Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Doveaman]

We can debate EU by all means, but not in this thread. This is for people to ask questions on physics and science, not for you to espouse your own personal opinion, however much you may believe it.

I think the Electric Universe is more of a physics and science question than many of the questions you get here on this thread. I think weather the Universe was formed electrically or by a big bang is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, physics and science question there is. But my purpose is not to debate the issue here. I have an ulterior motive for posting it here.

And, like I said before, and you yourself know, but sometimes fail to admit, you don’t have the answers to all the questions, even though I find it amusing at your efforts to try to answer them. Asking a physicist anything does not mean the physicist knows everything, right?

But, to give credit, I really do learn a lot from this thread, and I’m sure many others do too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Queen Elizabeth II's husband is The Duke of Edinburgh, he's not given the title of King - that's only given to the direct male descendants.

Is that because they want to keep the canon (correct word?) in the family line?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think the Electric Universe is more of a physics and science question than many of the questions you get here on this thread.

Espousing an opinion is not the same as asking a question. "What is the evidence for general relativity?", is a genuine, scientific question; "Einstein was wrong! The Sun's electric!", is not.

I think weather the Universe was formed electrically or by a big bang is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, physics and science question there is. But my purpose is not to debate the issue here. I have an ulterior motive for posting it here.

Then I politely ask you to leave, until such time you have a genuine question you want to ask.

And, like I said before, and you yourself know, but sometimes fail to admit, you don’t have the answers to all the questions, even though I find it amusing at your efforts to try to answer them. Asking a physicist anything does not mean the physicist knows everything, right?

Right. In this and the previous thread, there have only been a couple of questions I couldn't answer, and I was open about that. Most questions asked have readily-available answers, which is what I hoped for.

 

[Cabal]

Is that because they want to keep the canon (correct word?) in the family line?

Uhhh...depends what you mean by "canon.."

I think to be honest it is more like a remnant of a formerly male-centric society - the disparity between a reigning King having a queen, but a reigning Queen not having a king would indicate that to me.

ETA: Wait, did you mean the title of Duke of Edinburgh or the title of king/King? Sorry, confused!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is that because they want to keep the canon (correct word?) in the family line?

It's more archaic nomenclature than anything else. 'King' and 'Queen' refer to the reigning monarch, not their spouse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uhhh...depends what you mean by "canon.."

As I understand it, the canon goes: baron, viscount, earl, marquee, duke, knight.

I'm just wondering if the line of succession is structured to stay in the bloodline, or can it accommodate a new dynasty?

I'm not up on all this William of Orange vs the Hapsburgs (or someone) history.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's more archaic nomenclature than anything else. 'King' and 'Queen' refer to the reigning monarch, not their spouse.

I don't get why her husband isn't the king, unless it is to keep the same name (bloodline).

If the queen (Queen?) was to divorce her husband, then marry Noel Stipelkovich, then die herself; would the new king (King?) be Stipelkovich I?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't get why her husband isn't the king, unless it is to keep the same name (bloodline).

It's because he isn't the King: the King is a reigning, male monarch. Since he isn't the reigning monarch, 'merely' the spouse of the reigning monarch, he has a lesser title.

If the queen (Queen?) was to divorce her husband, then marry Noel Stipelkovich, then die herself; would the new king (King?) be Stipelkovich I?

No. He would be Prince Noel.

As I understand it, the canon goes: baron, viscount, earl, marquee, duke, knight.

I'm just wondering if the line of succession is structured to stay in the bloodline, or can it accommodate a new dynasty?

I'm not up on all this William of Orange vs the Hapsburgs (or someone) history.

There are strict rules to keep it in the bloodline of Sophia of Hanover, following male-preference primogeniture. It's the Queen, her eldest son, his eldest son, second eldest, etc; then the Queen's second eldest sons, his eldest son, second eldest, etc.

There's a delicious list on Wikipedia.

1. HRH The Prince of Wales B (The Prince Charles; b 1948), son of Queen Elizabeth II
2. HRH Prince William of Wales B (b 1982), son of The Prince of Wales
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales B (b 1984), son of The Prince of Wales
4. HRH The Duke of York B (The Prince Andrew; b 1960), son of Queen Elizabeth II
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York B (b 1988), daughter of The Duke of York
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York B (b 1990), daughter of The Duke of York
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex B (The Prince Edward; b 1964), son of Queen Elizabeth II
8. James, Viscount Severn B (b 2007), son of The Earl of Wessex
9. Lady Louise Windsor B (b 2003), daughter of The Earl of Wessex
10. HRH The Princess Royal B (The Princess Anne; b 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II
11. Peter Phillips B (b 1977), son of The Princess Royal
12. Zara Phillips B (b 1981), daughter of The Princess Royal
    Victoria → Edward VII → George V → George VI → Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
13. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley B (b 1961), son of Princess Margaret
14. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones B (b 1999), son of Viscount Linley
15. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones B (b 2002), daughter of Viscount Linley
16. Lady Sarah Chatto B (b 1964), daughter of Princess Margaret
17. Samuel Chatto B (b 1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
18. Arthur Chatto B (b 1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto

And so on.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't get why her husband isn't the king, unless it is to keep the same name (bloodline).

