau. You need to get a life, amigo.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:34:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2012 10:50:51 PM PDT
Re werranth413, 10:20 PM: "what's wrong?" The phrase "is accurately known" implies a measurement, and for a long time such measurements were taken -- based on the then defined sizes of the meter and the second. But the speed of light is no longer based on these measurements -- it is a defined quantity. The other defined quantities in the present system are the second and the meter, both defined in terms of measurements of radiation.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2012 10:44:15 PM PDT
Bill McLean says:
Unproven scientific theories are closely related to religious doctrines. The scientific community believes theories based on faith and "common sense". Then they publicly declare that they can be trusted to know the REAL TRUTH. Neither the sciences, or the religious leaders of the world, are willing to admit that anything is beyond their ability to understand. If they did they would loose their power over others and a big chunk of their livelihood.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2012 1:07:42 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "WILLIAM MCLEAN says:
Unproven scientific theories are closely related to religious doctrines. The scientific community believes theories based on faith and "common sense"...."

**Nicely vague and unsubstantiated. Please provide peer review citation, article title, page numbers, journal name, volume & date of publication along with the specific part or parts of the research you feel is based upon "...faith and "common sense". " and why.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2012 1:34:36 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
re: quantum scale vs. relativity

They are in the process of being reconciled. Superstring theory does so mathematically, and mathematics is, metaphorically speaking, the sheet music of the universe. Science doesn't go purely by mathematics, of course, and so some of the smartest people on Earth are working to find experimental and/or observational means to test this. Whatever they come up with will almost certainly be "circumstantial evidence."

One of the things laymen least understand about science is the fact that everything science "knows" it knows with varying degrees of certainty. Lack of proof doesn't mean someting isn't science, unless you try to make something out to be more (or less) certain than it is.

As it happens our planetfull of ex-cavemen has succeeded in pushing the boundaries of our knowledge out so far that more and more of what extends our knowledge WILL be circumstantial, and some will probably remain so forever, given the fact that we're trying to comprehend the innermost workings of the universe/metaverse? with around 1,400g of convoluted tissue that if flattened out would make a paper-thin disk about 25 feet in diameter.

Blockheads don't like this. They like certainty, and blockheads believe that anything that isn't totally certain is totally nonsense. What's nonsense, of course, is such a crude true/false map of reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2012 1:43:28 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
noman, when I was the smartest kid in a suburban blue-collar primary school, other kids routinely accused me of cheating on tests. This was because they couldn't conceive of anyone smarter than they were, and assumed that actually nobody was. Some of them grew up to be like this guy.

Intelligent people ALWAYS can imagine someone smarter than themselves, and they never envy smarter people. They try to learn from them. They don't automatically assume that anything they don't understand is some kind of cheating.

It's sad to see such anti-intellectualism in an advanced country in the 21st century. But some people will always be--metaphorically--sitting in the mouth of their cave, peering suspiciously out at a world full of mysteries and danger, always trying to cut it down to a size they can grasp.

"You want to know the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
--A Few Good Men

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2012 3:53:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 4, 2012 3:54:45 AM PDT
You're ignoring the role of observational and experimental evidence in validating scientific theories. There's more to scientific theories than faith and common sense.

It's also incorrect to say that science is unwilling to admit that anything is beyond its ability to understand. For example quite a bit of the scientific soulsearching which has accompanied the development of quantum mechnics relates to the apparent limits on human understanding which it implies. Good science is very honest about what it does and doesn't know, and about the limits of its understanding. Being clear about what is not known is essential to the process of increasing knowledge.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Atheists in denial of being less intelligent than analytical thinking theists 125 32 minutes ago
4D Locality in ½ Minute! 3 2 hours ago
Black hole chain reaction at CERN 41 2 hours ago
Creationists ask......Is this the silliest thing ever, from an Esteemed Atheist "Scientist"? 79 3 hours ago
Cosmos and Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson.....Was this their No 1 Silliest? 33 3 hours ago
Creationism and the Fine Structure Constant 49 3 hours ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 545 3 hours ago
What is the greatest thing in the universe? 114 3 hours ago
New science magazine showing sexuality is fluid after all ---READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 4 hours ago
Disasters 24 5 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 4406 5 hours ago
If you could download yourself into a server to live forever, would you do it? 11 6 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  1133
Initial post:  Apr 24, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions