Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree. A 'leap of faith' involves concludingEr, no, that was a "leap of faith".
I daresay it didn't, and Newton's gravity didn't involve warping spacetime, and Darwin's evolution didn't involve epigenetics, etc. What's your point?Alfven's "bang" never involved a 'singularity',
Irregular grammar aside, that's more or less right. Again, what's your point?and your whole claim about age is directly related to an *INTERPRETATION* about redshift and a belief you hold that it is somehow related to 'expanding space'.
Naturally. What else did you expect?In other words, this is your belief, not mine.
Interesting. Do you have the name of the man? I'd like to do a Google search myselfI have a question for you, OP. Hopefully this hasn't been asked prior, as I haven't been able to read the entire array of threads. Disregard if this has been asked thus far.
I was watching (purely for entertainment purposes) a film documentary on Netflix last night about alleged physical evidence that the earth and its human inhabitants are being visited by extraterrestrials.
In this film, they showed clips of a small, triangular metallic object being removed from a man's jaw area - a man who claims to have been "abducted" by aliens. The object was sent to a couple of different universities for metallurgical testing and results from each experiment were roughly the same - extraterrestrial origin. One study even reported that it was a small fragment of an extremely rare meteorite, of which only very few samples have ever been recovered worldwide. That particular conclusion was reported before it was disclosed that the fragment had been removed from human tissues. I did find this sort of interesting.
Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooomaybe. There's almost certainly alien life somewhere, and very probably intelligent, highly advanced life. But the same 'big universe' idea that makes that so likely also makes it so unlikely that they've ever visited us, let alone performed macabre experiments.Personally, I highly doubt we are "alone" in this universe, given the probabilites of alien lifeforms, but I am extremely skeptical that such alien life has been visiting Earth, much less performing "experiments" on humans. So my question, is what do you think about "aliens" or extraterrestrials and the claim that we are being "visited", and more specifically "adbucted" for experimental purposes?
There's not going to be much drama. Electronics are much better protected nowadays, with all sorts of redundancies.Should I be seriously spooked about those upcoming solar flare thingies of unhappiness that will be hitting somewhere between 2012 and 2013?
I'm not much too fond of the thought on losing global electrical power and being without a functioning blow dryer for my hair.
[sign][/sign]
Interesting. Do you have the name of the man? I'd like to do a Google search myself
There's not going to be much drama. Electronics are much better protected nowadays, with all sorts of redundancies.
I hope
Nope. The Sun and Earth have been around for 4.5 billion years, orbiting and spinning, all while solar eruptions have been happening, so it's quite likely that we've been hit at some point. So what happens when we're hit?This happened today.
So you're saying that the one CME #2 or whatever it's called, if that was pointed directly at Earth, we all wouldn't be goosed?
The two most severe incidents involving nuclear power plants are Chernobyl and Fukushima, and they both occurred under extraordinary circumstances - in the former, all safeties and redundancies were systematically shut off, and in the latter, a massive earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed said safeties and redundancies.I have another question for you, WiccanChild.
Do you feel that the current benefits of nuclear-generated power outweigh the potential risks involved? I ask in light of the current situation in Japan, and other disasters in the past such as Chernobyl.
The two most severe incidents involving nuclear power plants are Chernobyl and Fukushima, and they both occurred under extraordinary circumstances - in the former, all safeties and redundancies were systematically shut off, and in the latter, a massive earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed said safeties and redundancies.
So despite the risks, they're so phenomenally unlikely that I personally think nuclear power is well worth it. And with the advent on nuclear fusion, we'll have power generated more efficiently and virtually no risk. Nuclear is a dirty word in politics, but it has my support
True, but I don't think that's reason enough to cease nuclear power plants.I have done only some cursory research, but from what I've read it sounds like energy produced through fusion is still quite a ways away? And I agree that the circumstances are extraordinary, but sometimes extraordinary things happen, and you end up with major catastrophies. While accidents like what happened at Chernobyl can be completely avoided (I've watched several documentaries on it), I'm afraid situations like what is happening in Japan now with the Fukushima plant, while they are rare, are almost certain to happen.
Sheer cost effectiveness. The Earth is massive, and it's far easier to plan long-term storage in deep vaults than to create expensive rockets. Rockets are also far more dangerous - all it takes is one failed ejection and the entire atmosphere is caked in deadly radiation.THAT said, I do tend to agree with your conclusions that the benefits far outweight the risks involved. But tell me - The storage of nuclear waste seems to still be a pretty big dilemma, but I've often wondered why they just don't rocket all that spent fuel into the sun?...or deep space... or something. Why does it have to be stored on earth?
