Ask a physicist anything.

Chesterton · Nov 1, 2009

Do you have any guess as to how rotating water can form polygons?

Rotating Water Gives Rise to Geometric Figures - The behavior of liquids puzzles the scientists once again - Softpedia

Could this type of event be similar to whatever's causing that hexagon on Saturn's north pole?

Wiccan_Child · Nov 1, 2009

catzrfluffy said:
It doesn't require deleting all reason, I know wikipedia's not held in esteem, but List of artifacts significant to the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The idea of prophecy being fulfilled is a sane one, Jesus fulfilled prophecies given before He was born. Prophecies that Jesus Christ Fulfilled

But it's interesting how most of these prophecies are only fulfilled in the Bible: there's no other record of them ever having been performed. For instance, Matthew mentions that Jesus is the 'Immanuel', thereby fulfilling the prophecy that the Son of God would indeed by called Immanuel. But Matthew only records it because it was prophecy: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Notice how Jesus is never call Immanuel anywhere else in the Bible.

And some of the prophesies are so vague as to be meaningless. Take Genesis 3:15 -

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

How is that a prophecy? Genesis 3:15 mentions the seed of woman, but it's hardly prophesying the existence of a particular seed of woman. To tie it to Galatians 4:4, which also mentions the seed of woman, smacks of reaching for straws.

And then, of course, there's the multitude of prophecies that Jesus didn't perform.

Yes, the idea of prophecy is a sane one, and yes, some prophecies did indeed come true. But none of them are spectacular or surprising.

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

Wiccan_Child said:
Besides, don't you think slightly circular to use one part of the Bible to prove events elsewhere in the Bible?

Not really, considering that the bible is a copy of different manuscripts written by different authors at different times in history.

Really? You have access to the original manuscript upon which Genesis was first written down?!

Well, no. Just some really old Dead Sea scrolls containing many other predictions that were fulfilled; the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, just to name a few.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 1, 2009

Chesterton said:
Do you have any guess as to how rotating water can form polygons?

Rotating Water Gives Rise to Geometric Figures - The behavior of liquids puzzles the scientists once again - Softpedia

Could this type of event be similar to whatever's causing that hexagon on Saturn's north pole?

My guess is a rotating, oscillating pattern which, when formed into a standing wave, creates interesting shapes.

Think of the natural frequency of water: if you move your hand through water, you can make it go a bit higher than normal. But if you move your hand at the same frequency as the waves are moving (the time it takes for your hand to go left to right is the same as it takes for the wave to go left to right), then the water goes much higher. It's something like these:

YouTube - Acoustic water dance

Wiccan_Child · Nov 1, 2009

Doveaman said:
Not really, considering that the bible is a copy of different manuscripts written by different authors at different times in history.

Genesis and Exodus both allegedly occured before the Torah was written. So the myths were already well established by the time anyone got around to writing anything down.

Doveaman said:
Well, no. Just some really old Dead Sea scrolls containing many other predictions that were fulfilled; the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, just to name a few.

The Dead Sea scrolls are excerpts of the Old Testament, not the New. Besides, no one doubts that the predictions were made. The key point is whether they were fulfilled, and whether their fulfilment is a sign of divine intervention.

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

If space expands, even faster than the speed of light, causing the galaxies to move away from each other like dots on an expanding balloon then how do galaxies collide?

Wiccan_Child · Nov 1, 2009

Doveaman said:
If space expands, even faster than the speed of light, causing the galaxies to move away from each other like dots on an expanding balloon then how do galaxies collide?

Gravity.

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

If the Big Bang was not a bang then why does the National Geographic channel refer to it as an eruption, and the objects (galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) hurtling through space as debris from this eruption?

Has the National Geographic channel been peer reviewed?

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

Wiccan_Child said:
Gravity.

Does gravity constrict the space between the galaxies preventing the space between them from expanding?

I keep seeing the dots on the balloon in my head.

Can the dots/galaxies move independently on the balloon/universe by the 'force' of gravity so that the dots/galaxies are not driven by the balloon/space expansion?

