Ask a physicist anything. (5)

[1611AV]

We don't even know what the first living things were. But there is good reason to assume they were asexual reproducers, because that is far simpler and safer.

I agree, if evolution can be looked back upon far enough, we would have asexual reproducers, except of course, how the very first living thing was made would have to be by some other process.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[this_is_new]

Why is first year classical mechanics difficult? lol

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I go away for two days and I miss all the juicy questions...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey I'm curious for the physicist... do you think offshore drilling is a good idea? if there would be some minor harm to whatever in doing it, is it being overstated? also what do you think about global warming? And the increasing heat of magma rock?

Thanks in advance, mandy

While I'm more well-versed in physics than geology or economics, I'm personally sceptical of funding ever more expensive and extensive offshore drilling. It comes with a whole host of problems, both sociological and ecological, and is the quintessential example of diminishing returns. Conversely, that money could be better spent funding physics laboratories P) such as the NIF, which is on the cusp of commercialising nuclear fusion.

And once you've got nuclear fusion power commercially available, you won't need fossil fuels for anything but the smallest of engines - cars, sure, but not massive power plants. This will greatly relieve the strain on fuel prices for small vehicles, further lowering the need to drill for oil, and providing an incentive (and, indeed, the time) to devise alternatives to fossil fuels for good.

So offshore drilling, in my opinion, seems like a poor investment of resources.

As for global warming, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of an anthropogenic change - that is, humans are indeed changing the climate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is everything made of ?

A variety of fundamentally different point-particles:

The little numbers denote various properties like charge and spin, but broadly speaking there are Leptons and Quarks and Bosons. Groups of quarks make up protons (two up, one down) and neutrons (one up, two down), and the most common lepton is the electron - and just like that, you have the building blocks of atoms!

If the Moon is billions of years old, or more, why is there so little depth of moon dust on its surface?

Thick levels of dust is only to be expected when there's an atmosphere with particulates suspended in it, which can then sediment over the aeons. The Moon has no particulates suspended in its atmosphere, because it doesn't have an atmosphere - thus, there is nothing to settle and create thick levels of dust.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't have time to go through the entire forum, but how do you see the universe forming? As a layman, I don't understand equations , so please keep it simple....TY

Basically, everything was just a tiny point. There was virtually no space, and all matter and energy was squished into that tiny point. This is the universe. It then decided, for reasons unknown, to expand at an unimaginably fast rate - and has been doing so for 13.5 billion years.

But, you may be asking about the origin of the universe, of that original singularity. There is no real evidence, so science by and large is silent on the topic, but my pet hypothesis is that first there was nothing, absolutely, frighteningly nothing - and then, because there was nothing, something came into existence.

To expand, I mean that in the absence of any thing, there are no physical laws that prevents the singularity from just popping into existence.

So why did the universe form? Simply put, because there was nothing to stop it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the Earth is always changing, is it evolving?...If it is could that be an argument for evolution in living beings over long periods of time?
If God made the earth and it is changing, why not living beings?

The Earth is a single entity, while living organisms are a sequence of organisms. The Earth is changing because it's ostensibly still cooling down, while living things change because they're naturally selected for or against according to ecological selection pressures and random genetic mutations.

So the Earth isn't evolving, but its age certainly attests to the long-term evolution of life on Earth. After all, you can't have 3.5 billion years of evolution on a 6000 year old Earth

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to the ToE. When life first emerged on earth, was there Male and Female? Or did that evolve as well? Thanks

The first life forms were asexual - they simply divided. Later, as organisms evolved ever more sophisticated ways to transfer genetic material to each other (beginning with lateral gene transfer between bacteria), true hermaphroditic reproduction evolved. This eventually gave way to species whose individuals, instead of having both sexual organs, only had one or the other.

So the sexes evolved some way down the line.

Given the way you phrased your question, I'm guessing you have Genesis 1:27 in mind

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why is first year classical mechanics difficult? lol

Because it tries to quantify the intuitive, and that makes our brains go squishboom

 

[1611AV]

The first life forms were asexual - they simply divided. Later, as organisms evolved ever more sophisticated ways to transfer genetic material to each other (beginning with lateral gene transfer between bacteria), true hermaphroditic reproduction evolved. This eventually gave way to species whose individuals, instead of having both sexual organs, only had one or the other.

So the sexes evolved some way down the line.

Given the way you phrased your question, I'm guessing you have Genesis 1:27 in mind

Exactly. Thanks But thats for another thread

 

[1611AV]

Basically, everything was just a tiny point. There was virtually no space, and all matter and energy was squished into that tiny point. This is the universe. It then decided, for reasons unknown, to expand at an unimaginably fast rate - and has been doing so for 13.5 billion years.

But, you may be asking about the origin of the universe, of that original singularity. There is no real evidence, so science by and large is silent on the topic, but my pet hypothesis is that first there was nothing, absolutely, frighteningly nothing - and then, because there was nothing, something came into existence.

To expand, I mean that in the absence of any thing, there are no physical laws that prevents the singularity from just popping into existence.

So why did the universe form? Simply put, because there was nothing to stop it.

Im not laughing (to loud) Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.

With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"

What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?

 

[mzungu]

Im not laughing (to loud) Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.

With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"

What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with ToE! You have just proven to all of us that you have absolutely no clue what ToE is and also the Big Bang theory. You have betrayed an ignorance on both subjects to the point where your opinions of them actually count for nothing!

What you said is as factual as if I told you "The bible is not a Christian book because it praises Islam".

 

[chris4243]

Im not laughing (to loud) Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.

