Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[lesliedellow]

Except of course while you violate those conservation laws with 'space expansion', and Guths "free lunch" 'inflation' claims, ect?

No, I don't.

 

[mzungu]

That's far less gullible than believing that 95 percent of the universe is ruled by "dark spirits".

On the other hand you believe that the universe is 100% a spirit (God) Right! Pot calling the kettle much?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But we don't call that belief science, but religion (we know the difference). As yours should be as well.

 

[mzungu]

But we don't call that belief science, but religion (we know the difference). As yours should be as well.

Ah but you do; you call it EU theory.

 

[dcarrera]

And yet in the real world you claim those particles are continuing to accelerate, already at fractions of c. And what conserves the energy that is apparently still being produced as the velocities are continually increasing, not remaining conserved?

If you want anything like an answer, take a course in GR. But your ignorance of physics does not qualify you to say that the Einstein field equations are wrong.

 

[mzungu]

If you want anything like an answer, take a course in GR. But your ignorance of physics does not qualify you to say that the Einstein field equations are wrong.

You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into.

Sometimes I feel that America is regressing back to the horse and buggy era. Sad. Very sad when many Americans say things like "Science can take a hike" etc.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sometimes I feel that America is regressing back to the horse and buggy era. Sad.

And that should bother us Europeans? We should be cheering the creationists on, if we want to be rid of an economic competitor across the Atlantic.

 

[bhsmte]

And that should bother us Europeans? We should be cheering the creationists on, if we want to be rid of an economic competitor across the Atlantic.

It should bother you, because in today's world, the economies of various nations are closely intertwined.

With that said, data has shown, scientific knowledge of your average American is and has been lagging behind other advanced countries for quite a while.

 

[dcarrera]

And that should bother us Europeans? We should be cheering the creationists on, if we want to be rid of an economic competitor across the Atlantic.

I have mixed feelings. I like the idea of having one less competitor for high-tech jobs, but I worry about a scientifically illiterate population controlling the largest army in the world and messing up the ecosystem because they have trust that god will just take care of it for them.

While Christopher Hitchens was alive, he expressed worry about how abrahamic religions seem so eager for the world to end, and that some of the members are quite happy to bring about the end, so this world can be over and we can move on to the next stage. I share that concern.

 

[Michael]

I have mixed feelings. I like the idea of having one less competitor for high-tech jobs, but I worry about a scientifically illiterate population controlling the largest army in the world and messing up the ecosystem because they have trust that god will just take care of it for them.

While Christopher Hitchens was alive, he expressed worry about how abrahamic religions seem so eager for the world to end, and that some of the members are quite happy to bring about the end, so this world can be over and we can move on to the next stage. I share that concern.

Oh the irony.

Quick show of hands now, which of you snob nosed Europeans have actually read Cosmic Plasma for yourself? Let me guess? Absolutely none of you? How many of you have even read a real textbook on MHD theory? More than one? One? Two? How many?

I can see now why Russia and the US had to save the Europeans from Hitler, why we cleaned your clock economically after WW2, and why we were the first to land humans on the moon.

You show no signs of being capable of thinking outside the box, or thinking independently. You show *no* interest whatsoever in *actual* education to anything beyond what you're taught in school. You seem woefully disinterested in the *economic* prospects of actually *understanding* the physics of the universe instead of clinging to placeholder terms for human ignorance.

Bah! At least the US has the potential (and likely will) rebuild itself once we wrestle our democracy away from the oligarchy that's taken over recently. You folks will likely just let your own oligarchy utterly destroy you economically, politically and they'll treat you like sheeple forever and ever.

 

[Michael]

No, I don't.

Do you believe Pope Guth when he claimed that they whole event was a 'free lunch' and the universe contains a 'net zero' amount of energy? Yes or no?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you believe Pope Guth when he claimed that they whole event was a 'free lunch' and the universe contains a 'net zero' amount of energy? Yes or no?

The net amount of energy on the universe is zero. How is that supposed to break a conservation law?

 

[dcarrera]

we were the first to land humans on the moon.

I think that a nationalistic flame war is off-topic for this thread, but this item touches on science, so I will comment on the science part of it.

Sending people to the moon has very little scientific value compared to the cost. As a result, I am not interested. If ESA started talking about sending a person to the moon I would vote "no", as would most scientists. The issue is not that there is no scientific merit, but that there is so much other stuff you could do with the same money. We could send probes to Neptune or Uranus, or get some asteroids, drill into Europa, build a giant telescopes that could detect life in other planets, etc.

 

[Michael]

The net amount of energy on the universe is zero. How is that supposed to break a conservation law?

It's an irrational statement to start with. Don't you have any sunshine in Europe? That's *positive* energy. It's get's *recycled over time* as well. What offsets not only the sunshine on your face, but that *recycled use of energy over time*?

Wow, you'll believe just about anything apparently. Talk about gullible.

 

[lesliedellow]

What offsets not only the sunshine on your face

The corresponding increase in negative potential energy.

 

[Michael]

The corresponding increase in negative potential energy.

Say what? Explain how that works from the moment the photon exits the star to the moment it is used in photosynthesis inside a plant, to the moment it becomes used as chemical energy to heat your body, to the moment that heat escapes your form to heat the atmosphere. This I have to hear.

 

[lesliedellow]

Say what?Explain how that works from the moment the photon exits the star to the moment it is used in photosynthesis inside a plant, to the moment it becomes used as chemical energy to heat your body, to the moment that heat escapes your form to heat the atmosphere.

First of all, you tell me how every molecule in the Earth's atmosphere moves, and then I will tell you what happens to every photon which falls upon the Earth's surface.

 

[Michael]

First of all, you tell me how every molecule in the Earth's atmosphere moves, and then I will tell you what happens to every photon which falls upon the Earth's surface.

You're dodging the point. Not only does Gutheology defy the laws of physics (there is no free lunch in physics), it's self conflicted from day one. He didn't get a free lunch. Whatever energy there is, came directly from his inflaton field. There is no free lunch.

Worse yet, there is no such thing as a 'net zero energy' universe. Mass *is* energy. It's not offset by gravity either because gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR, it's a *geometric feature* for crying out loud!

The universe has always had "net positive' amount of energy because energy exists and it cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a *basic law of physics*. Energy has existed in some for or another *eternally*.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not offset by gravity either because gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR, it's a *geometric feature* for crying out loud!

In both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, gravitational fields play host to potential energy. How many more times?

 

[Michael]

In both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, gravitational fields play host to potential energy. How many more times?

How many more times did you intend to ignore that it's all relative? If you separate bodies of mass, you *add* energy to the two body system. Guth added distance between objects of mass and *added* energy to the system.

If you have two bodies separated by distance, you have *positive* potential energy, that gets turned into *positive* kinetic energy that is released at the point of impact. The -+ orientation is purely arbitrary, and typically assigned a negative for mathematical *simplicity*.

Gravity is *not* an energy in GR. It's a *geometric feature*.

As long as you dodge the energy use over time issue, you aren't fooling anyone.