Ask a physicist anything.

[Wedjat]

...when I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you. 'Cause there's research to be done and experiments to run on the people who are still alive.

God I love that game.
I have to ask now. What happens when you jump into this?

 

[catzrfluffy]

End Game




​

 

[pgp_protector]

...when I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you. 'Cause there's research to be done and experiments to run on the people who are still alive.

God I love that game.
I have to ask now. What happens when you jump into this?

 

[catzrfluffy]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!
Pacman!

[pong][pong][pong][pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong]

[pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong][/pong]

aaaaaaaaaaargh the smileys are taking over!!!!!!!!!

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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?

It's very good. But in a real-life doughnut, if all the atoms are moving away from each other, the interior circle will in fact expand: otherwise, the atoms that line it aren't moving away from each other.

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

The delicious one, because we're all yummy and sweet.

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

There's a lot there, but it looks good. I liked the general relativity part .

...when I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you. 'Cause there's research to be done and experiments to run on the people who are still alive.

God I love that game.
I have to ask now. What happens when you jump into this?

You divide by zero, and then there will be cake.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Fortunately, science doesn't go by what it 'sounds like'. It goes by the facts and by the numbers. The facts tell us that there are billions upon billions of stars and galaxies out there, and the numbers tell us that the odds of two such objects occupying the same area of sky (e.g., a close object superimposed on a brighter, more distant object) is so likely as to be routine. Whine all you want, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that the objects are, in fact, linked, and not just a chance arrangement of otherwise unrelated objects.

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

Where? There is none.
What caused the big bang? What caused the primordial ‘point’ from which the big bang sprang?

No one knows. Doesn't mean it isn't true, though. The Big Bang model predicts it exists, just as the evolutionary model predicts the universal common ancestor exists. You hardly see people demanding that evolution explain the UCA, though (oh, wait, you do, they're called creationists).

How do you know there was a ‘point’?

We don't.

How do you know there was a big bang?

There are multiple lines of independent evidence, all pointing to the same conclusion.

• The various methods of dating the universe corroborate, and one such method uses the Big Bang model.
• The model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation to be higher in the past. It was.
• The very existence of the CMBR is evidence of the Big Bang, along with COBE's and WMAP's famous maps.
• The large-scale distribution of galaxies and stars agrees with the model's predictions.
• Redshift, of course, corresponds exactly with the metric expansion of the universe, barring local anomalies due to gravity.
• The 'evolution' of galaxies, and the distribution of galactic ages, corresponds with the model (e.g., only young galaxies are found at the edge of our horizon, as one would expect).
• The existence of dark matter, otherwise supported by different observable data, also supports the Big Bang model.

For a much more in-depth discussion, I refer you to the excellent (and lengthy) article over at TalkOrigins.

All you have are made 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.

Uhuh. And fairies dance on my head. The worst kind of person to talk to is someone who asks a question, then dismisses the answer out of hand before you've even given it. It precludes any possibility of a discussion, but it does allow others to see what a close-minded boor you are.

You may block your ears to the evidence listed above, but others won't. It is them that I am most hopeful will learn.

 

[Doveaman]

Fortunately, science doesn't go by what it 'sounds like'. It goes by the facts and by the numbers. The facts tell us that there are billions upon billions of stars and galaxies out there, and the numbers tell us that the odds of two such objects occupying the same area of sky (e.g., a close object superimposed on a brighter, more distant object) is so likely as to be routine. Whine all you want, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that the objects are, in fact, linked, and not just a chance arrangement of otherwise unrelated objects.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Halton Arp[/FONT]

"Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.

Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified." [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Halton Arp[/FONT]

"Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.

Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified."

All we have is your word that these placings are too frequent to account to chance. Care to back this claim up?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

What would happen if extremely large amounts of positively charged particles were poured endlessly into a black hole? Given enormous amounts of positive charge, could the magnetic opposition conceivably overcome the black hole's massive gravity?

 

[Doveaman]

All we have is your word that these placings are too frequent to account to chance. Care to back this claim up?

Those were not my words. You can deny the truth but you cannot make the truth go away. Redshift

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Those were not my words.

Irrelevant.

You can deny the truth but you cannot make the truth go away.

Quaint, but also irrelevant. Present facts and data, or go away.

Redshift

Yes, I was on that site earlier, and again a while back. It wasn't hard to trace where you get your information from.