No, this is where science looks much smarter, wiser, testable, and honest than creation. And it takes very little faith to believe, "we don't know". Oh, and the theory of evolution has no relation to this. Why do people so often equate evolution and materialism?

With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"

No, mostly hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium. Large stars can make the rest and then go nova and disperse it. This is supposed to account for the distribution of the elements throughout the galaxy, not that I checked.

What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?

Perhaps nothing, and perhaps something very interesting. But I'm not sure you understand what it would mean to be outside the universe; there wouldn't be any space or time, not as we know it. And there's also the fact that our universe is bigger than we can see (the observable universe, limited by the speed of light and the expansion of the universe). Outside of that, there is more universe, possibly infinite or possibly not.

 

[TheReasoner]

Im not laughing (to loud) Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.

No. You just need to understand what we see. And it really isn't that hard.

And Big Bang is not evolution. Evolution is pretty much the definition of biology. Big bang is within the field of astronomy.

 

[1611AV]

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with ToE! You have just proven to all of us that you have absolutely no clue what ToE is and also the Big Bang theory. You have betrayed an ignorance on both subjects to the point where your opinions of them actually count for nothing!

What you said is as factual as if I told you "The bible is not a Christian book because it praises Islam".

And you have said that to me many times when I post here. I was not responding or talking about ToE. So if you think I was then it is you who have just proven to all of us that you have absolutely no clue what ToE is. Further my post was directed at WC. Your real issue is you disbelieve the Word of God as is illustrated in the last part of your post. which BTW has nothing to do with ToE.

You don't have to keep mocking God. I get you.

No, this is where science looks much smarter, wiser, testable, and honest than creation. And it takes very little faith to believe, "we don't know". Oh, and the theory of evolution has no relation to this. Why do people so often equate evolution and materialism?

No, mostly hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium. Large stars can make the rest and then go nova and disperse it. This is supposed to account for the distribution of the elements throughout the galaxy, not that I checked.

Perhaps nothing, and perhaps something very interesting. But I'm not sure you understand what it would mean to be outside the universe; there wouldn't be any space or time, not as we know it. And there's also the fact that our universe is bigger than we can see (the observable universe, limited by the speed of light and the expansion of the universe). Outside of that, there is more universe, possibly infinite or possibly not.

First off, "we don't know" is different that the statement WC made about his pet theory, ( Something popped up from nothing because there was no law limiting it to) which is what I was responding to.

Second, are large stars only made of hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium?

Third, as I understand it, there is something outside the universe as we know it but out of respect for WC's thread, I will not discuss it here. I think It's obvious what I believe.

No. You just need to understand what we see. And it really isn't that hard.

And Big Bang is not evolution. Evolution is pretty much the definition of biology. Big bang is within the field of astronomy.

Again, I was not speaking of ToE. Because I know that ToE is compartmentalized so it does not have to explain its origin. Thats another guys job. Clever.

The big bang is indeed part of evolution. Just not ToE.

The general meaning of evolution is just "developmental change over time," and there are major differences between four types of proposed developments — in astronomical evolution (to form stars and galaxies, planets and solar systems), geological evolution (to form the earth's features), chemical evolution (to form the first life), and biological evolution (to form the biocomplexity and biodiversity of life) — which involve four very different sets of questions and scientific observations. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/astroe.htm

Now, since you want in on this, can any of you tell me where this tiny ball of big bang stuff came from? Here I'll save you the trouble, NO!

 

[chris4243]

First off, "we don't know" is different that the statement WC made about his pet theory, ( Something popped up from nothing because there was no law limiting it to) which is what I was responding to.

It's a standard principle in particle physics. "What's not forbidden is required."

Second, are large stars only made of hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium?

Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks like there's a little tiny bit of lithium too. As for whether stars can be made of that, I'll take it on faith without checking that yes they can, as the alternative would require me to call cosmologists a bunch of flaming retards.

Third, as I understand it, there is something outside the universe as we know it but out of respect for WC's thread, I will not discuss it here. I think It's obvious what I believe.

Given that any such beliefs will necessarily be in the realm of unsupportable speculation and personal preference, that's probably for the best.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Im not laughing (to loud) Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.

Isn't faith a good thing? Isn't that the whole point of Christianity, to have faith in God? And as other people have said, evolution isn't related to cosmogony - even if we have no idea how the universe originated or developed, that wouldn't change the veracity of evolution.

With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"

If you're referring to the chemical elements, these were synthesised in the hearts of dying stars. If you're speaking more generally, well, all that's required is space and energy.

And besides, who's to say universes aren't popping up all over the place? If our universe can come into being ex nihilo, then so can other universes. So maybe there are innumerable universes of various ages and initial configurations. This means that we expect some places to exist where life can arise and evolve by wholly natural means - and who's to say we don't live on such a world?

What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?

'What's outside the universe' is one of those semantically null questions, like 'what's before the beginning of time', or 'what's north of the north pole', or 'what's colder than absolute zero' - the nature of the thing in question means that there simply isn't an outside, a before, a 'more north', a colder temperature.

So what's outside the universe? If the universe is the sum total of all there is, then nothing. But, of course, we may just be ripples on two colliding hyperdimensional M-branes

 

[Lillen]

What happans to those who do not pay TV-licence? Are they put infornt of a deathsceance, and sold to the media industry similar to what we saw in "The Trueman Show" but at older age?

 

[Nabobalis]

What happans to those who do not pay TV-licence? Are they put infornt of a deathsceance, and sold to the media industry similar to what we saw in "The Trueman Show" but at older age?

In the UK, you go to court and get fined £1000. If they catch up in the first place.

 

[Lillen]

Has it always been that way?

In UK that is...