In other words, can the raisins move independently in the loaf by the force of gravity so that the raisins are not driven by the loaf expansion?

pgp_protector · Nov 1, 2009

Doveaman said:
Does gravity constrict the space between the galaxies preventing the space between them from expanding?

I keep seeing the dots on the balloon in my head.

Can the dots/galaxies move independently on the balloon/universe by the 'force' of gravity so that the dots/galaxies are not driven by the balloon/space expansion?

In other words, can the raisins move independently in the loaf by the force of gravity so that the raisins are not driven by the loaf expansion?

Replace the dots with pinnies. the force of expansion (the skin of the balloon) doesn't overcome the force of gravity (The pinnies) and remember that the pinnies are still able to move themselves on the "skin" of the balloon.

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

pgp_protector said:
Replace the dots with pinnies. the force of expansion (the skin of the balloon) doesn't overcome the force of gravity (The pinnies) and remember that the pinnies are still able to move themselves on the "skin" of the balloon.

I see.

Is this also the case with the raisin loaf?

Are all the raisins on the outer "skin" of the loaf?

pgp_protector · Nov 1, 2009

Doveaman said:
I see.

It this also the case with the raisin loaf?

I believe so*.
The loaf itself will expand, dragging the raisins with it, but the raisins themselves don't expand (And can actually move with their own )

* I'm at most a hobbyist at physics, but do enjoy reading & learning, so I could be wrong, Wiccan_Child will correct me if I am but from my understanding, that's how it works.

Doveaman · Nov 1, 2009

pgp_protector said:
I believe so*.
The loaf itself will expand, dragging the raisins with it, but the raisins themselves don't expand (And can actually move with their own )

* I'm at most a hobbyist at physics, but do enjoy reading & learning, so I could be wrong, Wiccan_Child will correct me if I am but from my understanding, that's how it works.

Okay.

So maybe Wiccan_Child can answer me this: If space expands and there is space between stars and planets then why don't galaxies expand?

Stephen Kendall · Nov 1, 2009

Wiccan_Child said:
Urban legend is... urban . You made me doubt myself, so I invoke the mighty powers of the Straight Dope. Who weren't too helpful. But these sources were .

Basically, it's an amorphous solid, in that it has no well-defined melting point. It's molecules are arranged as if they were liquid, but they don't move, like a solid. So it's a solidy liquidy blur.

For all intents and purposes, though, it's a solid. It's hard and shatters when I hit it.

A spot of radiation contamination will travel around a glass plane over time as if in a very viscous liquid. A college instructor, friend of Einstein's, told me about this finding while I was studying chemistry back in 1986. Thank goodness for a few less than absolutes, for science always needs to think / rethink to mature. What will it mature to? Will it find all the questions that keep popping up to discover the most unwanted thing in this world's secular academic realm, THE CREATOR. I think that is where it is headed, only time is most likely limited (wasn't that one of the reasons that it was created?)

An instant of reflection of the great schism of secular & creator believers is that of "junk DNA". Its name has to be changed because it is now understood as functional, no longer just junk (as a secularist's 'Darwin theory's evidence').

I am just a farmer and worker, but I have always loved to read and ponder about things. I admire true scientists, if they dare to seek out the truth, have no one tell them. I had the truth seek me out though, so I know that God exist for he come to me in many ways and many times. The fruition of the Universe are the souls that find their Creator and actually become like the His son. I asked my chemistry college instructor about Einstein, for I had an argument with my Physics teacher about his nature. I described Einstein as a loving and considerate individual. My Physics teacher (very young man, my age) said that he was a bit irate and tense. My much older chemistry instructor said that he knew Einstein as a friend and said that I was correct. Wisdom and ability to see through things comes to those who are more at peace and kind hearted. Enlightenment always has a sense of peace and harmony. This may be why it is said that truth will set you free.