It's just like how Mary is the Queen of Heaven, AV, because her son is the King, not her husband.

(Sorry, had to.)

 

[AV1611VET]

(Sorry, had to.)

--- check ur reps.

 

[Chesterton]

Thanks, AV.

 

[Doveaman]

Slightly better.

The point is we're going to disagree on this:

"sufficient to explain their appearances"

From when we discussed EU, what struck me most was not your tendency to rubbish the hypothesised explanations like dark matter, energy, etc. but your tendency to rubbish the most basic observations, like CMBR and redshift data. Trying to reduce this to an Occam's razor debate on explanations is, imo, putting your point of view on an equivalent position with Lambda-CDM. If you won't even accept the basic observations, then I think we're going to have much bigger problems to discuss than an Occam knife fight.

Except that microwave background radiation can be produce by electrical discharges in cosmic plasma, as is evident in the labs. Plasma can be empirically tested to demonstrate this fact. Big Bang cannot.

Except that Big Bang CMBR is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. Lumpiness is not a problem in Electrified Cosmic Plasma.

Except that many scientists over the many years have been predicting quite a variety of temperatures for CMBR, some of them pretty accurate, and many of those scientists did not associate CMBR with any Big Bang.

Occam's Razor Test:

Cosmic Plasma produces CMBR – Pass.
Big Bang produces CMBR – Failed.

Redshift:

“Inherent redshift” is also an observation that provides evidence of the fact that not all redshift refers to the distance/velocity of an object. Inherent redshift refers to a property in the matter of the object. The object is born with high redshift and generates this high redshift at any distance or velocity. Distance/velocity redshift is secondary to inherent redshift.

 

[Doveaman]

Espousing an opinion is not the same as asking a question. "What is the evidence for general relativity?", is a genuine, scientific question; "Einstein was wrong! The Sun's electric!", is not.

Sometimes a statement is a response to an answer to a previous question that was not adequately answered.

Sometimes a question is asked in the form of a statement intended to elicit a more thorough answer.

Then I politely ask you to leave, until such time you have a genuine question you want to ask.

Please don’t ask me to leave...

...I’m soo sorry...

boo hoo, boo hoo...

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sometimes a statement is a response to an answer to a previous question that was not adequately answered.

Sometimes a question is asked in the form of a statement intended to elicit a more thorough answer.[/quote]
Perhaps, but you are nonetheless not asking questions. You are dragging the thread off-topic.

AV's questions on British royalty are fine, since they are in the spirit of the OP: "Ask a Physicist anything" invites people to ask questions, in whatever form they wish. However, if AV then began to argue an opinion (say, an anti-royalist one), that would be pushing it.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps, but you are nonetheless not asking questions. You are dragging the thread off-topic.

And which topic is that?

AV's questions on British royalty are fine, since they are in the spirit of the OP: "Ask a Physicist anything" invites people to ask questions, in whatever form they wish. However, if AV then began to argue an opinion (say, an anti-royalist one), that would be pushing it.

So we can ask questions, but we cannot disagree with the answer and offer our own opinion as to why?

Nor can we express why we disagree with the answer you gave to someone else?

I'm just trying to understand the rules so I wouldn't violate them. I wouldn't want to kill such a lovely thread.

Was that post on 'gravitational lensing' directed toward me?

If it was, is it okay if I disagree?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And which topic is that?

"Ask a physicist anything". Go through the other thread, you'll get an idea about what it was like. That's what the topic is.

So we can ask questions, but we cannot disagree with the answer and offer our own opinion as to why?

Sure you can. But this is not the place to debate royalism or pseudo-science.

Nor can we express why we disagree with the answer you gave to someone else?

To a degree, though not so much that it dominates the thread. Something that big warrants its own thread.

Was that post on 'gravitational lensing' directed toward me?

No. I've seen you post something about gravitational lensing elsewhere, and I thought it'd make a nice post in this thread.

 

[Chesterton]

Sure you can. But this is not the place to debate royalism or pseudo-science.

How about a strong combination of both? What if I have excellent pseudo-scientific proof that the Royal Family are reptillian aliens?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How about a strong combination of both? What if I have excellent pseudo-scientific proof that the Royal Family are reptillian aliens?

For the sheer comedy value, I'd allow that .

 

[Chesterton]

For the sheer comedy value, I'd allow that .

Alright. Let me do some (cough) research [Google], and I'll get back to ya.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

WC. I have a question for you:

Gravity. Why?

Got any interesting hypotheses?