Anyway, the site is no better than what you've been doing here: showing pretty pictures, a dash of pseudo-science, and leaping to the desired conclusion. For example:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The large, dark galaxy on the left is the low redshift NGC 7320. Then going counter-clockwise we have 7317, 7318A, 7318B, and 7319. At the top of the image is the small galaxy NGC 7320C. After some digital image processing (which only increased contrast), the result shown below was obtained.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]It is apparent that a 'tail' does indeed extend out from NGC 7320 toward the left. In fact it appears to curve around and connect to the small galaxy NGC 7320C. The redshift of this small companion galaxy is z = 0.02 which is about 10 times that of NGC 7320.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]So, once again we have evidence of a physical connection between two objects that have vastly different redshift values.[/FONT]

Absolutely no justification is given for the claim that the 'tail' physically connects NGC-7320 and NGC-7320C: it simply states (correctly) that the tail "appears" to connect to the small galaxy. But where is the evidence that the two objects really are connected by the tail? Or, more specifically, where is the evidence that the two objects are the same distance from the Earth?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What would happen if extremely large amounts of positively charged particles were poured endlessly into a black hole? Given enormous amounts of positive charge, could the magnetic opposition conceivably overcome the black hole's massive gravity?

There is no know force that can overcome the gravity in a black hole, so no matter how much charge you chuck at it, it won't stop it being a black hole.

Interestingly, we don't think such black holes actually exist, because it's very hard for an object with a net charge to condense to the point that it becomes a black hole. Eventually, the electromagnetic repulsion overcomes gravity before it reaches critical density.

 

[Doveaman]

.

 

[Doveaman]

Anyway, the site is no better than what you've been doing here: showing pretty pictures, a dash of pseudo-science, and leaping to the desired conclusion. For example:

Absolutely no justification is given for the claim that the 'tail' physically connects NGC-7320 and NGC-7320C: it simply states (correctly) that the tail "appears" to connect to the small galaxy. But where is the evidence that the two objects really are connected by the tail? Or, more specifically, where is the evidence that the two objects are the same distance from the Earth?

I noticed you didn't repost this one:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]On April 4, 2002 amateur astronomer John Smith of Oro Valley, AZ obtained an image of the two objects. The author of these pages then quantized that image to show isophote contours (of equal brightness). This result is shown below. The isophotes in the central section of 4319 suggest that the galaxy is indeed a barred spiral. Also the main arms seem to be coming off at their roots. Both of these observations were first noted by Arp and stated as such in his book. Notice that [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]only[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Mark 205's isophotes are stretched back toward NGC 4319. None of the other objects in close proximity to 4319 are distorted in this manner.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Then on October 7, 2002 the Astronomy Picture of the Day issued a Hubble Space Telescope image of these same objects. The orientation is different. After processing this HST image in the same way as the above amateur image, the following were obtained:[/FONT]

(a)

(b)

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Notice, in the magnified isophote view, (b), that there is a distention of the shape of the Mark 205 inner isophotes back toward NGC 4319. There are also a series of secondary masses within Mark 205 on a line connecting 4319 and the center of Mark 205.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]e' theory that it damages their eyesight.[/FONT]

 

[Doveaman]

No one knows. Doesn't mean it isn't true, though. The Big Bang model predicts it exists, just as the evolutionary model predicts the universal common ancestor exists. You hardly see people demanding that evolution explain the UCA, though (oh, wait, you do, they're called creationists).

I'm told that evolution relies on evidence that can be found existing in nature. The big bang relies on dark matter/energy and inflation, none of which can be found in nature. I don’t see the comparison.

There are multiple lines of independent evidence, all pointing to the same conclusion.

The various methods of dating the universe corroborate, and one such method uses the Big Bang model.

This would explain why the universe is bigger than it is old. It seems like two blunders made into one even bigger blunder called inflation.

The model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation to be higher in the past. It was.

The very existence of the CMBR is evidence of the Big Bang, along with COBE's and WMAP's famous maps.

This reminds me of the theory of the cigarette smoking genie whose cigarettes give off CMBR while he smokes. How do you know it’s not Him generating the CMBR instead of a big bang since no one has ever seen the actual 'bang'?

The large-scale distribution of galaxies and stars agrees with the model's predictions.

You mean like this big hole in space.

Or this dark flow.

Notice that the observations are never expected according to the standard model.

Redshift, of course, corresponds exactly with the metric expansion of the universe, barring local anomalies due to gravity.
The 'evolution' of galaxies, and the distribution of galactic ages, corresponds with the model (e.g., only young galaxies are found at the edge of our horizon, as one would expect).

I can see why one would make such wild assumptions when they do not take intrinsic redshift into account.

The existence of dark matter, otherwise supported by different observable data, also supports the Big Bang model.

You still haven't demonstrated what this dark matter stuff is. Is it because you are looking through gravitational lenses that presents the need for this dark matter stuff?

Maybe you need to put on electromagnetic lenses because the effects you are observing may very well be caused by electromagnetic forces in plasma which are many billion times stronger than gravity. And, unlike this dark matter stuff, such forces can be detected:

Helical magnetic field wrapping around molecular cloud in Orion. Image credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF.

Astronomers announced today (Thursday, Jan. 12) what may be the first discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space, coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion.

"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape." Source

'Clouds' don't generate magnetic fields in space, electric currents do - Birkeland currents.

------- ---------

The double helix nebula may be the
result of twisting magnetic field lines
near the Milky Way's centre
(Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA) Source

Filamentary structure results
from the self-constricting magnetic
field lines and current paths that may
develop in a plasma. Source

Astronomers are now discovering what has been discovered in plasma cosmology many years ago. Such discoveries are routine in plasma cosmology. You just need to know how to look and not just where to look. Anyone looking through gravitational lenses will overlook them.

You may block your ears to the evidence listed above, but others won't. It is them that I am most hopeful will learn.

I don’t think you are seriously trying to mislead anyone. I just think you are seriously misled.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I noticed you didn't repost this one:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]On April 4, 2002 amateur astronomer John Smith of Oro Valley, AZ obtained an image of the two objects. The author of these pages then quantized that image to show isophote contours (of equal brightness). This result is shown below. The isophotes in the central section of 4319 suggest that the galaxy is indeed a barred spiral. Also the main arms seem to be coming off at their roots. Both of these observations were first noted by Arp and stated as such in his book. Notice that [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]only[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Mark 205's isophotes are stretched back toward NGC 4319. None of the other objects in close proximity to 4319 are distorted in this manner.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Then on October 7, 2002 the Astronomy Picture of the Day issued a Hubble Space Telescope image of these same objects. The orientation is different. After processing this HST image in the same way as the above amateur image, the following were obtained:[/FONT]

(a) (b)
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Notice, in the magnified isophote view, (b), that there is a distention of the shape of the Mark 205 inner isophotes back toward NGC 4319. There are also a series of secondary masses within Mark 205 on a line connecting 4319 and the center of Mark 205.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]e' theory that it damages their eyesight.[/FONT]

Which proves what, exactly? An distant object with an apparent brightness equal to a closer object will create such an contour line.

I'm told that evolution relies on evidence that can be found existing in nature. The big bang relies on dark matter/energy and inflation, none of which can be found in nature. I don’t see the comparison.

Both are derived from the evidence, both predict the existence of something in the past, and neither attempt to explain how that thing got there. They are both models of what happened after. That's how they compare.

This would explain why the universe is bigger than it is old. It seems like two blunders made into one even bigger blunder called inflation.

And you call it a blunder because...? You seem to like conflating ad hoc with a genuine derivation.

This reminds me of the theory of the cigarette smoking genie whose cigarettes give off CMBR while he smokes. How do you know it’s not Him generating the CMBR instead of a big bang since no one has ever seen the actual 'bang'?

You can't be serious. That's your objection to the CMBR? It could be made by a 'cigarette smoking genie'? Why not just exclaim "Goddidit!" and be done with it?

Honestly, you make my job too easy.

You mean like this big hole in space.

Or this dark flow.

Notice that the observations are never expected according to the standard model.

Because the model explains large-scale structure. What you're describing is small-scale structure. Besides, the latter is adequately explained by inflationary models, so it's hardly the end of the world.

Criticising the Big Bang model for not being able to predict absolutely everything (especially activities outside our local horizons) is like criticising evolutionary theory for not explicitly predicting the existence of crabs, or for not predicting the KT extinction event.

I can see why one would make such wild assumptions when they do not take intrinsic redshift into account.

Uhuh. I cite evidence and facts, and you dismiss them as 'wild assumptions'. Fantastic debating tactic Doveaman, truly unbeatable.

You still haven't demonstrated what this dark matter stuff is.

So?

Maybe you need to put on electromagnetic lenses because the effects you are observing may very well be caused by electromagnetic forces in plasma which are many billion times stronger than gravity. And, unlike this dark matter stuff, such forces can be detected:



Helical magnetic field wrapping around molecular cloud in Orion. Image credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF.

Astronomers announced today (Thursday, Jan. 12) what may be the first discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space, coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion.

"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape." Source

'Clouds' don't generate magnetic fields in space,electric currents do - Birkeland currents.

------- ---------

The double helix nebula may be the
result of twisting magnetic field lines
near the Milky Way's centre
(Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA) Source



Filamentary structure results
from the self-constricting magnetic
field lines and current paths that may
develop in a plasma. Source

Fascinating, but what does it have to do with anything? No one doubts the existence of electromagnetic effects in space, you realise, right?

