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.
This is actually a very interesting question that hasn't really been looked at much.razeontherock said:If this is true, why is not space in our own world (and our own bodies) expanding?
Over seven thousand posts.
Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?
What are the practical applications of quantum physics? How can this be used?
OK, I had a post get looked over. That always happens when I finally manage to spit out my thoughts
I had re-raised the issue of spatial expansion, and that gravity limits it:
"So of course it makes sense that as everything was moving away from everything else due to the sheer force of the big bang, that there would come a time when the distances are so great that gravity could be overcome. Is that distance currently defined as inter-galactic? (Meaning that expansion doesn't occur in galaxies?)
Is the expansion of space itself considered a natural phenomenon, as in the energy to cause it is constant?"
"Pulling and gravitation, which resemble basic feminine traits, are the dominant properties of the magnetic loop. Consequently, magnetic loops have a capacity for storing energy and act to maintain the structural integrity of the entire wave formation. The electronic/energetic loop consists of expanding properties that disperse energetic matter that disappears into space. This is synonymous with masculine characteristics." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)
Star Wars.Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?
We don't know, it's a weird issue. There's some evidence the expansion is accelerating, but there's insufficient evidence to tell one way or the other, let alone what it means for the ultimate fate of the universe.OK, I had a post get looked over. That always happens when I finally manage to spit out my thoughts
I had re-raised the issue of spatial expansion, and that gravity limits it:
"So of course it makes sense that as everything was moving away from everything else due to the sheer force of the big bang, that there would come a time when the distances are so great that gravity could be overcome. Is that distance currently defined as inter-galactic? (Meaning that expansion doesn't occur in galaxies?)
Is the expansion of space itself considered a natural phenomenon, as in the energy to cause it is constant?"
Quantum Levitation - YouTubeWhat are the practical applications of quantum physics? How can this be used?
If you want a thread to die, then don't post in it. Simple.This thread just wouldn't die.
Over seven thousand posts.
Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?
As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.I have a question that's quite important to me.
What are the definitions for objective evidence and subjective evidence?
(I've just recently found out about the distinction and haven't found proper definitions yet)
Thanks in advance
That's kind of those informal definitions I've come across as well, but I've seen some include that subjective evidence can be forged as well.As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.
I believe the correct emoticon isThis thread just wouldn't die.
It's not so much about convincing others (heck, some people are way too easy/hard to convince...) but being able to independently verify an observation. The availability of objective evidence doesn't depend on the observer being you.As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.
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?