Ask a physicist anything.

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

I was not aware of this, though it's certainly possible. Nonetheless, this does not prove it's a true liquid: the same phenomenon would occur in an amorphous solid, rather like a boat moving through ice.

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?)

Why on Earth would the "secular academic realm" not want to discover "THE CREATOR"? That would be, without a doubt, the biggest discovery ever made, or ever could be made.

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').

Well, yes. Science is open to change and adapt with new data, that's why it's such a powerful and reliable tool.

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.

He was a gifted man.

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?

What evidence, exactly? No one doubts that the universe is complex, or that this complexity arises from non-random processes. But there's nothing, as yet, that points to a Designer. Can you cite any such evidence?

And 'chaos' has a very precise meaning in science, and it isn't the same as randomness. Just FYI.

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.

Is it worth pointing out that Einstein himself was a secularist and, most probably, an agnostic?

And you seem to have something against secularists. Why? They are simply people who don't turn to religion for answers: they look to the facts, void of any religious bias or presupposition.

 

[TheReasoner]

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?

you would not starve to death, that would require a passage of time, which will not occur. Time will freeze, that does not mean it will pass for the one who is trapped. It won't.

 

[Jazmyn]

If space is expanding like the surface of a balloon, how come red shift can be seen in every direction? (if it can, I'm not sure)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If space is expanding like the surface of a balloon, how come red shift can be seen in every direction? (if it can, I'm not sure)

Because light is like a little bead of water runnig down the surface of the balloon. As the balloon expands, the round droplet becomes stretched and elongated.

The reason we see redshift in all directions is because the light from distant galaxies has stretched during it's journey. No matter where we look, space has stretched, causing light to be redshifted.

 

[catzrfluffy]

How come it's also stretched pointing towards the centre of the balloon and pointing away from it? Does light expand faster than the balloon? (whatever the balloon is?)

 

[Doveaman]

There are flaws with any analogy

That's probably because there is nothing in nature that explains the theory. Doesn't sound scientific to me. Maybe the theory is flawed.

 

[Doveaman]

.

 

[TheReasoner]

He just needed to move slower.

A LOT slower.

Okay. So if I put him in a vat of something really cold, like liquid helium, and then leaned him against the side of the wall, would that give us a quantum tunneling bicyclist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How come it's also stretched pointing towards the centre of the balloon and pointing away from it? Does light expand faster than the balloon? (whatever the balloon is?)

Ah, this is where the analogy comes apart: there is no 'centre' of the universe, or at least, nothing clearly understood as the 'centre'. No matter where you are, and no matter where you look, light is redshifted. This is because space is expanding in all directions: not from a central point outward, but everywhere.

The muffin analogy is better, because it's 3D, and the 'centre' isn't too clear either.

That's probably because there is nothing in nature that explains the theory. Doesn't sound scientific to me. Maybe the theory is flawed.

Maybe it is. But complaining about the limitations of an imperfect analogy designed for the layman is hardly grounds for dismissal. The analogy has flaws because it's just that: an analogy. Stop reaching for straws and address the theory proper, if you have questions about it.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Wouldn't the infinite doughnut theory be better then? Since it can expand in all directions, and as long as the circumference itself also keeps expanding, it will never expand into itself in the middle either.

Have physicists truly begun describing the universe in terms of cake? Are they hungry?

 

[TheReasoner]

Wouldn't the infinite doughnut theory be better then? Since it can expand in all directions, and as long as the circumference itself also keeps expanding, it will never expand into itself in the middle either.

Have physicists truly begun describing the universe in terms of cake? Are they hungry?

*shiver* I just hope there is no infinite Homer Simpson...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wouldn't the infinite doughnut theory be better then? Since it can expand in all directions, and as long as the circumference itself also keeps expanding, it will never expand into itself in the middle either.

Some people do believe it's doughnut-shaped. But it's harder, conceptually, to imagine what happens when a doughnut expands.

It took ages for scientists to work out what happens when a doughnut expands: does the central circle expand or contract?

Have physicists truly begun describing the universe in terms of cake? Are they hungry?

Wouldn't it be something if it was?

Anyway, this cake is great, it's just so delicious and moist. But look at me still talking while there's science to do!

 

[Doveaman]

Maybe it is. But complaining about the limitations of an imperfect analogy designed for the layman is hardly grounds for dismissal. The analogy has flaws because it's just that: an analogy. Stop reaching for straws and address the theory proper, if you have questions about it.

I wasn't talking about the analogy. I was talking about the whole idea of space expanding. There is nothing in nature to explain it. This is likely because the expansion of space does not exist in nature. I've never seen it. Have you?

Why claim something to be 'true' if you have no evidence it is 'true'. How is that different from Goddidit?

It takes more faith to believe the universe happened by chance than to believe it happened by God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Seeing the red-shift is seeing the expansion.

 

[Doveaman]

Seeing the red-shift is seeing the expansion.

Only if there is no 'intrinsic redshift' involved, which there is. Redshift

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wasn't talking about the analogy. I was talking about the whole idea of space expanding. There is nothing in nature to explain it.

Sure there is: dark energy. The hypothesis is far from complete, but it nonetheless exists, and it is a valid explanation.

This is likely because the expansion of space does not exist in nature.

By what logic do you come to that conclusion?

I've never seen it. Have you?

No. Which is the whole point. It's dark (meaning, in scientific jargon, that is neither absorbs nor emits EM radiation, and thus is unreactive to our retinal pigments, and thus cannot be seen).

Why claim something to be 'true' if you have no evidence it is 'true'. How is that different from Goddidit?

It isn't. But, of course, there is evidence for it, so your point is moot.

It takes more faith to believe the universe happened by chance than to believe it happened by God.

Please, elaborate on this.
1) Who states that the universe happened 'by chance'?
2) Why is the 'by chance' hypothesis abhorrent?
3) Demonstrate a flaw in any of the models that describe the history of the universe, up to and including the formation and subsequent evolution of life on Earth.
4) Demonstrate that the above hypothesis is more improbable than 'God did it'.

It most certainly does not take more faith to believe it happened 'by chance': we know exactly how it happened, and why it happened. We know how galaxies form, how stars form, how planets form, how continents and oceans form, how life forms, how life evolved, and how computers work. Where, exactly, does the 'faith' come in?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Only if there is no 'intrinsic redshift' involved, which there is.

We've already been through this, and you ignored my posts on the fact that NGC-7603 is nothing more than a coincidence. You couldn't demonstrate your claim that all the objects were connected by the luminous bridge, so your entire refutation of modern cosmology rested upon an assumption created out of a personal dislike of where the evidence led.

Perhaps you would be less aggressive if the Big Bang prove Christianity?

 

[Doveaman]

We've already been through this, and you ignored my posts on the fact that NGC-7603 is nothing more than a coincidence.

I didn’t ignore the post. I just didn’t agree with it just as you don’t agree that the objects are connected. I prefer to go with the observation. “Coincidence” sounds like a copout.

Sure there is: dark energy. The hypothesis is far from complete, but it nonetheless exists, and it is a valid explanation.

You are using one hypothetical as evidence for another hypothetical. Who are you trying to fool?

What tree does dark energy grow on? Who ever gave birth to it? Who ever produced it at any manufacturing plant? Where in nature can it be found? It’s not real.

No. Which is the whole point. It's dark

I prefer ‘not real’. Unless you can demonstrate some.

It isn't. But, of course, there is evidence for it

Where? There is none.

Please, elaborate on this.
1) Who states that the universe happened 'by chance'?
2) Why is the 'by chance' hypothesis abhorrent?
3) Demonstrate a flaw in any of the models that describe the history of the universe, up to and including the formation and subsequent evolution of life on Earth.
4) Demonstrate that the above hypothesis is more improbable than 'God did it'.

It most certainly does not take more faith to believe it happened 'by chance': we know exactly how it happened, and why it happened. We know how galaxies form, how stars form, how planets form, how continents and oceans form, how life forms, how life evolved, and how computers work. Where, exactly, does the 'faith' come in?

What caused the big bang? What caused the primordial ‘point’ from which the big bang sprang? How do you know there was a ‘point’? How do you know there was a big bang? All you have are made up assumptions designed to fit observations. The observations may be real but you most certainly cannot physically link them to any big bang or any primordial 'point'.. All you have are assumptions, speculations, outlandish wild guesses. Nothing more.

 

[catzrfluffy]

*shiver* I just hope there is no infinite Homer Simpson...

LOL
It's where black holes come from...

Some people do believe it's doughnut-shaped. But it's harder, conceptually, to imagine what happens when a doughnut expands.

It took ages for scientists to work out what happens when a doughnut expands: does the central circle expand or contract?

Neither, it stays the same, the red circle is the middle of the universe, this expands at such a rate so that however much larger the doughnut gets overall, the inner circle nevers touches itself. Likey?

Wouldn't it be something if it was?

Anyway, this cake is great, it's just so delicious and moist. But look at me still talking while there's science to do!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....gateaux theory. (Which cherry are we in?)

 

[pgp_protector]

Stumbled across this site.
21st Century Science
What do you think of it Wiccan_Child