# Big Bang theory and matters astronomical



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

Maybe we need a thread dedicated to discussion of matters astronomical. 
there are enough out there dedicated to matters gastronomical for instance. 

PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

*Re: Big Bang etc*

let's start with this one ...
 History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1)




> Hubble also confirmed an observation that these galaxies were all moving away from us at incredible speed
> those furtherst away were going the fastest
> in other words, our universe was expanding
> as if we were caught up in a huge explosion
> ...




for mine?
good enough for Hubble, (and NASA- who have to do calculations to make interplanetary explorations go like clockwork), and Dawkins, and Sagan, and probably this bloke (since in my philosophy he makes sense) - good enough for me.


----------



## Pat (7 September 2007)

*Re: Big Bang etc*



2020hindsight said:


> Maybe we need a thread dedicated to discussion of matters astronomical.
> there are enough out there dedicated to matters gastronomical for instance.
> 
> PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.



The thread you talk of was one of my favorites. The way I found it was wading through your posts 2020. took about 5 mins but it's here somewhere.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

*Re: Big Bang etc*



Pat said:


> ....I found it was wading through your posts 2020. took about 5 mins ...



lol sounds like I owe you an apology too, pat 

PS or do  I detect a pat on my shoulder, lol 

PS You can find that thread is you search for a word within a post - 
not advanced, simple search
- choose "Canopus"  and "show posts"
and you'll find it 
 but it's not easy to find the thread as such - you are right.


----------



## Happy (7 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.




Set your personal preferences to: Show All Posts, and then you'll be able to find anything that was posted.

I was caught with this one myself, after changing preferences I found what I was looking for.


----------



## Happy (7 September 2007)

> Hubble also confirmed an observation that these galaxies were all moving away from us at incredible speed
> those furtherst away were going the fastest
> in other words, our universe was expanding
> as if we were caught up in a huge explosion





I wander what effect has expansion on our Solar system?

Comparing to dropping pressure in a vessel, one could suspect dropping temperature and global warming might be actually positive by-product of our activities.

But also it could mean that the Sun can exert greater pull, since other pulling object move away and their forces diminish with passing time.
As effect Earth constantly can move closer to the Sun, which actually will compound the warming effect.

Of course macrophysics do not have to behave the same way as micro.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

Happy said:


> I wander what effect has expansion on our Solar system?
> 
> Comparing to dropping pressure in a vessel, one could suspect dropping temperature and global warming might be actually positive by-product of our activities.



my guess is no effect m8 , lol
fairly sure that the individual "gravity bound" systems won't change much - until 
a) the Big Crunch , or 
b) the Big Rip  
(never heard of these until today lol)

I mean no-one is suggesting that the orbits of the sun's planets are gonna change in the near future (to my knowledge anyways ) 

but I've just finished listening to that bloke say "no more guessing !!" lol
so better not be a hypocrite and pretend I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang



> The future according to the Big Bang theory
> Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe
> *Before observations of dark energy*, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that in which it started—*a Big Crunch.*
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

Electric Universe Theory

www.holoscience.com


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

The cyclic universe theory

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

Cosmic Electrodynamic Model'.

http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm

A few folks with balls to think outside the well funded and protected square.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Electric Universe Theory
> 
> www.holoscience.com




hey wayne - this post can benefit for the "big blossoming" of science.   - I'm all for it.


> www.holoscience.com from "preface" page :- It is a truism that breakthroughs often lie unrecognised for decades. "I'll see it when I believe it" could be the catch-cry for much of science. After the slow path to acceptance of each great new idea, it always seems so obvious in retrospect. We teach children in grade school ideas that defeated the greatest intellects for centuries. *That being so, we must not let the reputation of even an Einstein stand in our way when seeking better paradigms.* We must simply allow for the possibility that he was wrong, recognising that science is a highly conservative captive of fashion.
> 
> The Electric Universe opens up science again to the individual. Science will blossom in the new millennium as a cultural activity more integrated with history, the arts and the human condition.




As for not letting reputation of even Einstein etc ... Big Bang has been there done that 

PS of course scientific knowledge is a process - and of course current theories will be refined, (possibly totaly debunked )  in the future - but here , now, today  - my money's still on Big Bang. :2  two cents  (PS 2 cents is about all I own anyways lol)



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang  The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[2] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity,* showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.*[3] In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[4] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.[5]
> 
> Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[6][7] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.[8]
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Cosmic Electrodynamic Model'.
> 
> http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm
> 
> A few folks with balls to think outside the well funded and protected square.



the well funded square ?   mmm  
if we were talking global warming I'd agree ( financial rewards for "scientific wh-ore's opinions ) eg those who defended cigarettes etc .

Returning to the website 
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

I notice that website is extremely intolerant of other opinions 
so ?? he knows that we don't know ??? *that men are not causing it !!! *sheesh - now that is arrogance imo. 



> Global warming has been deemed a fact. However, *the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it.*   Al Gore has been given poor advice.    Like Darwin's theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. When in fact, science is ignorant about the source of the heat ”” the Sun.


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> t
> I notice that website is extremely intolerant of other opinions



Nothing unusual about that at all. The only difference between his arrogance and Dawkins' arrogance is that you agree with Dawkins.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Nothing unusual about that at all. The only difference between his arrogance and Dawkins' arrogance is that you agree with Dawkins.



m8 - 
I just posted a graph which contradicted this bloke

I await your posting evidence that Dawkins is wrong - and/or a reputable source that contradicts him

PS I would argue that Dawkins has more sense than to make a difinitive statement that one side or other of the global warming argument is "totally wrong" and/or "totally right"

However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it.  - not scientific! 
However, the inconvenient truth is that humans may not be causing it.  - ok


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.

Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job. 

Overall, Dawkins is a self obsessed w@nker prone to tantrums if questioned. 

But he's still interesting. I will always listen to what he has to say, likewise I'll listen to other, less media savvy scientists/philosophers as well.

I will not be sucked in by doctrine however, and that's what the current mainstream theories are, in the same way that religions are doctrines. 

You can huff and puff until the cows come home, but I will remain open minded and critical of every theory where deserved, including my own.

In particular, Big Bang just sucks, you have all sorts of concept's invented over the years in order to salvage the theory. Therefore, it is just BS, no better than Genesis.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

ok
next question
name one paragraph of genesis that makes sense 
(remember this thread had not mentioned genesis until you claimed it was as good as big bang)


----------



## chops_a_must (7 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.
> 
> Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job.
> 
> ...



Well, I think it's very hard to mount a valid argument against evolution, scientifically anyway.

But yes, speaking to a lot of scientific philosophers about Dawkins, i.e evolutionary biologists that do argue for the various types of evolution, it does become clear that Dawkins and his specific theories are thoroughly outdated and outdone, hence his move into the God debate. Note, I am an evolutionist.

Besides that, his dogmatism is just as bad as that of the side he is arguing against...

The problems surrounding the big bang debate are fascinating. At the core, I guess it relates to the problems we have with infiniteness when it comes to the spatio-temporal sphere, as none of our systems adequately adress this. At another level, time bending and the horizoning debunk scientifically any type of current religious belief.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> 1. Besides that, his dogmatism is just as bad as that of the side he is arguing against...
> 
> 2. The problems surrounding the big bang debate are fascinating. ..   At another level, time bending and the horizoning debunk scientifically any type of current religious belief.




1. ahh no surely - you've gotta get out more Chops, lol -  he is arguing with the likes of Hovind !! 

2. religiousl mplications ?
this is just for interest ok ?
but coincidence that it was put forward by Georges Lemaître, and he was a Roman Catholic priest
I could care less about giving the church a hard time on this point - it shows they areopen minded lol. !


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Philosophical and religious interpretations
> Main article: Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory
> The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, the origins of reality, it has always been entangled with theological and philosophical implications. In the 1920s and '30s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[53] *This perception was enhanced by the fact that Georges Lemaître, who put the theory forth, was a Roman Catholic priest*.




Here's a youtube that has been removed lol - 
It showed Hovind claiming that speed oflight varied with speed of source  (doh!!)
and Sagan setting him straight 
lol - it has been removed due to ???
enbarrassment ? lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M97WgCkK6k4&NR=1 Kent Hovind vs. Carl Sagan and the speed of light

here's another where we all learnt a bit about Dawkins... 
and Hovind for that matter 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157423&highlight=hovind#post157423

 Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=159827&highlight=hovind#post159827


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2007)

OMG!!! Here we go again!

I'm outa here!

Ciao.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

Listened to "Starstuff " today on ABC Newsradio
two articles
a) the end of the dinasaurs - due to asteroid breakups etc (160 million years ago give or take 20 million years) 
b) new telescope software -  Hubble sounds like it's suddenly been leapfrogged. 

You can download podcasts - listen in / replay any time 

INCLUDING TODAY'S PROGRAM ALREADY THERE.  (9/9/ 07)
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/mp3/20070909starstuff.mp3

go to about 60% mark on the timeline for dinasaurs
go to *about 80% for new telescope*



> "scientists (combined UK US) are taking the clearest ever pictures of outer space *using a 60 year old telescope *! - La Palma (I think lol)
> plus new software called "lucky"
> 
> A new telescope that's *TWICE AS CLEAR as Hubble *which orbits at 500 km.
> ...




heaps more programs there ...  - here's many other podcasts to listen to ( not that I've done it myself - I just enjoyed today's one) 
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/podcast/STARSTUFF.xml

here (below) is another ABC post - but I won't bother with the link, because this one (below ) is seriously out of date. 