I have done only some cursory research, but from what I've read it sounds like energy produced through fusion is still quite a ways away?
And I agree that the circumstances are extraordinary, but sometimes extraordinary things happen, and you end up with major catastrophies. While accidents like what happened at Chernobyl can be completely avoided (I've watched several documentaries on it), I'm afraid situations like what is happening in Japan now with the Fukushima plant, while they are rare, are almost certain to happen.
THAT said, I do tend to agree with your conclusions that the benefits far outweight the risks involved. But tell me - The storage of nuclear waste seems to still be a pretty big dilemma, but I've often wondered why they just don't rocket all that spent fuel into the sun?...or deep space... or something. Why does it have to be stored on earth?
We all seem to be forgetting something about electrical energy; It produces heat and unless we can come up with room temperature superconductors then the Earth will have a big problem with thermal pollution. Big cities even create their own microclimate due to their heat output.Actually, we recently achieved a breakeven fusion reaction, sort of, however that does not include the production of the reactor, so it still has some ways to go. Perhaps the first economically effective use for fusion would be on a spacecraft where it could form part of the propulsion system.
True, but I don't think that's reason enough to cease nuclear power plants.
Sheer cost effectiveness. The Earth is massive, and it's far easier to plan long-term storage in deep vaults than to create expensive rockets. Rockets are also far more dangerous - all it takes is one failed ejection and the entire atmosphere is caked in deadly radiation.
I remember the Soviets had a way of controlled nuclear detonation deep underground whereby after the hollow chamber created by the blast cooled and the molten walls were glass and impervious to leakage. They did this so as to create storage chambers for their nuclear waste. Pretty neat ehNope, I don't think so either.
That's true, and I've considered that. But, once you consider all that could go wrong with storage issues here on earth, I reckon the risks are comparable. But I suppose you're probably right.
Wiccan_Child said:It behaves like a wave because, when it goes through two slits, it interferes with itself, creating the interference pattern. But it behaves like a particle when it can only go through one slit, because it can no longer interfere with itself.
In essence, the act of measuring the photon changes how it behaves, and restricting its behaviour makes it act more like a particle than a wave. It doesn't change from a particle to a wave, or vice versa, it just changes its behaviour such that we might identify it as one or the other.
My personal opinion is that it's all particles, and sometimes particles are so queer that they look like waves.
"What the bleep" is notoriously... badyou touched on the double slit experiment previously:
not being a physicist (why i'm here), i cannot do all the complicated math to really follow this experiment much deeper than how its presented by the "what the bleep" demonstration. initially, my skepticism had a lot to do with the comparison of electrons to marbles. "shut up and bow down to the cartoon professor," i was told.
Sure, but it's ultimately the same particle. Being bound to an atom doesn't imbue it with new properties. Being point particles, they don't have any internal structure that can be altered by being in or out of an atom. And if they're not point particles, they're internal structure is so small that it won't affect the physics anyway.ok, so next time i'll watch it with different people. but my questions are is it fair to consider an integral part of matter (an electron) matter when it is isolated from its other parts? shouldn't we expect it to act differently when we've decomposed it from its natural state?
Because there are certain things a beam of electrons would do. We can fire it into a bubble chamber and see the chracteristic trail of electrons as they uniformly spiral in the same direction. We could fire it onto a metal plate and measure the potential difference. We can lots of things to test that the beam of electrons is, indeed, a beam of electrons.are we able to know if a particle beam is a pure beam of these electrons or have we tampered with the experiment in this way?
'Observation' is a tricky word, especially in quantum mechanics. It doesn't mean that a human mind has comprehended the data, it means that the system is being interfered with. Electrons, being quantum particles, can exist in a superposition of all the states they could possibly be in (i.e., if they could be at A or at B, they'll exist as an average of the two, (A+B)/SQRT(2) - it's a square root for crazy reasons).do physicists really believe the mere act of observing changes the results this drastically or is there a theory being developed about this? yes, i understand the mere act of observation will affect all experiments, but the implications of this particular experiment's changes under observation are pretty spooky, no?
Thank you! I do toothanks, i love your thread, btw.
"What the bleep" is notoriously... badSteer clear if you don't want a steaming load of New Age quantum mysticism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?