Astronomers are now discovering what has been discovered in plasma cosmology many years ago. Such discoveries are routine in plasma cosmology. You just need to know how to look and not just where to look. Anyone looking through gravitational lenses will overlook them.
I don’t think you are seriously trying to mislead anyone. I just think you are seriously misled.

Uhuh. I've heard the same nonsense from Creationists:

Biologists are now discovering what has been discovered in Creationism many years ago. Such discoveries are routine in Biblical cosmology. You just need to know how to look and not just where to look. Anyone looking through secular, evolutionary lenses will overlook them.
I don’t think you are seriously trying to mislead anyone. I just think you are seriously misled.

All talk and no substance.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Thank you for commenting. It certainly helps. We need to see through each other's eyes.

I confess that am biased. When you know that God exist, for he came to you and has been involved in most of your life, you are what you are. I do respect true scientists with what beliefs or non-beliefs that they have. I know that they are just seeking to understand things and in the right way. I apologize for generalizing or grouping people to simplify & to develop an understanding of them. Each individual has the right to be respected and treated as unique as they are. Just like the complexities of the universe that demand deeper and deeper probing, so does the respect for each person, who are innocently a product of their own environments and a test of their wills. We need to probe our own selves to find this respect that we need for others which allows us to mature.

If society becomes more responsible by caring for their neighbors on earth and less infatuated with things, including egos & pride, then their scientists will advance discoveries and knowledge greatly. The product of society should be the things of maturity, like: being responsible for your neighbors (all of them), being responsible for our emphasis of what living is (not the gambit of money hording, honors & pride), but instead on giving back to our people & the world. Developing compassion, responsibility and devotion towards the right of respect of each other are the things that build a society that can have a good return of excellent scientists & workers throughout itself.

I am sorry to ramble on, but you have helped me to see through your eyes, to see myself. Thank you.

 

[TheReasoner]

Thank you for commenting. It certainly helps. We need to see through each other's eyes.

I confess that am biased. When you know that God exist, for he came to you and has been involved in most of your life, you are what you are. I do respect true scientists with what beliefs or non-beliefs that they have. I know that they are just seeking to understand things and in the right way. I apologize for generalizing or grouping people to simplify & to develop an understanding of them. Each individual has the right to be respected and treated as unique as they are. Just like the complexities of the universe that demand deeper and deeper probing, so does the respect for each person, who are innocently a product of their own environments and a test of their wills. We need to probe our own selves to find this respect that we need for others which allows us to mature.

If society becomes more responsible by caring for their neighbors on earth and less infatuated with things, including egos & pride, then their scientists will advance discoveries and knowledge greatly. The product of society should be the things of maturity, like: being responsible for your neighbors (all of them), being responsible for our emphasis of what living is (not the gambit of money hording, honors & pride), but instead on giving back to our people & the world. Developing compassion, responsibility and devotion towards the right of respect of each other are the things that build a society that can have a good return of excellent scientists & workers throughout itself.

I am sorry to ramble on, but you have helped me to see through your eyes, to see myself. Thank you.

I agree with what you're saying. It is very important that we show each other respect and love in all situations.
Especially we as Christians need to keep that at the very forefront of our priorities.

This is actually one big reason why I am vehemently opposed to creationism. It does not glorify God, in my mind it makes him appear much less than I consider Him to be. It makes existence and life appear meaningless and dull and most importantly it serves to severely undermine the faith. If a belief in God requires - as many creationists claim - that you ignore all the physical evidence for an old earth, evolution and the big bang... Well, then the christian faith appears as nothing more than a con. A big one at that. How old the universe is and HOW God created it has nothing to do with the love we are spposed to spread. How can we be lights to the world if what we tell the world is that the only way to be saved is to disbelieve in what creation itself tells us? It's no wonder many people not only frown but actually laugh at us for our beliefs given the warping these creationists have created.
It really angers me. If you really believe in God, why can't you believe in His voice's echo. The bible says He spoke and the world was created. Now if we listen (i.e. through the methods we find observe the universe and express it's development mathematically) we'll find that the 'young earth creationism' is utterly false and not at all congruent with creation itself, which we as Christians should consider the very echo of God's voice. Which should trump any human interpretation of an old parable.

If you can't tell I'm not happy about the shift of focus away from God's love and onto this which is not important in a spiritual sense. Not important _at all_!

 

[catzrfluffy]

If everything is moving away from everything, how come the balloon doesn't shrink as well as grow?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If everything is moving away from everything, how come the balloon doesn't shrink as well as grow?

Because everything is moving away from everything. If the balloon shrank, then everything would be moving towards each other.




OK, here's a question for people: what is the largest desert on Earth?