> David Ellyard: The night sky is a friendly and welcoming place. Every year the stars and constellations return to view at predictable times and locations and they can be greeted as old and faithful companions. They bring a sense of comforting reliability so different from the unpredictable pattern of our lives here below.
> 
> Over time, anyone who takes the trouble can get to know the pattern of the night sky, so it becomes as familiar and unthreatening as the streets of your own suburb. As the star groups return to view we can rehearse the ancient stories of Gods and heroes, of monsters and mighty deeds with which our culture surrounds them.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

Oops -  those two photos (twice as good as Hubble etc but after a process that sounds like "digital enhancement") were taken at this 60 year old observatory - at Mt Palomar , California
(not La Palmo Spain  sorry)

"Everything old is new again" 
(that's why I don't throw out those old flared trousers etc  )

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/observatories/palomar/index.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

ok, same story - found it on the website for Mt Palomar. 
http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR13030.html


> PASADENA, Calif. - Astronomers from the California Institute of Technology and the University of Cambridge have developed a new camera that produces *much more detailed pictures of stars and nebulae than even the Hubble* Space Telescope, *and it does all this from here on Earth*.
> 
> Until now, images from ground-based telescopes have been invariably blurred by Earth's atmosphere. Astronomers have *developed a technique, known as adaptive optics (AO), to correct the blurring*, but so far it has only worked successfully in the infrared, where the smearing is greatly reduced. However, a new noise-free, high-speed camera has been developed at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge that, when used behind the infrared Palomar Adaptive Optics System, at last makes very high resolution imaging possible in ordinary visible light.
> 
> ...




images available here :-

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~nlaw/lucky_palomar/
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/AO/luckycam.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Listened to "Starstuff " today on ABC Newsradio
> two articles
> a) https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201409&highlight=adams#post201409
> b) new telescope software -  Hubble sounds like it's suddenly been leapfrogged.
> ...




Here's a poem just posted. As I say there , I was lucky enough to hear an interview with Phillip Adams today .  - brilliant man ! 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201409&highlight=adams#post201409



> Adams produced or co-produced other features including the critically-panned but hugely popular film adaptation of Barry Humphries' The Adventures of Barry McKenzie, directed by Bruce Beresford, which became the most successful Australian film ever made up to that time. Other films include "The Naked Bunyip", "Don's Party", "The Getting Of Wisdom", "Lonely Hearts", "We Of The Never Never", "Gendel Grendel Grendel", "Fighting Back" and "Hearts And Minds".
> 
> Other work
> Adams chaired the Commission for the Future, established by the Hawke Government to build bridges between science and the community. In 1988 the Commission won a major United Nations award for educating Australia on the issue of greenhouse and climate change.
> ...




As I say in the poetry thread .. he makes / made a couple of points
*a) the fact that an asteroid caused the death of the dinosaurs is the only reason man is here!!!
b) we are a fluke result of that incident !! 
c) we should nonetheless marvel at the fact that we are alive; and
d) how could anyone be bored with this adventure called "life" *


----------



## spooly74 (22 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> The cyclic universe theory
> 
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html




Interesting stuff wayne, I had previously thought the cyclic model supported the Big Bang - Big Crunch theory, but here there is no crunch, just successive Big Bangs. Personally, the concept of ignoring what happened before the Big Bang because time and matter only exist after the Big Bang never sat well with me.
Could this theory also support Branes ?  theoretically  

In a nutshell ... after trillions of years of expansion, matter disappears, protons and quarks decay and all that's left is radiation.
When the Universe is in this state it loses track of time.
The precursor to a new Big Bang.



Here is a another video of the project he mentioned by NASA.

L.I.S.A - 3 space craft organised in an equilateral triangle exactly 5 million km apart to search for gravitational waves.
This video uses text to speech and gets on your nerves though!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2007)

Then where did the big bang come from?

  Carl Sagan on big bang theory , and the arguably unnecessary step of "god's intervention"


> You can always ask "well then what happened before that?" The god hypothesis explains absolutely nothing; it gets us no closer to an answer. It's just a continuation of the same infinitely regressing line of questions


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 December 2007)

It`s time to grab Leela and K9 for another journey in the Tardis because come middle of next year (2008) we will be closer to understanding the Universe we live in.With operation of the multi billion euro Large Hadron Collider to take place there (apparently) will be many questions answered.



> The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.




For all the people that want to know this is an event that will reveal the "origin of matter" by colliding protons at near speed of light, which as i understand will replicate the Big Bang.Exciting times hey `ol chap.Would you like a jelly baby?

The video below gives an overview of this massive project.The other parts can be found at youtube.


----------



## Spaghetti (10 December 2007)

A good show started last week on the history channel called "The Universe" on Sunday nights. Missed it last night but the first program in the series was very interesting explaining how the big bang theory was arrived at through generations of collective knowledge. Einstien had the answer but did not acknowledge his own proof, that was done by a Catholic priest of all people.


It was a gripping episode even for non-science people like myself. I hope I remember to watch it next week. Highly recommended.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 December 2007)

Mostly distant from the experience and formalities of another year end I felt drawn to look at the bigger picture again.The incredible amount of information coming in via image from thousands to billions of years ago keeps one `in touch` with the universal forces in constant motion.In comparison to the universe a single human life on this planet is insignificant.

When a supernova takes place, the "energy" is greater than all small mind imaginings combined.Briefly ... 



> A supernova (plural: supernovae or supernovas) is a stellar explosion that creates an extremely luminous object. A supernova causes a burst of radiation that may briefly outshine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. During this short interval, a supernova *can radiate as much energy as the Sun would emit over 10 billion years*.




O.k., no one does this (well at least no one i know) and it is as natural/normal as tidal movement via the gravitational pull from the moon here.I`m disappointed that life (if any) is so far away from us.It may seem incomprehensible but with the infinite chances `out there` it has to be happening.Why?? this planet will not exist forever and to think there is only one "live" planet is truly naive.

Anyway, this picture is from, comparatively speaking, a long time ago.(light years lol and thanks to Hubble).So open your mind to the forces in play if you will as from our observation the universe constantly changes.



> Here in the Milky Way, new stars are formed at a rate of roughly 4 per year; that's considered pretty normal for a spiral galaxy like ours. But researchers have found a galaxy that's absolutely bursting with new star formation. Instead of our leisurely 4 stars per year, this distant galaxy is generating more than 4,000 new stars a year



.


----------



## spooly74 (29 January 2008)

Earth to get a close shave with an asteroid *tonight* 



> A huge asteroid will zoom past Earth next week at such a close distance that amateur astronomers should be able to spot it, specialists said Wednesday.
> 
> Measuring between 150 and 600 metres across, asteroid 2007 TU24 would inflict devastating regional damage were it to hit Earth, but there is little risk of a collision, they said.
> 
> ...




http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1822


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Earth to get a close shave with an asteroid *tonight*



sheesh -lol - under the table kids. .

tell you what spooly ...
if the bludy thing smashes through my window and breaks my Sidney Nolan, I'll be sorting it out with JC first thing I do up there.   Then again, Sidney Nolan might be around to paint me a new one I guess.  And Ned Kelly for a model for that matter.


----------



## skint (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> sheesh -lol - under the table kids. .
> 
> tell you what spooly ...
> if the bludy thing smashes through my window and breaks my Sidney Nolan, I'll be sorting it out with JC first thing I do up there.   Then again, Sidney Nolan might be around to paint me a new one I guess.  And Ned Kelly for a model for that matter.




That's where my painting went ya mongrel! I thought you had something tucked under your glider. BTW, your collage on the other thread was a corker, lol. Is that type of wizzbangery done with photoshop?


----------



## Scuba (29 January 2008)

2020', 
going offtopic for a moment, but see if you can dig up starstuff (20071118starstuff.mp3)... Think you might enjoy the opening story... _Otherwise PM me if you can't find it..._
Scuba


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

Scuba..
I went to starstuff  - http://www.starstuff.com/  ? but not the article you mentioned .
any tips appreciated.  Meanwhile , feel free to post a copy / link 


Skint..
MGI Photosuite - got it with my first digital Sony camera 


Spooly...
damned site better odds of a collision than winning lotto thats for sure 


> Measuring about 50 metres across, it would have delivered an impact equivalent to a three-megatonne nuclear weapon. A rock of this size is thought to have exploded over Tunguska, Siberia, in 1908, felling around 80 million trees over 2,200 km².
> 
> ....... the odds of a collision by 2007 WD5 fell to around 0.01 per cent, or one in 10,000.


----------



## jman2007 (29 January 2008)

Great thread 20/20,

One thing I remember reading as a kid is the old black hole chestnut, what I never really understood was this;

If there are two spaceships, A and B, and spaceship A observes B disappearing into a black hole, apparently to the observers on spaceship A it will appear that spaceship B actually does enter the black hole and disappear.

However, to the unfortunate crew on spaceship B, time will be so distorted that they will be sitting around drumming their fingers waiting to enter the blackhole, but will never actually do so 

So I guess it is all relevant to the observer, but are the crew aboard spaceship B actually still alive even though their companions aboard spaceship A saw them "disappear"?  Or can the B crew members co-exist on two different "time planes"?

Bloody 'ell, think I need a drink after thinking about that! :alcohol:

jman


----------



## skint (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Skint..
> MGI Photosuite - got it with my first digital Sony camera




You make it sound as though you ran it through the box brownie. Sigh..not even fifty and "have grown old and the years condemned"


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Scuba..
> I went to starstuff  - http://www.starstuff.com/  ? but not the article you mentioned .
> any tips appreciated.  Meanwhile , feel free to post a copy / link



ahh sorry - ABC radio - will get back 

meanwhile here's bloke A heading for a black hole B 


"black holes are mean cosmic cannibals
eating up prodigal suns
light rays refuse to escape from their surface, 
much like my burnt raisin buns - 
Einstein explained it quite simply -
teaspoonfuls weigh in the tons - 
denser than rockcakes! can you imagine it !
crushed by a handful of crumbs"' 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88164


----------



## Scuba (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Scuba..
> I went to starstuff  - http://www.starstuff.com/  ? but not the article you mentioned .
> any tips appreciated.  Meanwhile , feel free to post a copy / link



I'm way off topic but found this WMP link to the starstuff article I referred you to 2020', which I found quite an _ eye opener (?)_ when I first heard it... download link to same article...
_Please accept my apologies for not seeking a more appropriate thread. _
With regards,
Scuba


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2008)

thanks scuba 

Next to try to resolve jman's puzzle.  



			
				jman said:
			
		

> One thing I remember reading as a kid is the old black hole chestnut, what I never really understood was this;
> 
> If there are two spaceships, A and B, and spaceship A observes B disappearing into a black hole, apparently to the observers on spaceship A it will appear that spaceship B actually does enter the black hole and disappear.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165168&highlight=relativity#post165168

there have to be a stack of other great websites out there. - something for the weekend maybe.

For instance .... :-
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/GR.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

jman
None of these answer your question, lol - 
the fact that they start talking about infinity has gotta be a worry yes?

maybe does this cartoon help?  (Far Side) 

fwiw, These two youtubes seem to follow on nicely from one to the other (just general stuff) ..

 Black Holes 

 Universe: Black Holes: Creation & Consumption of Galaxies


----------



## ktrianta (3 February 2008)

This thread reminds me of chartists - they all have the same data but interpret it differently and come out with different results.