I need to ask a question to be here. Well, will the Teflon-coated secularists ever accept the continual mountings of evidences about the complexities of life, the universe and all to be pointing to something besides randomness chaos theories? Science can not advance with putting on "hold" such things as pet "junk DNA". The Christian & true scientists kept probing, where others just when on with their new prize (Darwin's evidence). Secularists believe that they will find only chaos (the nonrepeating type though) where as true scientists don't stumble on their pet theories, they don't band together or have to, but are truly independent thinkers, as Einstein was. A Christian's faith is personal, so he doesn't need to band together to support it, he is free to discover things, which he believes will only carry him closer to the Truth, even the Creator himself (a wonderful thought).

Jazmyn · Nov 2, 2009

According to the laws of physics, do the walls of towns always fall inwards?

laconicstudent · Nov 2, 2009

Jazmyn said:
According to the laws of physics, do the walls of towns always fall inwards?

Depends on the force vectors, I imagine.

BasinBrat · Nov 2, 2009

If you end up trapped in a black hole, where light and thus time is trapped, will you starve to death before the gravity rips you apart? And would you be able to look at yourself dying in the future and yourself entering in the past?

Wedjat · Nov 2, 2009

I remember reading somewhere as a child that (theoretically) if you dove at the core of a black hole and swung around it (like you were in orbit) you could gather enough momentum to escape.
This doesn't sound at all right, but I just wanted to hear your opinion.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 2, 2009

Doveaman said:
If the Big Bang was not a bang then why does the National Geographic channel refer to it as an eruption and the objects (galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) hurtling through space as debris from this eruption?

Because it's a TV show. It uses its artistic license to make easy viewing.

Doveaman said:
Has the National Geographic channel been peer reviewed?

No.

Doveaman said:
Does gravity constrict the space between the galaxies preventing the space between them from expanding?

I keep seeing the dots on the balloon in my head.

Can the dots/galaxies move independently on the balloon/universe by the 'force' of gravity so that the dots/galaxies are not driven by the balloon/space expansion?

In other words, can the raisins move independently in the loaf by the force of gravity so that the raisins are not driven by the loaf expansion?

In the balloon or muffin analogy, there is no attractive force between the dots or the raisins. The analogy is used to explain how a) everything moves away from everything, b) it doesn't expand into pre-existing space, and c) there is no centre. There are flaws with any analogy, and in this case, they don't compensate for local anomalies.

Basically, gravity can overcome the metric expansion of spacetime for two local objects, but not for two distant objects. The Milky Way and Andromeda are close enough that gravity accelerates them together more than the expansion accelerates them apart, but for more distant galaxies gravity is not as strong.

Doveaman said:
Okay.

So maybe Wiccan_Child can answer me this: If space expands and there is space between stars and planets then why don't galaxies expand?

Same reason as above: the gravity that holds a galaxy together in a coherent swirly blob is strong enough that the expansion of space doesn't really affect it.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 2, 2009

Jazmyn said:
According to the laws of physics, do the walls of towns always fall inwards?

Inside a town, the air is trapped between buildings, making it harder for wind to flow, thus reducing the overall pressure felt by the walls. Outside, there are no buildings, so the wind can blow very fast, thus increasing the overall pressure felt by the walls.

The end results is that there is generally a net force pushing the walls inwards .

BasinBrat said:
If you end up trapped in a black hole, where light and thus time is trapped, will you starve to death before the gravity rips you apart? And would you be able to look at yourself dying in the future and yourself entering in the past?

Depends on how big the hole is: supermassive black holes, such as those found in the centre of galaxies, are thought to be so big that the gravitational sheer is quite small, so you won't necessarily be torn apart. But for smaller black holes, space gets warped so quickly that your body will be spaghettified and torn apart.

Wedjat said:
I remember reading somewhere as a child that (theoretically) if you dove at the core of a black hole and swung around it (like you were in orbit) you could gather enough momentum to escape.
This doesn't sound at all right, but I just wanted to hear your opinion.

No, it's not right. Once you've passed the event horizon of a black hole (an imaginary bubble surrounding the central singularity), there's no turning back. Even a photon aimed directly away from the hole will find itself being pulled back in.

Of course, if you stayed outside the event horizon, you could theoretically do it.

Ask a physicist anything.

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Contributor

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Contributor

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Noted strange person

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Noted strange person

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

believer of Jesus Christ

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Spirited Apostate

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency