Ask a physicist anything.

[Thistlethorn]

I'd call that a kebabrulle (roll of kebab).

 

[pgp_protector]

How far can a bear walk into the woods?

Until he reaches the end?

Nope, Half way, any further and the bear is walking OUT of the woods.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Nope, Half way, any further and the bear is walking OUT of the woods.

Yeah, I should have gotten that one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We call that a sandwich wrap. Because, y'know', it's wrapped in sand...

 

[Jazmyn]

The outside?

Yes

Until he reaches the end?

No

All of them are boys?

Yes

Upside down centipede?

Yes

I rather like the 'saddle' universe:

I like the 'bubble'
Didn't someone once posit there was a doughnut shaped universe?

Water picks up salt when it runs down mountains and through rivers. It then joins the sea, and gets evaporated by the Sun. But the salt (et al) stay behind. Thus, over time, the sea gets more and more salty. It's a little more complicated than that, such as the fact that the sea doesn't get much more salty than it is right now, but that's essentially what's happening.

Where's all this salt coming from? 0_0

Half-way, then it's walking out again.

Ah correct


Don't dimensions not exist?
As in, no matter how many flat things I draw on a piece of paper representing 2D, it will always be slightly 3D because the pencil lead will rise minutely off the page?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I like the 'bubble'
Didn't someone once posit there was a doughnut shaped universe?

I remember someone saying something like that, yeah.

Where's all this salt coming from? 0_0

The mountains and soil that the water runs through.

Don't dimensions not exist?
As in, no matter how many flat things I draw on a piece of paper representing 2D, it will always be slightly 3D because the pencil lead will rise minutely off the page?

Dimensions are peculiar things. You're right in that we cannot create truly two-dimensional objects, since everything has some length in all three dimensions. But then, there may be more spacial dimensions than we're aware of.

 

[Jazmyn]

The mountains and soil that the water runs through.

So the earth is getting steadily less salty?

Dimensions are peculiar things. You're right in that we cannot create truly two-dimensional objects, since everything has some length in all three dimensions. But then, there may be more spacial dimensions than we're aware of.

But what is a dimension? Isn't it just a philosophical concept?

Does this work to describe dimensions:?
When we look at a 3D object, say a cube, from a single point of vision, (= with only one eye), the most sides we will ever be able to see are 3 sides (looking at it from the corner), thus: 3D.
So, following on from that, if I could only see 2 sides of an object from the corner, it would be 2D? But wouldn't that make the breadth of the object so thin that it wouldn't actually exist, otherwise we would see 3 sides? So there can never be a second dimension?

 

[Chesterton]

Didn't someone once posit there was a doughnut shaped universe?

Homer Simpson, I think.

 

[Doveaman]

They don't ignore it. They simply don't believe it plays a fantastically important role in the large-scale structure of the universe.

I guess it’s much easier for them to believe that three dimensional physical space can be combined with the non-dimensional interval of time, right?

It’s easier for them to believe in a mathemagical equation than it is for them to believe in visible testable plasma in nature?

What can be viewed and tested in nature is far more believable and reliable than mathemagical equations any day, especially when the numbers just don’t add up. Is this what science has become, mathemagic?

I find that I'm often short on time. If I need more time, how can I stretch it? Do you know how to stretch it? Did Einstein know how? Does anyone know how?

 

[Jazmyn]

What has four wheels and flies?

Is a black hole a solid object?

The more that there is,
The less that you see.
Squint all you wish when
Surrounded by me.

If energy stops does it curl in on itself and become an atomic particle?

This is a light as a feather, yet no man can hold it for long.

At a movie theater which arm rest is legally yours?

Why does the moon have so many craters, but the earth doesn't?

In the song Yankee Doodle, is he calling the horse or the feather "macaroni"?

What are your thoughts on "the bloop"... 0_0
13 more things: The Bloop - 02 September 2009 - New Scientisthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.500-13-more-things-the-bloop.html​

 

[Doveaman]

Matter warps space in the same way a ball warps a rubber sheet.

Can you tell me please what is causing the ball to press into the rubber sheet?

It would be more accurate to show the lines being warped towards the centre of the Earth.

Does each one of us have our own personal warped lines that keeps us falling toward the center of the Earth?

 

[Doveaman]

Presumably, we had some means of detecting the house in the first place. So we can at least do that properly. But if our equipment isn't sophisticated enough to probe its properties, then we have to make do with the evidence we've got. A dark matter hypothesis could indeed explain the available data. We fully acknowledge that this hypothesis could be wrong, as we fully acknowledge that any scientific hypothesis or theory could be wrong. But that doesn't mean we should give up and go home.

No. But what it does mean is that we can pursue an alternative theory, one that involves the actual material of the house being observed...Plasma.

Those who claim they don’t believe plasma plays a fantastically important role in the large-scale structure of the universe clearly don’t understand it. Or maybe they don’t want to... Plasma Galaxies

We have some data, limited though it may be, and, while it is hardly conclusion, it does suggest the existence of so-called 'dark matter' (specifically, matter that interacts gravimetrically, but not electromagnetically). This hypothesis is far from complete, and the few experiments designed to test it have yet to finish compiling data.

So you have a model of the universe that is built upon hypothetical matter that has not been confirmed to exist.

If the model is built with hypothetical matter that has not been confirmed then this makes the model an unconfirmed hypothetical also.

But it's a valid hypothesis, and what evidence we have seems to support it.

If the evidence supports it why is it still a hypothesis? Not enough evidence? Don’t trust the evidence? DE and DM, can the gravitational model work without these hypotheticals?


In plasma cosmology the hypothesis for the EU model has ben confirmed and there is lots of visible testable evidence to support it. So why is it being ignored in favor of an incomplete hypothetical model?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can you tell me please what is causing the ball to press into the rubber sheet?

... did you even read my post? The ball isn't pressed into the rubber sheet. It's a visual analogy, a learning aid.

Does each one of us have our own personal warped lines that keeps us falling toward the center of the Earth?

No. We exist in space, and space itself is warped towards the Earth.

No. But what it does mean is that we can pursue an alternative theory, one that involves the actual material of the house being observed...Plasma.

Those who claim they don’t believe plasma plays a fantastically important role in the large-scale structure of the universe clearly don’t understand it. Or maybe they don’t want to... Plasma Galaxies

Why wouldn't they want to? Scientists are more than happy to overthrow the current model in favour of a new one if the evidence supports it. But as it stands, the evidence does not. Even Anthony Peratts model may look impressive, but you can do exactly the same with a gravitational model.

So you have a model of the universe that is built upon hypothetical matter that has not been confirmed to exist.

I wouldn't call it 'hypothetical'. The data supports its existence, but it is by no means conclusive, and we freely admit that (despite this 'conspiracy of silence' you like to imagine).

If the model is built with hypothetical matter that has not been confirmed then this makes the model an unconfirmed hypothetical also.

It's called a hypothesis, so yes.

If the evidence supports it why is it still a hypothesis? Not enough evidence? Don’t trust the evidence? DE and DM, can the gravitational model work without these hypotheticals?

It's the gravitational model implies their existence. The evidence supports it, and falsifications tests are being run. Once their data comes through, we can see whether it gets promoted to a theory, or discarded as false.

In plasma cosmology the hypothesis for the EU model has ben confirmed and there is lots of visible testable evidence to support it. So why is it being ignored in favor of an incomplete hypothetical model?

Because, despite your claims to the contrary, the plasma cosmology hypothesis hasn't been confirmed by experiments, and there isn't lots of visible testable evidence. What evidence is claimed to support it turns out to be chance events (e.g., Arp's quasars) or archaic data that's cleared up by modern techniques, and shown to not be what proponents claim it was.

I guess it’s much easier for them to believe that three dimensional physical space can be combined with the non-dimensional interval of time, right?

It’s easier for them to believe in a mathemagical equation than it is for them to believe in visible testable plasma in nature?

What can be viewed and tested in nature is far more believable and reliable than mathemagical equations any day, especially when the numbers just don’t add up. Is this what science has become, mathemagic?

I find that I'm often short on time. If I need more time, how can I stretch it? Do you know how to stretch it? Did Einstein know how? Does anyone know how?

Depends what you mean on 'stretch time'.

And, please, show me where general relativistic understanding of large-scale cosmology "doesn't add up". Where do the mathematics fall through?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So the earth is getting steadily less salty?

Kinda. As rivers erode the river bed, thereby picking up salt and minerals, they expose new salt and minerals. This is essentially what created the Grand Canyon.

But what is a dimension? Isn't it just a philosophical concept?

Does this work to describe dimensions:?
When we look at a 3D object, say a cube, from a single point of vision, (= with only one eye), the most sides we will ever be able to see are 3 sides (looking at it from the corner), thus: 3D.
So, following on from that, if I could only see 2 sides of an object from the corner, it would be 2D? But wouldn't that make the breadth of the object so thin that it wouldn't actually exist, otherwise we would see 3 sides? So there can never be a second dimension?

I used to think exactly like that, actually. But dimensionality is the minimum number of numbers it takes to describe where objects are in space. We live in 3D space, so it takes a minimum of three numbers to describe any point in space (e.g., our x, y, and z coordinates).

What has four wheels and flies?

A plane? A car with a fly in it?

Is a black hole a solid object?

Yes. It's just normal matter that's gone a bit mental.

The more that there is,
The less that you see.
Squint all you wish when
Surrounded by me.​

Haikus are easy,
But they don't always make sense.
Refrigerator.

If energy stops does it curl in on itself and become an atomic particle?

Depends on how you consider energy and matter to be related. Some people think particles are 'knots' of energy.

This is a light as a feather, yet no man can hold it for long.

Fire?

At a movie theater which arm rest is legally yours?

They belong to the theatre, I'd imagine.

Why does the moon have so many craters, but the earth doesn't?

The Earth has a rather dynamic surface, so craters are eroded away before too long. The Moon, however, doesn't do anything, so its craters are there for all time.

In the song Yankee Doodle, is he calling the horse or the feather "macaroni"?

The feather, I always thought.

What are your thoughts on "the bloop"... 0_0
13 more things: The Bloop - 02 September 2009 - New Scientist

Obscenely creepy. There's something about deep ocean noises that scare the living daylights out of me.

 

[Chesterton]

The feather, I always thought.

According to Wiki:

Macaroni was a contemporary slang for foppishness. In other words, the singers implied the Yankees were so unsophisticated that they thought simply sticking a feather in a cap would make them the height of fashion.[citation needed]

Although Wiki doesn't mention it, I've read elsewhere that macaroni was also a racial slur, describing someone of mixed ethnicity. So it was kind of a double insult to Americans, yet we made it our own, and the song is the state anthem of Connecticut. Go figure.

 

[TheReasoner]

Why is water wet?


A fellow student asked me to ask you:
Why isn't physics easy? What's nature's problem? Is it picking a fight?

On that note: Why does our physics professor make things ten times harder than they are?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why is water wet?

Because it's a low-viscosity liquid. It's runny and splashy.

A fellow student asked me to ask you:
Why isn't physics easy? What's nature's problem? Is it picking a fight?

Nature isn't under any obligation to be understood, and our brains evolved to scream to other monkey's where the fruit tree is.

On that note: Why does our physics professor make things ten times harder than they are?

They, too, were students once. But in their time, they had log tables and canes, so they're probably trying to make you as miserable as they were . I know I would...

 

[Cabal]

Do certain particles actually travel through time? I mean, really? I was under the impression that treating a positron as an electron travelling back through time was just a way of simplifying treatment of it.

(Without wishing to sound like The_Gregorian too much) could this be a case of people letting their heads run away with the maths involved?

 

[Cabal]

Because it's a low-viscosity liquid. It's runny and splashy.

It can adhere to things because it is a polar molecule, though, right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do certain particles actually travel through time? I mean, really?

As someone once said, all particles travel through time, at a rate of one second per second. According to our theories, it's possible that particles can travel backwards through time under particular conditions. But those conditions are at the extreme limits, and it's likely our theories crumble around them.

In short, no, we don't know of anything that travels through time. You can find papers that describe something that's tantalisingly close, but it's often coupled with a generous dose of semantics.

I was under the impression that treating a positron as an electron travelling back through time was just a way of simplifying treatment of it.

That would mean electrons are just positrons that go backwards through time, so you're back to where you started. Richard Feynman saw particle-antiparticle acceleration as doing something funky with time, though I can't remember the details.

(Without wishing to sound like The_Gregorian too much) could this be a case of people letting their heads run away with the maths involved?

It can adhere to things because it is a polar molecule, though, right?

To an extent, though it's bonds aren't too strong. Water molecules adhere to each other, forming temporary chains of about six molecules.