Go to www.cosmologystatement.org 

As for Dawkins, he is a fundamentalist, the Taliban of athiests. Michael Ruse a noted athiestic apologist stated that Dawkins' last book, the God Delusion makes you embarassed to be an athiest.

Unfortunately dawkins pushes his beliefs and never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> As for Dawkins, he is a fundamentalist, the Taliban of athiests. Michael Ruse a noted athiestic apologist stated that Dawkins' last book, the God Delusion makes you embarassed to be an athiest.
> 
> Unfortunately dawkins pushes his beliefs and never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.



ktrianta

there's an entire thread dedicated to Dawkins and his many and varied scientific pursuits. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8806&highlight=dawkins

we're up to post #141, and noone has yet posted an error that he has made. 

"The Taliban of atheists" lol
what would you call that?

a cheap word-association maybe ? 

you sure you're not a politician lol.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

but back to your post link re dark matter etc.
No question there are fudge factors to try to calculate gravity and the forces necessary to explain observed behaviour of the "majestic sweep of the universe",  etc ...
Not sure that that changes the fact that (on simple elementary level) stars / galaxies can be observed to be travelling roughly away from each other and pretty much from some central region.

Heck - even Einstein ended up tied in knots trying to marry up the theories out there , (quantum mechanics, relativity, gravity, electromagnetism etc - all of which make sense individually, - and useful in themselves in their area of specialty , but difficult to combine into a single "equation")  and was found wanting 

We have some ways to go to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, I'm sure. 
At this point in time I understand that there are too many crossed eyes and dotted teasers.  

Speaking of the Unified Theory (that alluded Einstein) - this one from a few years back of course ( Carl Sagan,Stephen Hawking etc ) 

 Carl Sagan - God, the Universe, & Everything Else 1988

Carl Sagan : "Those are interesting questions, maybe you will find the answer in your lifetime. It would be very healthy for the human species if there was less discouragement and more scientists " "

If you go to the 2m20s mark , Stephen Hawking seems happy with the general concept of Big Bang. 

"15 billion years ago the galaxies were on top of each other" 
"time began at the big bang"
"universe expanded in rapid manner"
"billions of billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second"
etc  .

good enough for these blokes - who am I to argue, lol ? - I'm just a dumb engineer  



> Stephen Hawking - God, the Universe, & Everything Else / Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke (1988)
> British journalist and TV host Magnus Magnusson tackles big questions about our universe in this educational colloquium that brings together three of the 20th century's leading scientific thinkers: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, astronomer Carl Sagan and author Arthur C. Clarke. They explore everything from the Big Bang Theory to the expansion of the universe, black holes, extraterrestrial life and the origins of creativity.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

the first youtube applies to the same interview ( excerpts only available possibly due to copyright etc) 

 Sagan Clarke and Hawking 1996

This one is Carl Sagan getting down to the REALLY tough questions -  - his last interview before dying of cancer, interview May 27 1996,  (died 7 months later on Dec 20 1996)  

 Carl Sagan's Last interview Part 2 (terrible voice/video synch)
"We should demand the most rigorous standards of evidence especially on what's important to us" ,  ..... "added reserves of scepticism etc" .. "does the evidence support it";  we conclude "unproved" ..... on things like Heaven etc.

Here's part1 if you're interested...
 Carl Sagan's Last interview Part 1


----------



## ktrianta (3 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ktrianta
> 
> there's an entire thread dedicated to Dawkins and his many and varied scientific pursuits.
> 
> ...




20/20,

No I am not a politician. I can cite one example off the top of my head  where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong. Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life,  at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.

Can't argue with maths. Was he sloppy or decitful?? Who knows, he is of course a zoologist and makes many statements outside of his field of expertise. Clearly maths is not one of them.

Heres another one, In the God delusion, he said that "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal".  Irrespective of what one believes, does anyone seriously believe that the church has not believed this through the ages and that dawkins has now been privy to some special revelation. Next thing he will tell us is that the Pope aint Catholic.

Anyway, I posted this here as Dawkins was discussed (as was not aware of the other thread), so I added a few comments but my main aim was to show that many scientists belive that the Big bang is plain wrong and contradicted by the facts and new thinking is needed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> 20/20,
> 
> No I am not a politician. I can cite one example off the top of my head  where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong. Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life,  at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.
> 
> ...




I think he said ( on same theme) that when you drink a glass of water, there's a better than even chance that an atom of H or O or H2O molecule ( forget the details) probably passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.  Something about "more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the world"  - or something like that.  - OBVIOUSLY that is extremely simple and "approximate". 

PS I meant on something substantive I guess. - but I'll see if I can find it and get back . 

PS I can tell you that my mum deals a perfect hand of bridge all the time lol - she just forgets to tell you that she's stacked the pack - but then when you're her age ( approaching the big ton), you can claim a bit of humourous senility I guess .  

She'll ask, lol - what should I bid ? - and there  she is holding all the spades - and her partner has all the hearts  lol- she's funny man.

So I say " well how about slam spades mum? 
she says " but . but , my partner has such lovely hearts!" 

PS I read recently that quantum theory requires you to give a probability to every damned thing - including the miniscule probabilty of walking through a wall because the atoms all line up to pass each other etc.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 February 2008)

My turn 
So we know how organic things create organic things, and we know that (not how exactly,explosions or something?) inorganic things create inorganic things.Yes.
*What we don`t know is how inorganic things created this planet*.For Pete`s sake don`t say God,Jim,Frederick or Samantha did it.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




By the way, there is a partial Solar eclipse this week .... 



> The Partial Solar Eclipse on *February 7th 2008 *will be *visible from **parts of South-Eastern Australia and all of New Zealand*. The Annular Solar Eclipse is visible only in Antartica. It will not be visible at all for the rest of Australia or the world.







> Partial Solar Eclipse
> 
> A Partial Solar Eclipse is when the Earth passes into the Moon's penumbral shadow. From Earth, the Moon only partly covers the Sun. This type of eclipse can be seen by a larger area on Earth because the broader Penumbral shadow is cast across a wider track of ground on Earth.
> 
> ...



I`m off to see the wise man in the cave on the mountain. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Bye.

p.s. ref. = iceinspace.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

quick comment from the peanut gallery 
chances of being dealt all the spades is 6.25 E11
number of planets ? - about 1E21 (according to NASA)
so there are more planets in the unverse than chances of all spades - by a factor of 1.57E9 , or 1,570,000,000 times as many stars as chances. 

It's all so humbling. 

(don't forget a full hand of spades is like trying to win lotto with 52 balls, out of which they pick 13   (think I'm right there - just some quick thoughts whilst watching Kokoda on TV) 

PS wys, Thanks for the advice - solar eclipse - 7 Feb you say 
 the Chinese will say it's something to do with Chinese NY (also 7 Feb) !! 
year begins on 2/07/2008
Year of the Rat - you have to be cunning to win they say . 

Kung (Koong) hay fut choy as they say in Cantonese


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> Heres another one, In the God delusion, he said that "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal".  Irrespective of what one believes, does anyone seriously believe that the church has not believed this through the ages and that dawkins has now been privy to some special revelation. Next thing he will tell us is that the Pope aint Catholic.




:topic
There was a post way back by Robroy...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=156205&highlight=virgin#post156205

The second or third paragraph .... 


> If it's the Christian God, allow me to add a layer to my previous post: the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, and an awful lot of miraculous New Testament stuff, was added to Christian scripture early in the fourth century when the Roman Empire took over the Church. (The Church version is that the Emperor Constantine was converted.)
> 
> There was no belief as to Jesus' resurrection before then - e.g. by the surviving apostles, in the years after his death - at least not according to the earliest Christian documents.




I've never really researched it further - although I should've and no doubt will  - But it belongs on a different thread to this one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> I can cite one example off the top of my head  where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong.
> 
> Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life,  at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.
> 
> Can't argue with maths. Was he sloppy or decitful?? Who knows, he is of course a zoologist and makes many statements outside of his field of expertise. Clearly maths is not one of them.




ok kt, 
you are not correct. (speaking of sloppy maths lol)
you say 10 hands per day for 100 million years ...  (only - we'll try a more sensible number below)  

that's 10 x 365 x 100,000,000 = 3.65 E11 hands (with 10 per day - say 1 per 2 hours or thereabouts - pretty slow game of bridge) 

there are 52 x 51 x 5 x..... x 41 x 40  / (13 x 12 x 11 x ...    x 2 x 1) = 6.25 E11 hands of cards, and one of them is "the perfect hand " of all spades.

So he would have a 50-50 chance of getting a perfect hand in his lifetime. 
You claim "he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion " .

might be time for YOU to do the maths kt.  

But lets try a sensible amount of bridge hands - say 10 hands per hour x say 15 hours per day = 150 hands per day

In that case his chances go up by a factor of 150 yes?
i.e. he gets about 8 hands in his lifetime. 

Not sure what Dawkins claimed - but your claims would appear to be wrong. 

Double check me by all means - but I think you've been reading one of those anti-Dawkins books 
and many of them are BOTH sloppy AND deceitful.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

> he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge



hell - he gets better odds than that for ONE hand ! 

chances per 1 hand = 1 in 6.25E11
1 quadrillion = 10E11

think you misread that chapter of your anti-Dawkins book.  
I suspect it has been written by the Taliban of mathematicians.

E&OE - I've done this in a hurry lol


----------



## ktrianta (4 February 2008)

Hi 2020,

Appreciate that you did the calc's but you need to do them again.

Dawkins said that it would not be unusual for this hypothetical alien to see a "perfect" bridge hand where each player was dealt thirteen cards of the same suit. You calc's are based on only 1 player being dealt the whole suit not all 4 as Dawkins suggested.

Do the calc's again and you will see that my calcs are correct and that Dawkins was sloppy and/or decietful. 

He has a history of being sloppy, why would Michael Ruse a noted athiestic apologist claim that the God delusion makes you embarassed to be an athiest? Even the Guardian had a review of the God delusion where they canned the work (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2006/09/post_387.html). You can fool some of the people some of the times, but really he is sloppy.

In 5 pages in the God delusion he claims that jesus did not claim that he was God, the writers of the Gospel probably did not meet jesus and that jesus may not have even existed. Each of these assertions is made without a shred of supporting evidence and amount to so much bluff and bluster. Surely if you are going to make such wild claims back it up with something more than empty words. It is like a person who has no basiis for saying something flaying about at anything and hopes that eventually if you throw enough mud something will stick.

Don't you agree that such assertions at least require reasoned argument? Why then has he not backed them up? Is he being sloppy and/or decitful????

Having read the other thread, i see that you are a Dawkins devotee, so I guess you would be a bit defensive, but really if somebody says something that is silly, lets not regurgiate it because we admire the person who said it. Let us use our reason and critical faculties against such extremism - hence my statement the Taliban of Athiests.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> Hi 2020,
> 
> Appreciate that you did the calc's but you need to do them again.
> 
> ...




holy bridge hands batman!!

I make the chances of getting the perfect hand (under your slightly crazy definition)   as anything from 5.4E28 to 8.9E27 depending on the gobblegook-ness of the definition.

Then again your definition is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

You (as N) have to have 13 spades - agreed!
now 
does E have hearts? or does S ? or W?
back soon ... (interesting show on TV)

PS when my mum deals - she does indeed have all the hearts, clubs, diamonds in the other 3 hands - 
why ? I don't know
It is irrelevant !! 
I mean , if you've got all the spades you are INVINCIBLE

PS she looks you in the eye and says that that's how they came off the pack - and the top of the pack at that 
she's funny man


----------



## ktrianta (4 February 2008)

2020,

Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.

I agree with you that a lot of what Dawkins says is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

2020 just remember Dawkins is not infallible, although as the Taliban of Athiests, i guess he probably thinks that he is.

We are better than that, we use reason and logic. 

Dawkins is so intolerant in his writings that it is not hard to see why the Gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, Hitler's gas chambers, the cultural revolution of MAO and so on were all made possible in our so called enlightened societies.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> 2020,
> 
> 1. Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.
> 
> ...




1. Well - big bludy deal, we are arguing about the irrelevancies of what the other hards contain.  So it was a typo! sheesh! - (giving you the benefit of the doubt here)  

2. ahh kt - please don't twist my words   (**)

3. You have yet to make a sensible significant dent in his logic

4. If you don't mind me saying so, you don't seem to be able to do the maths you claim to know so much about 

5.. yeah yeah yada yada ...

not very conducive to a sensible argument.

(Note ** If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
 twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools )

PS Here's an actual quote of Dawkins .
 Are you sure you're not taking liberties with the truth here ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

Lemme tell you something kt

I have little time for the organised religions

But I find that "just plain honesty" is a pretty good substitute


----------



## Pat (5 February 2008)

At first I thought most of these posts should go in the new "I love/hate Dawkins thread".

Then reading on I thought it should be moved to the kt vs 2020 thread.

But look what its become. 


Although quite entertaining :


----------



## roland (5 February 2008)

anyone wtach Top Gear last night? Can you believe they built a rocket - what a hoot? Great launch - terrible re-entry.

If they had of flown a little higher, they would have made "thread relavance", now that would have Astronomical


----------



## Pat (5 February 2008)

roland said:


> anyone wtach Top Gear last night? Can you believe they built a rocket - what a hoot? Great launch - terrible re-entry.
> 
> If they had of flown a little higher, they would have made "thread relavance", now that would have Astronomical



Nup didn' see it, is it on FOXTEL or SBS? I love that show, just forgot about it i guess, last time I heard about top gear was when the little bloke had that crash.

How high did the rocket go?

What was its fuel?


----------



## BIG BWACULL (5 February 2008)

Heh heh what a crack up i just you tubed it quality is a bit how ya goin but heres the link t have a look, love the last comment "how we suppose to use it again" LOL 
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=[aylctl44BFQ]


----------



## BIG BWACULL (5 February 2008)

BLAST OFF :


----------



## BIG BWACULL (5 February 2008)

Here is a better quality link at metcafe 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/440819/top_gear_shuttle_launch_aka_the_new_car_bomb/


----------



## MS+Tradesim (5 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> we're up to post #141, and noone has yet posted an error that he has made.




This is why I tend to avoid these discussions (or should I say polemics?). In the god thread (yes, not the thread you're referring to) I posted maybe a dozen links from reviewers pointing out rubbish from Dawkins yet here we still have comments like the above. He's only convincing to his like-minded fundies. :horse:

Flame away.


----------



## Pat (5 February 2008)

Someone is biting....     hehehehe


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

ktrianta said:


> 2020,
> 
> Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.
> 
> ...



kt
a lesson in being clear on what we are arguing about praps...

OK - I think I've misunderstood the term "perfect hand of bridge"
 And I think you are right that it is four hands, each of one suit ( but nothing to do with which has spades etc.  (As Plato said, unless we define our terms it is pointless to argue).

So, 
a) I'll post this excerpt from some research I've done 
b) I agree that the chances are 1 in 2.24E27 when "perfect hand" is defined in this manner

c) kt, do you think you could find his exact quote  maybe.  

PS This bloke is critical of Dawkins, but at this point in time is the best reference I can find to what Dawkins said...

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52


> What Dawkins does is to get us to imagine (no less!) a "spectrum" of probabilities. At one end we have events like rolling a double six with a pair of dice, where the probability is 1 in 36. At or well toward the other end is the probability of four players at bridge each receiving a complete suit of cards, which he calculates to be 2,236,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1.
> 
> Between the double six and the perfect deal at bridge is a range of more or less improbable events that do sometimes happen.



i.e. he uses the "perfect 4 suites hand" as extremely unlikely



> Now: "Go back to our mental picture of a graduated scale of improbable events with its benchmark coincidences of bridge hands and dice throws. On this graduated scale of dealions and microdealions, mark the following three new points.
> 
> Probability of life arising on a planet (in, say, a billion years), if we assume that life arises at a rate of about once per solar system.
> 
> ...




This critic concludes ( paraphrasing) "rough as guts calcs"
Maybe Dawkins wouldn't disagree. 
Anyway be interesting to see if you are right in what you quoted. 
(My search continues)


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

ahhh - lol
I find that others have had a similar conversation previously 



> http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199601-02/0312.html
> 
> >DM>I think that you may have made an error in assuming that Dawkins
> >was talking about the same "bridge" event on page 162 as he was on
> ...




PS I'm starting to wonder how important this is


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 February 2008)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Heh heh what a crack up i just you tubed it quality is a bit how ya goin but heres the link t have a look, love the last comment "how we suppose to use it again" LOL



ripper bb lol

kt
On the subject of errors
Here are some extracts from a russian cartoon - the bear and the hedgehog.
Is anyone gonna claim that the message is lost just because the cartoonist doesn't draw the bear consistently on the same side as the hedgehog.   I mean there are major errors and there are minor errors. yes?


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Galileo Galilei Proven Right 



> On one of the Moon missions, NASA astronauts decided to prove Galileo Galilei right.
> 
> He reasoned that if there was no atmosphere, no dragging force then two objects of different mass falling from the same height would hit the ground at the same time.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

PS I notice this is claimed to be fake - could be who knows.
THe important thing is that it is what would happen.

Incidentally, when Galileo carried cannon balls and shot to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and dropped them, he proved Aristotle wrong.  
However, few believed him regardless -  because the cannonball still hit the ground marginally faster due to air resistance effects.  

He complained..
"Aristotle would claim that the cannonball being ten times heavier would fall ten times faster - and that when it had hit the ground (eg 10 metres) the shot would be only one metre from the point of release.  

Now,  my theory has been shown to be 95% correct, and Aristotle's only 5% correct, but you still prefer to believe Aristotle.  "


----------



## spooly74 (27 February 2008)

Nice site here from NASA.

Astronomy picture of the day.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

Archive goes back to 1995!


----------



## spooly74 (18 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s time to grab Leela and K9 for another journey in the Tardis because come middle of next year (2008) we will be closer to understanding the Universe we live in.




Well Wys, if you happen to be pottering around the French Swiss border next month, here is a date to throw in your calender.

Open Day at the LHC - Sunday 6 April 2008 

Search for the Higgs particle and an explanation for inflation, possible extra dimensions.......exciting stuff.

http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/openday.html


----------



## Pat (18 March 2008)

The "Higgs" particle, Gluons and Quarks. The most elusive question today is- "who named these fundamental particles?"

Very interesting stuff, but so hard to understand.....


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 March 2008)

Yes thanks spooly for the reminder, the event will change perception yet again about the bulding blocks of the Universe (?multiverse?).The beginning of a new era in physics bringing changes in teachings at schools & universities.
Not a physics person myself just have the interest.An easy to understand explanation of particles is here on this toob shot.Is the Higgs element for real?We will know soon enough.

"The earliest efforts to manipulate nature"


----------



## Pat (19 March 2008)

Pat said:


> "who named these fundamental particles?"



Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?" 

Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2008)

Pat said:


> Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?"
> 
> Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work



:topic
a "quark" by any other name would still spend its time sitting around combobularising I guess .
Sounds like the last noise a duck would make as it was swallowed by a snake. 
Dow doing another up-quark as well. (wonder how long this blip will last - a bit longer than the last 400 point recovery ?  maybe ? - who knows 

PS great video wys.  New terms since I went to school.  Still one new quark does not describe a new summer.


----------



## derty (20 March 2008)

looks like those guys at NASA have solved our energy crisis. We just need to start retrofitting some super tankers with some booster rockets.



			
				from article said:
			
		

> Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.




http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2008)

Why for are there such things in existence.What "is" without observation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

gee whiz those Abs were good designers
age-old logic works again 

PS wouldn't you love to know what the diameter of the arc was 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/21/2196406.htm?section=justin



> Boomerang returns, even in space
> Posted 18 minutes ago
> 
> In an unprecedented experiment, a Japanese astronaut has thrown a boomerang in space and confirmed it flies back, much like on Earth.
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (21 March 2008)

This is a wind up 20, it has to be! 

Throw anything outwards in space and it aint coming back.
Interested in seeing the vid  

edit: found this pic of the funny looking things


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

spooly, lol - you're right of course - 
were it April 1 it would be an easy one to call  .

Even on the moon , you wouldn't think it would return lol
  Feather & Hammer Drop on Moon




			
				2020 said:
			
		

> wouldn't you love to know what the diameter of the arc was!



I mean, perhaps it's based on Einstein's theory that if you look in a telescope long enough you see the back of your head 

PS then again - it could be something to do with radiation / solar winds etc - after all , derty's post was pretty hard to believe as well  - on the other hand, why wouldn't it just drift "downwind" ?? - what could possibly cause it to return ?

PS thanks derty - interesting
Ahh - you posted it elsewhere - I was thinking of the solid state fan, no moving parts - brilliant as they say in the Guinness ad. :bier:  

PS Found it ..



			
				derty-on-the-did-you-know-thread said:
			
		

> A solid state fan has been invented!
> 
> It's got no moving parts and it blows air! It blows air and it's got NO moving parts!
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

Pat said:


> "why are fundamental particles called gluons and quarks?"



cripes - it's back to square 1 for me ... never heard of this stuff. 


> Definitions of *charm quark*:
> 
> noun:   a quark with an electric charge of +2/3 and a mass 2900 times that of an electron and a charm of +1


----------



## spooly74 (22 March 2008)

Pat said:


> Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?"
> 
> Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work




When scientists collided protons with other protons or electrons they found that they were made up of smaller particles - quarks, which form the fundamental building blocks of ....errr well ....protons and neutrons.

Quarks exist only in groups:
_mesons: bound quark-antiquark pair 
*hadrons*: quark triplets 
pentaquark: four quarks and an antiquark _

The electrically neutral "glue" (sometimes referred to as a "cloud") binding the quarks together are called gluons. All matter on earth, including our human bodies, consists to more than 99% of quarks with associated gluons. The little that remains is electrons.

They were named by physicist Murray Gell-Mann.



> In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork."
> Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark."
> Since "quark" (meaning, for one thing, the cry of a gull) was clearly intended to rhyme with "Mark," as well as "bark" and other such words, I had to find an excuse to pronounce it as "kwork."
> But the book represents the dreams of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Words in the text are typically drawn from several sources at once, like the "portmanteau words" in Through the Looking Glass.
> ...


----------



## Pat (24 March 2008)

Well Mr Murray Gell-Mann. Quarks and gluons just don't sound scientific enough.


----------



## Pat (24 March 2008)

Here is a great article from the Nat Geo website on the "God Particle"-
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text


----------



## spooly74 (28 March 2008)

LHC

Looks like it`s going to be July or August this year for start up with cautious tests before building up to full intensity.

...some amazing facts
The LHC will whiz protons to 99.9999 per cent of the speed of light in two parallel beams in a ring-shaped tunnel.

The LHC will generate nearly a billion collisions per second. Above ground, a farm of 3,000 computers, will rapidly crunch this number down to about 100 collisions that are of the most interest.

The tunnel is the world's largest fridge, with parts reaching a temperature as low as -271 ºC, which is colder than deep space. 

In the course of a 10-hour experiment, a beam might travel more than 10 billion kilometres, enough to get to Neptune and back.

LHC collisions will generate 14 teraelectronvolts (TeV), amounting to a high concentration of energy but only at an extraordinarily tiny scale. One TeV is the equivalent energy of motion of a flying mosquito.


----------



## Absolutely (28 March 2008)

spooly74 said:


> LHC
> 
> Looks like it`s going to be July or August this year for start up with cautious tests before building up to full intensity.
> 
> ...




And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??

Not a party to it myself but hey, would definitely make the news.


----------



## spooly74 (28 March 2008)

Absolutely said:


> And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??
> 
> Not a party to it myself but hey, would definitely make the news.




Any black hole created would be so weak it could not exert enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.

There is also assumptions that it will produce a (theoretical) phenomena called strangelets which could result in the Earth being turned into a lump of hot matter. 

The disaster scenario is as follows from Wiki :


> One strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, producing a larger, more stable strangelet, which in turn hits another nucleus, catalyzing its conversion to strange matter. In the end, all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth are converted, and Earth is reduced to a hot, large lump of strange matter.




CERN point out that the Earth is hit by rays of multiple higher energy intensity, but we`re still here.


----------



## Pat (30 March 2008)

Absolutely said:


> And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??



There is simply not enough "concentrated" matter used. If we smashed Earth aginst Mars we might have a chance .



spooly74 said:


> Any *black hole* created would be so weak it could not exert enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.



Should read "gravatational force".


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 March 2008)

From the LHC site ...



> If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay.
> 
> **no microscopic black holes produced inside the LHC could generate a strong enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.*


----------



## Pat (31 March 2008)

Pat said:


> Should read "gravatational force".



Well I retract my comment, I did not know such a thing existed... With out pulling in surrounding matter/light does this mean the hole is not black?
Also, will the tiny hole emit "Hawkings" radiation? This experiment could tell us more than what I have read so far.
Enlightened


----------



## spooly74 (31 March 2008)

Pat said:


> Well I retract my comment, I did not know such a thing existed... With out pulling in surrounding matter/light does this mean the hole is not black?
> Also, will the tiny hole emit "Hawkings" radiation? This experiment could tell us more than what I have read so far.
> Enlightened




No, a black hole has to be black but it`s gravitational force will ultimately depend on it`s size, just like a sun or planet etc..
The only difference between a black hole and say our Sun is that a black hole has an event horizon beyond which, nothing can escape. 
If the mass of our Sun suddenly turned into a black hole it would have no effect on Earths orbit or any other planets orbit either.
Because the energies are so small at the LHC- _equivalent energy of motion of 14 flying mosquitos_ - I think there is little chance of even creating a black hole, but the quantum level is really weird


----------



## Pat (1 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> No, a black hole has to be black but it`s gravitational force will ultimately depend on it`s size, just like a sun or planet etc..
> The only difference between a black hole and say our Sun is that a black hole has an event horizon beyond which, nothing can escape.
> If the mass of our Sun suddenly turned into a black hole it would have no effect on Earths orbit or any other planets orbit either.
> Because the energies are so small at the LHC- _equivalent energy of motion of 14 flying mosquitos_ - I think there is little chance of even creating a black hole, but the quantum level is really weird



Tis an interesting theory.
I understand your Sun vs Earth black hole thingy, is it right to think that if this occurred, the suns mass would stay the same, but its size would shrink. So you have the same mass in a tiny space? Same mass means same gravatational pull....
So, if the above is correct, Sub atomic particles are smashed into an even tinier existence, creating a singularity where the information is unescapable? However the gravity generated will be no more than the gravity the particles already have.... Which seems to be negligable.

But, how do these particles marry up to create matter, it doesn't seem to be gravity that joins these dots. Is this where the "Higg's" particle comes in?

Just trying to make sense of this quantum mumbo jumbo.


----------



## spooly74 (2 April 2008)

Pat said:


> Tis an interesting theory.
> I understand your Sun vs Earth black hole thingy, is it right to think that if this occurred, the suns mass would stay the same, but its size would shrink. So you have the same mass in a tiny space? Same mass means same gravatational pull....



Thats right, if that senario occured the black hole would only be a few km across.


Pat said:


> So, if the above is correct, Sub atomic particles are smashed into an even tinier existence, creating a singularity where the information is unescapable? However the gravity generated will be no more than the gravity the particles already have.... Which seems to be negligable.
> But, how do these particles marry up to create matter, it doesn't seem to be gravity that joins these dots. Is this where the "Higg's" particle comes in?
> 
> Just trying to make sense of this quantum mumbo jumbo.




Forget about gravity when you get to this scale, it is hardly taken into account. 
There are four fundamental forces , gravity being the one we know everyday which dominates our world, but at sub atomic sizes, other forces are in charge ....Electromagnetism, The strong force and The weak force and through a combination of these forces ....quarkes hold together, atoms bind to form molecules etc ... 
The higgs field is whats _thought_ to give these fundamental particles their mass.
A photon (smallest particle of light) has zero mass therefore it does not interact with the higgs field and travels at the speed of light through it......but an electron has a mass because it interacts with the higgs field.... all theory though!


----------



## Pat (2 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Forget about gravity when you get to this scale, it is hardly taken into account.



Thanks spooly. 
Is it gravity making the micro black hole "black"?


----------



## spooly74 (2 April 2008)

Pat said:


> Thanks spooly.
> Is it gravity making the micro black hole "black"?




I`m not sure these micro black holes can even exist at the lhc (I`ll see if I can find out some more on it) but there is no upper or lower limit, any amount of mass at all can in principle be made to form a black hole if you compress it to a high enough density.
So I guess even at microscopic sizes concerning black holes, gravity would still cause it to be black.


----------



## Pat (2 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> I`m not sure these micro black holes can even exist at the lhc (I`ll see if I can find out some more on it) but there is no upper or lower limit, any amount of mass at all can in principle be made to form a black hole if you compress it to a high enough density.
> So I guess even at microscopic sizes concerning black holes, gravity would still cause it to be black.



Sounds like these holes are smaller than the sub atomic particles themselves. Can we get any smaller?

Thanks for you knowledge, you've helped me understand a little more.... now for the physics degree.


----------



## spooly74 (2 April 2008)

Pat said:


> Sounds like these holes are smaller than the sub atomic particles themselves. Can we get any smaller?
> 
> Thanks for you knowledge, you've helped me understand a little more.... now for the physics degree.




I think the smallest a black hole can theoritically get is a Plank length.


> wiki:   The Planck length, is the unit of length approximately 1.6 Ã— 10^−35 metres, 6.3 Ã— 10^−34 inches, or about 10^−20 times the diameter of a proton.




Again I think  it shrinks until it reaches a radius on par with the planck length, at which point, it just 'explodes' into a lot of energy via photons and leptons because becomes too light to be a black hole.

More questions than answers I`m afraid.


----------



## Pat (2 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> I think the smallest a black hole can theoritically get is a Plank length.
> 
> 
> Again I think  it shrinks until it reaches a radius on par with the planck length, at which point, it just 'explodes' into a lot of energy via photons and leptons because becomes too light to be a black hole.
> ...



WOW! Your full of quantum info, and the plank length is unimaginably small. I think that number is -0.00000000000000000001 the size of a proton.... or is it x10 to the -20 if you know what I mean?
Something that small won't explode, it just goes "POP!"


----------



## spooly74 (4 April 2008)

Australian SKA project - AuSKA



> Over fifty times more powerful than the world’s largest existing telescope, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) will be one of the largest and most ambitious international science projects ever devised.  It will help to answer fundamental questions about the evolution of the universe.




Rudd has been lobbying senior officials to back the nation’s candidacy. Meeting with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington, he put forward Australia’s case, and is likely to repeat this in New York, Brussels, Bucharest, London and Beijing. 



> “This is potentially a $2.6 billion investment funded by all countries in the world, in a huge piece of technology which would turbocharge the science in Australia,” Mr Rudd said.
> 
> ..............
> 
> Elite astronomers, investors and agencies from governments all over the world are gathering in Perth next week to discuss the SKA project, which has been backed by more than $100 million of Federal funds.




http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=65521


----------



## Pat (16 April 2008)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23547979-2,00.html
Makes you think who's watching and from where.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

anyone catch this during the week ..?
http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowS...ws_headline=pre-historic_earths_four_hour_day
before we had a moon, the earth rotated the other way , and a day was 4 hours
and the axis was probably 90 degrees different etc  

like it was seriously f***ed up in those days. 
then we were hit by a "rock" the size of Mars..   
and ever since the clocks have been a lot more accurate. 
...
and the rest is history  (as they say)



> Pre-Historic Earth's Four Hour Day
> Thursday, 17th April 2008, 00:45
> 
> A *day on Earth lasted only four hours *before the cataclysmic collision that formed our moon.
> ...




Actually lol, when I heard it on the radio the "reporter" said  that the direction of rotation was the other way, and the axis was "somewhere between 90 and 180 degrees different."  (?!?)

So I'm thinking to myself
.... if it's 180 degrees different and the spin is anticlockwise instead of clockwise, (for someone looking in the direction of the axis vector) then I'd say that's a pretty similar direction to what it is now


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Australian SKA project - AuSKA
> 
> Rudd has been lobbying senior officials to back the nation’s candidacy. Meeting with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington, he put forward Australia’s case, and is likely to repeat this in New York, Brussels, Bucharest, London and Beijing.
> 
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=65521



spooly , 
I understand we are making some prototypes for sure. 
I was lucky enough to meet some of the visiting scientists in Perth the other day.
Apparently much greater sensitivity than current radio telescopes. 

PS I told the sister in law "Would sure put Geralton on the map" - 
 she said "where's Geralton? "  



> Mr Rudd said WA’s bid — centred on Boolardy Station, 300km northeast of Geraldton — was being taken so seriously that the Government had asked New Zealand to consider building linked radio dishes to improve data collection. “The way in which this technology works is the wider the geographical span the better the capture,” the PM said.
> 
> Dr Thomas, one of 19 high-profile expatriates to be invited for a working dinner with the PM at the Australian Ambassador’s residence, said the SKA project would be a massive boon for Australia and WA.
> 
> “If that were to come to Australia, the face of Australia 20 years from now would be permanently and irrevocably changed for the better,” he said. “Australia is a prime contender for it, for a number of reasons: it’s got the economic wherewithal to do it, it’s got the intellectual capital to do it, it’s got the infrastructure you need to run that large kind of project. More than anything, it’s got a high degree of political stability that you need for running a long-term project like that.”


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> then we were hit by a "rock" the size of Mars..



reminds me of that joke when we had the lunar eclipse ... (red moon etc)
Paddy says goodnight to his mates at the pub, staggers out the door - looks up, sees the moon - 
 comes racing back in .. "hey fellas, oonder the bar quick!! - Mars is aboot to hit us !!"


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Pat said:


> Makes you think who's watching and from where.



pat, 
hell that's an incredible photo / computer generated image whatever. 



> The images show trackable objects in orbit around Earth, with at least 12,000 objects doing their rounds.




Also in that article, this one about billions of tons of helium blowing the tails off comets ..
(hey I always thought you couldn't weigh helium because it kept floating up off the scales) 



> Meanwhile two of NASA's satellites have captured amazing images of the Sun "belching" out debris and ripping the tail of a comet, the BBC reports.
> 
> In a process known as Coronal Mass Ejections - or less informally as solar burps - billions of tons of hydrogen and helium can be hurled into space.
> 
> ...




PS even with 12000 objects in the process of burning up and/or possibly making it to earth and landing on your roof etc ...
chances are "pretty slim" of being hit. 
Anyone remember back a few years when Dick Smith said that if anyone was hit by a piece of the decommissioned Skylab whilst shopping at one of his shops, he'd give em a million bucks ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 May 2008)

Tonight on SBS at 8.30 is a documentary on the 6 billion dollar Large Hadron Collider which can simulate the events after the beginning of creation (big bang theory).
You may ask yourself how the particles came to be but that`s another question. 
Maybe there was always something and that is what we have to accept.
But since we live in a world with life cycles we only know life creates life therefore making it unimaginable for any life to be created without life.

Hmmm, maybe there isn`t life but an intricate combination of particles and hence, via agreement,  we called it life.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 May 2008)

Wys, 
I watched "The Hawking Paradox" the other night - lol - what an incredibly difficult concept all this black hole stuff is ....  

matter and "information" would be lost in black holes. (?)
light can't escape from a black hole but heat can. (?)  

he ends up with a theory of parallel universes, some with black holes, some without - At that point I said something to the effect of ...

"well, in my particular parallel universe, (i.e. my bed) - this ain't gonna affect me one iota - I'm off !!" 

PS but there are allegedly millions of em out there


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> I certainly agree that the sky is not falling...



Well maybe it is .

Another good read from Nat Geo mag.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/earth-scars/stone-text

What's most interesting-



> In the Australian outback Mavis Malbunka tells her grandchildren an ancient Aboriginal tale that explains the creation of Tnorala (also called Gosses Bluff, in background). Eight women once danced across the night sky, the story goes, but one grew weary of carrying her infant. She set down the baby in its wooden carrier, which rolled off its perch and plummeted to Earth. Scientists say that an asteroid or comet impact formed this outcrop””a remnant of a larger crater, now eroded””some 140 million years ago. Science and legend share one central insight: Something sudden and violent happened here long ago””and it changed the face of the planet.




Amazing


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 July 2008)

So Pat it seems that Apophis is pulled closer to Earth on each pass.On a time scale these large collisions with Earth are rare though will happen again at some time.I suppose we have to place some faith in the telescopes exploring the skies for warnings of impending large collisions.Long time.No sweat.


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> So Pat it seems that Apophis is pulled closer to Earth on each pass.On a time scale these large collisions with Earth are rare though will happen again at some time.I suppose we have to place some faith in the telescopes exploring the skies for warnings of impending large collisions.Long time.No sweat.



I'm not sure if I'd like to know. I think we got no chance of stopping and asteriod. Imagine the panic  Time for some Mad Max


----------



## spooly74 (19 July 2008)

Pat said:


> I'm not sure if I'd like to know. I think we got no chance of stopping and asteriod. Imagine the panic  Time for some Mad Max




Dunno Pat, given enough time, say 1-2 years from impact would be plenty to nudge it off course.
The idea would not be to stop it with a bomb, but gently nudge it off  it`s trajectory....some bizzarre ideas! 

If anything was to keep me awake at night it would be a comet, they only start to show themselves inside the orbit of Jupiter .... we`d be stuffed, not enough time.

A couple of days ago, a binary asteroid system came close ... if you consider1.4 million miles to be close 



> A rare event has given astronomers a great view of a binary asteroid system. Tonight, asteroid 2008 BT18 passed 1.4 million miles from Earth, shining like a 13th magnitude star. Before July 7th, astronomers believed 2008 BT18 was "just another" near-Earth asteroid, but then the Arecibo radio telescope obtained a "delay-Doppler" image of the asteroid and found it in fact had a binary partner.




http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/14/binary-asteroid-glides-past-earth/


----------



## Pat (21 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Dunno Pat, given enough time, say 1-2 years from impact would be plenty to nudge it off course.
> The idea would not be to stop it with a bomb, but gently nudge it off  it`s trajectory....some bizzarre ideas!
> 
> If anything was to keep me awake at night it would be a comet, they only start to show themselves inside the orbit of Jupiter .... we`d be stuffed, not enough time.
> ...



There are some pretty sci-fi ideas about taking on an asteroid. I guess it will be just like the movies Armageddon or Deep Impact.


----------



## CoffeeKing (26 July 2008)

And where you gonn'a be when this happens?


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2008)

I sent an e-mail to NASA over a year ago asking if there is going to be or is a galactic alignment and did not get a reply.This confirmed to me the Mayan calender `connection` is a hoax/hype perfect for internet circulation.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2008)

What could be closer to truth is a magnetic pole shift.Apparently the Earths north and south poles move or reverse and north becomes south.When is an unknown but it takes a while as the excerpt below shows.The process might be in play now. 

This article from National Geographic says the Earths magnetic field is 10% weaker than it was in 1845.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html



> Polar Reversal
> 
> Change in polarity of Earth's magnetic field. Like all magnets, Earth's magnetic field has two opposing regions, or poles, positioned approximately near geographical North and South Poles. During a period of normal polarity the region of attraction corresponds with the North Pole. Today, a compass needle, like other magnetic materials, aligns itself parallel to the magnetizing force and points to the North Pole. During a period of reversed polarity, the region of attraction would change to the South Pole and the needle of a compass would point south.
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (27 July 2008)

CoffeeKing said:


> And where you gonn'a be when this happens?




And where were you when this happened?



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The Harmonic Convergence was a loosely organized new age spiritual event that occurred on *August 16 and August 17, 1987*, when groups of people gathered in various sacred sites and "mystical" places all over the world to usher in a new era. The date was based primarily on the Maya calendar, but was also affected by interpretations of European and Asian astrology. It also marked a time in astronomy when a number of planets in our solar system came into alignment with one another.
> 
> The Harmonic Convergence was supposed to be a global awakening to love and unity through divine transformation. It was initiated in 1987 by Jose Arguelles. According to his interpretation of Maya cosmology (an interpretation held as completely unfounded by Mayanist scholarship), this date was the end of twenty-two cycles of 52 years each, or 1144 years in all. The twenty-two cycles were divided into thirteen "heaven" cycles, which began in AD 843 and ended in 1519, when the nine "hell" cycles began, ending 468 years later in AD 1987.


----------



## CoffeeKing (28 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> And where were you when this happened?




Sunday session at the "Mermaid Hotel" Dampier, my mystical place in those days!
:alcohol:        :alcohol:         :alcohol:          :alcohol:


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Incidentally, you read that when two twins are born, and one goes on a trip at speed of light , and returns , then ( the myth goes) when he lands, he is young and his brother old.




A couple of good websites ... 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html


> The Twin Paradox: The Time Gap Objection
> Try this on for size.
> 
> Make the turnaround instantaneous.  Relativity puts an upper on speed, but no upper limit on acceleration.  An instantaneous Turnaround Event is the limiting case of shorter and shorter turnarounds, and so the theory should handle it.
> ...




*So much easier (I think lol)  if you just think of red shifts and blue shifts (Doppler effect)  as per this site:- *

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html#gap


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

...  (post amended - apologies - to stick with one concept - jpegs from previous post still apply)...

*So much easier (I think lol)  if you just think of red shifts and blue shifts (Doppler effect)  as per this site:- *

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_doppler.html



> The Twin Paradox: The Doppler Shift Analysis
> .....
> Let us focus on what Stella and Terence actually see with their own eyes.  To make things interesting, we'll equip them with unbelievably powerful telescopes, so each twin can watch the other's clock throughout the trip.  If each twin saw the other clock run slow throughout the trip, then we would have a contradiction.  But this is not what they see.
> 
> ...




http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html#gap

(PS I didn't say it was easy lol - but at least - after reading it 10 times with a slab or two of beer - you end up with the right answer - that they end up at the same place doing the same speed and at the same age )


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 August 2008)

So it`s a visual thing then.Time is relative to light!What of actuallity?Just looking around I get an instant (speed of light) response from the visual cortex in my brain.Terrifically designed by nature in it`s quest for eternal survival.



> Light is converted into electrical impulses and sent down the optic fiber, it goes all the way to the back of the brain (after making a few stopovers), where the visual cortex is located. In the visual cortex, a hierarchy of detector cells isolates useful regularities in the visual data, discarding superfluous information. One layer of cells detects things like lines and curves.
> 
> A higher-up layer would detect regularities like motion and 3D shapes. The highest layer is where gestalts - overall symbols - appear, responsible for the conscious experience of sight under normal circumstances. The visual cortex is among the best understood of all brain areas, with a voluminous neuroscience literature.




For the time being, what you see is what you get.The rest is imagination. 

Here is an optical illusion that works on our 2d/3d interpretation. Left click on the monster and drag him over his little brother.



> This is a particularly nice example of the classical “Ponzo Illusion”, where the context suggests different depths in the drawing – here by the subterranean catacomb. Assuming size constancy, our visual system estimates the size of any object as follows: retinal size multiplied by the assumed distance. Thus, the two monsters, though identical, look quite different in their differing contexts.




http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/sze_shepardTerrors/index.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

well wys, I'm guessing if every planet our there in every galaxy was in phase with the evolution of animals and the other events of history that we've had here on earth, 

- and if you had a powerful enough telescope 

then in a look at the night sky,  you would see everything from WWII back through WWI - back to dinosaurs ...  

and (I'm guessing) because the older they appear also implies 
a) further away, and
b) moving faster away from us than the close ones, 

they the dinosaurs would appear a bit redder that normal 

(speaking of seeing pink (early) elephants)


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ...
> (PS I didn't say it was easy lol - but at least - after reading it 10 times with a slab or two of beer - you end up with the right answer - that they end up at the same place doing the same speed and at the same age )




Is this the paradox where one twin travels close or at the speed of light, while the other stays put for a few years??

http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm
http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twin2.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Is this the paradox where one twin travels close or at the speed of light, while the other stays put for a few years??
> 
> http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm



spooly - yep
, I notice your link also concludes "no paradox"


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> spooly - yep
> , I notice your link also concludes "no paradox"




Indeed!! It`s even been measured with atomic clocks on Jumbo Jets.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well wys, I'm guessing if every planet our there in every galaxy was in phase with the evolution of animals and the other events of history that we've had here on earth,
> 
> - and if you had a powerful enough telescope
> 
> then in a look at the night sky,  you would see everything from WWII back through WWI - back to dinosaurs ...




Yes that is possible.

So 2020 if one could travel as fast as light then it would be possible to see a still image of anything.Simply speeding up or slowing down either side of light speed would create movement for the observer.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes that is possible.
> 
> So 2020 if one could travel as fast as light then it would be possible to see a still image of anything.Simply speeding up or slowing down either side of light speed would create movement for the observer.



sorta
I'm guessing (as you approached 'C') you'd only see "heat/infrared" and/or "Radio" as you looked back, 

and "Xrays" and/or "gamma rays"  as you looked forward. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

(PS I'm guessing at twice the speed of light - were it possible  - then yes , things would be going backwards - quick guess )


----------



## spooly74 (25 August 2008)

Start date set for the LHC - Sept 10.

Impressive build .. Hope they find what they're looking for, it should be everywhere


----------



## Pat (26 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> sorta
> I'm guessing (as you approached 'C') you'd only see "heat/infrared" and/or "Radio" as you looked back,
> 
> and "Xrays" and/or "gamma rays"  as you looked forward.
> ...



2020, I'm confused... Isn't the speed of light constant? Hence the "C".
So images remain as they are to an extent (I remember reading something about a ruler getting longer), and its time that compensates for this... time dialation?


----------



## Pat (26 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Start date set for the LHC - Sept 10.
> 
> Impressive build .. Hope they find what they're looking for, it should be everywhere



I'm excited about this spooly, hope it holds the answers to a few mysteries... like was there really a big bang? And if so, will there be a big crunch (this makes sense to me).

As far as I know, many things we have today, for eg, power sucking plasma TV's are thanks to experiments like these....

God's speed crazy hair science guys


----------



## spooly74 (26 August 2008)

Pat said:


> 2020, I'm confused... Isn't the speed of light constant? Hence the "C".
> So images remain as they are to an extent (I remember reading something about a ruler getting longer), and its time that compensates for this... time dialation?




I think 20 is talking from the relative viewpoint of an observer as they approach the speed of light, for example in a spaceship.
Yep, the speed of light c is constant ...but only in a vacuum.


----------



## derty (26 August 2008)

i think what 2020 is referring to is the red shift of EM radiation coming from behind and the blue shift of radiation coming from ahead when travelling at speeds approaching that of light.

The speed of light is constant when measured in the same medium and the quoted speed is usually that in a vacuum. However, the speed of light does vary for different mediums and even within some mediums when they are anisotropic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2008)

Wys -

Maybe an example to show you how I'm thinking. 

A space shuttle leaves the moon at '0.999 c'
and goes past your left ear into a very deep cave full of sponge rubber mattresses 

It takes a bit over 1 second to get here.  
During that time there will be a number of light waves generated. (varies with colour etc) 
Let's say that, averaged over visible light range, there are "n" waves of light generated in the 1 second trip.  

They will travel at 0.999 speed of light (compared to you).
They will all arrive at your eye at more or less the same time.  

IF this "light" (EM radiation) was still visible (which I can't see how it could be), then there would suddenly be a streak between the moon and yourself (compare warp X whatever)

However because all those "n" waves arrive over a time interval of a fraction of a second, they are effectively at a much higher frequency, i.e. much bluer than normal.   

Call this the "ultimate blue shift". - So blue that they move out of visible light range into the Xray / gamma ray stuff.

Likewise moving away, the red shift would eventually become infrared etc (and remember red shift is observed with light from virtually all stars out there - because they are all travelling away from us).  

PS DYOR lol


PS "Red shift" seems to be how they calculate the distance to half these stars.
PS jpeg in #124 is relevant


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2008)

PS for simplicity I've assumed there is damn all infrared etc emitted by the approaching shuttle to move up into visible range etc .

and/or the speed was really "0.9999999999 c" etc

In the limit, as speed approaches c, all the waves of all frequencies arrive at the same time. (yes?)  maybe - call these super gamma rays. 



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> They (the light emitted) will travel at 0.999 speed of light (compared to you).
> They will all arrive at your eye at more or less the same time.



cripes - did that in a hurry .  
I meant they would travel at c.  - 
bottom line is right though, i.e. they'd all arrive at more or less the same time


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Start date set for the LHC - Sept 10.
> 
> Impressive build .. Hope they find what they're looking for, it should be everywhere



great photos there spooly. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/26/2347297.htm?section=justin



> Tests show particle smasher ready for big bang experiment
> Posted 2 hours 11 minutes ago
> 
> Tests have cleared the way for the start-up of an experiment to restage a mini-version underground of the 'big bang' which created the universe 15 billion years ago, the project chief said.
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> (and remember red shift is observed with light from virtually all stars out there - because they are all travelling away from us).
> 
> PS DYOR lol




You`re a wag 2020, , so i research --- what are the celestial bodies expanding into? and there is no answer.Nothingness maybe.Empty dark cold nothing.How far does nothing go?Locked in orbit (mass - gravity etc.)yet moving away as a group!Hmmmm.One giant explosion and out popped a live planet?Hmmmm.

The multi-billion euro LHC "experiment" is nearing it`s moment of truth.A few of us here will be interested in the findings and i hope they explain things in laymans terms.Higgs bosun.



> In total, over 1600 superconducting magnets are installed, *with most **weighing over 27 tonnes*.


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

I got this today via email, is it true??? (I don't think so )



> Dear all,
> Two moons on 27 August
> 27th Aug the Whole World is waiting for Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky starting August.
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (27 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I got this today via email, is it true??? (I don't think so )



Yep it`s true .... if you`re looking through a large telescope with your naked eye :


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Yep it`s true .... if you`re looking through a large telescope with your naked eye :



LOL!!!
I think I remember mars was at it closest a little while ago, and the "orange" dot was a tiny bit brighter...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I got this today via email, is it true??? (I don't think so )






> Be Sure to watch the sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am . It will look like the earth has 2 moons.
> 
> The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287.



hey wys - your caution was justified.  NASA have this to say  

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/07jul_marshoax.htm


> Beware the Mars Hoax
> Earth and Mars are converging for a close encounter--but not as close as some people think.




Reminds me of Paddy coming out of the pub when the last big lunar eclipse occured (the red one - before the one on the morning of 17Aug btw)

looks up sees the giant ball of red in the sky - runs back inside "quik fellas, under the bar !!! - Mars is about to hit us !!"


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> hey wys - your caution was justified.  NASA have this to say
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/07jul_marshoax.htm
> 
> ...



I guess its just office email fun...


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

Just something I thought of...

Why does red shift occur???

While the waves/particles are travelling toward the gravitational pull, should they not be "stretched" the opposite way compared to the waves/particles travelling away from the g' force?
Meaning on the way in there stretched, and then on the way out there squished. 

I'm sure there would be some sort of discrepancy caused by "angle of attack" etc. But in my mind any 'shift' should be minimal, if this holds true. (Obviously it doesn't, I'm sure Einstein would of thought of that)

Just trying to understand...


----------



## dj_420 (27 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> As I say in the poetry thread .. he makes / made a couple of points
> *a) the fact that an asteroid caused the death of the dinosaurs is the only reason man is here!!!
> b) we are a fluke result of that incident !!
> c) we should nonetheless marvel at the fact that we are alive; and
> d) how could anyone be bored with this adventure called "life" *




A lot of debate now on whether it actually was an meteorite impact that did wipe out the dinosaurs, this point was 65 million years ago and marks the boundary of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The impact crater that has been identified is called Chicxulub in the region of Mexico.

The evidence that has recently been uncovered actually infers that the impact previously credited for this mass extinction event actually predates the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary by around 300 000 years. So what did wipe out the dinosaurs and 50% of biological life on earth?

The evidence paints a picture in which at the late stage of the Cretaceous there was a meteorite shower causing several impacts, Chicxulub been one of them. It has also been identified that at this stage Earth was undergoing incredible amount of volcanism called the Deccan Trap. This incredible increase in volcanic activity is credited to increasing the Earth greenhouse gas and causing global warming. The meteorite impacts may have been a straw that broke the camels back but the impact themselves was not a biological catastrophe.

Evidence found in drill core called Yaxcopoil-1 in the Chicxulub region where late Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages have been found _above_ the Chicxulub impact crater and below the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, which indicates that this impact alone did not cause the extinction of biological life.

Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.


----------



## dj_420 (27 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> My turn
> So we know how organic things create organic things, and we know that (not how exactly,explosions or something?) inorganic things create inorganic things.Yes.
> *What we don`t know is how inorganic things created this planet*.For Pete`s sake don`t say God,Jim,Frederick or Samantha did it.




This has probably already been mentioned on this thread but Ill throw it in the mix. 

There have been the experiments to show that inorganic reactions can lead to the creation of organic matter. The Urey Miller experiment used chemical conditions to recreate the early Archeaen Earth atmosphere, the experiment used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the mixture was heated and sparks introduced to simulate lightning. After a week of this experimentation the mixture was found to have created amino acids which are used as building blocks for proteins in living cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> A lot of debate now on whether it actually was an meteorite impact that did wipe out the dinosaurs, this point was 65 million years ago and marks the boundary of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The impact crater that has been identified is called Chicxulub in the region of Mexico.
> 
> The evidence that has recently been uncovered actually infers that the impact previously credited for this mass extinction event actually predates the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary by around 300 000 years. So what did wipe out the dinosaurs and 50% of biological life on earth?
> 
> ...



Yeah I’ve read it was a combination of things, volcanic activity etc... Maybe that was caused by the meteor hit? 'They' say a large hit like should send shock waves around the world, combining in a mass on the other side of the world (there’s a word for it I’m not good with words). Some think the Siberian volcanic quagmire is a result of such a hit. They've also found what looks to be a crater on the other side of the world (from Siberia) of Australia’s coast. No proof just pure spec.

Fascinating


----------



## Pat (27 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> This has probably already been mentioned on this thread but Ill throw it in the mix.
> 
> There have been the experiments to show that inorganic reactions can lead to the creation of organic matter. The Urey Miller experiment used chemical conditions to recreate the early Archeaen Earth atmosphere, the experiment used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the mixture was heated and sparks introduced to simulate lightning. After a week of this experimentation the mixture was found to have created amino acids which are used as building blocks for proteins in living cells.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment



I think he means how planets etc form?
Don’t know who, but some fella was playing around in space, he places some salt in a bag of water/fluid and shook it up to see what happened. To his amazement (and ours) the salt particles clung together, much like rocks/debris in space, this was filmed of course, when he showed his video to scientist back on Earth, stars lit up in their eyes. They say this is how planets, suns, moons formed. Particles seem to be attracted to each other in zero gravity.

However, I ask, why aren’t Saturn’s rings a moon?


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.




Hi dj 420,You either have vast knowledge of Chicxulub and Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages or it was quoted.If it is the former then  post away mate as your accumulated knowledge and thoughts on the  subject will be interesting.


----------



## dj_420 (27 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi dj 420,You either have vast knowledge of Chicxulub and Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages or it was quoted.If it is the former then  post away mate as your accumulated knowledge and thoughts on the  subject will be interesting.




Haha, I have just started a Paleontology subject this Semester at Uni, so I am learning a lot about foraminifera and their place in study of fossils.

But yes I have learnt a lot about Chicxulub over the past few weeks.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I think he means how planets etc form?




Hi  Pat, life on this planet began at some point in what we call time.that experiment is from the 1950`s and I can`t find any follow up.Maybe it was laughed off in that era or maybe the LHC is the more conclusive experiment to reveal more Truth about first life.


----------



## dj_420 (27 August 2008)

Pat said:


> However, I ask, why aren’t Saturn’s rings a moon?




I assume from organic Wysywig meant lifeforms, the formation of planets is actually a lot easier to study than the origin of life. There is a lot more knowledgable science on formation of planets than the origin of life. As for the rings on Saturn I have not studied much on that yet BUT on an assumption I would guess at:

1) Either they are particles or debris leftover from the original formation of the planet that never formed into a moon and remained in orbit around the planet, or

2) Debris from an meteorite hitting Saturn and sending debris into the orbit

The fact that they have remained as these rings surrounding the planet may be a result of the gravitational pull. I am not too sure, I will have a read of it tonight.


----------



## dj_420 (27 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I think he means how planets etc form?
> Don’t know who, but some fella was playing around in space, he places some salt in a bag of water/fluid and shook it up to see what happened. To his amazement (and ours) the salt particles clung together, much like rocks/debris in space, this was filmed of course, when he showed his video to scientist back on Earth, stars lit up in their eyes. They say this is how planets, suns, moons formed. Particles seem to be attracted to each other in zero gravity.




I dont know how that actually works, the effects from space I am not to sure. Back here on Earth when salt is placed in water the ionic bonding is broken down and it forms Na+ and Cl- in solution both of which are toxic in their pure elemental form but are fine as ions.

I do not know why the effect of space would have that effect on salt, as if that were the case the salt would attract together and sink to the bottom of the ocean due to gravity. Might not have been water he put the salt into.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> A lot of debate now on whether it actually was an meteorite impact that did wipe out the dinosaurs, this point was 65 million years ago and marks the boundary of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The impact crater that has been identified is called Chicxulub in the region of Mexico.
> 
> The evidence that has recently been uncovered actually infers that the impact previously credited for this mass extinction event actually predates the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary by around 300 000 years. So what did wipe out the dinosaurs and 50% of biological life on earth?.........
> 
> Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.



great stuff dj
give you a stack of 20 cents for that one lol.

I'm guessing you'll agree that 300K years is fairly trivial wrt 65,000K  (i.e. < 0.5%), but fascinating that fossils point to (some) dinosaurs surviving the asteroid itself. 

Amazing yes? the accuracy of these 'calls' - assuming they are accurate.  The ability of man to deduce what happened where - and roughly when . 

Still, the bottom line there - the point Phillip Adams was making I believe (and I may have misquoted him slightly - it was just a quick interview after all) - was that only the coincidence of the combination of asteroid-plus-volcanics-etc  meant that man had the opportunity to evolve.  Probably it's still true that without that asteroid, we'd never have been able to displace them for instance


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2008)

Pat, you were talking about redshift... I just think of it as the doppler effect as observed by the eyes instead of the ears (doppler effect being the change in pitch as a formula 1 racecar goes past) 

Doppler effect also used in speed radar guns apparently..

...  good wiki on it ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



> Any increase in wavelength is called "redshift", even if it occurs in electromagnetic radiation of non-optical wavelengths, such as gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet. This nomenclature might be confusing since, at wavelengths longer than red (e.g., infrared, microwaves, and radio waves), redshifts shift the radiation away from the red wavelengths.
> 
> An observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the perceived frequency of sound waves. Although observing such redshifts, or complementary blue shifts, has several terrestrial applications (e.g., Doppler radar and radar guns),[1] spectroscopic astrophysics uses Doppler redshifts to determine the movement of distant astronomical objects.[2] This phenomenon was first predicted and observed in the 19th century as scientists began to consider the dynamical implications of the dual wave-particle nature of light.
> 
> Another cause of redshift is the expansion of the universe, which explains the observation that the redshifts of distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds increase in proportion to their distance from the earth. *This mechanism is a key feature of the Big Bang model of physical cosmology*.




I also posted something on it in #117 , cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 August 2008)

....


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi  Pat, life on this planet began at some point in what we call time.that experiment is from the 1950`s and I can`t find any follow up.Maybe it was laughed off in that era or maybe the LHC is the more conclusive experiment to reveal more Truth about first life.



Do you mean DJ's experiment he posted? I call that the spark in the bottle test. I think we need squillions of years to follow that through if you know what I mean, any explanation we provide for anything is a hypothesis IMO.

What I posted was discovered in the 80's, I think on the space shuttle. I'll post my findings when I'm not at work. 



dj_420 said:


> I assume from organic Wysywig meant lifeforms, the formation of planets is actually a lot easier to study than the origin of life. There is a lot more knowledgable science on formation of planets than the origin of life. As for the rings on Saturn I have not studied much on that yet BUT on an assumption I would guess at:
> 
> 1) Either they are particles or debris leftover from the original formation of the planet that never formed into a moon and remained in orbit around the planet, or
> 
> ...



I thought Wys was asking how it all formed without life....







> What we don’t know is how *inorganic* things created this planet



The question is how/why this 'matter' amalgamates to become a planet/sun/moon (god can't be the reason as per Wys  ). Why don't clouds of gas disperse into the void? Why do they stay clouds, clouds aren’t dense enough to create gravity are they?
Perhaps the 'god particle' will explain this as Wys posted above.
I'm sure you'll learn of this in your studies. I haven’t studied this, just come across it in my readings.
It all boils down to the sub atomic particles. They make the rules of the universe. Or seem too.



dj_420 said:


> I dont know how that actually works, the effects from space I am not to sure. Back here on Earth when salt is placed in water the ionic bonding is broken down and it forms Na+ and Cl- in solution both of which are toxic in their pure elemental form but are fine as ions.
> 
> I do not know why the effect of space would have that effect on salt, as if that were the case the salt would attract together and sink to the bottom of the ocean due to gravity. Might not have been water he put the salt into.



Forget salt DJ...its MATTER and ZERO GRAVITY.
Matter seems to be attracted to matter in zero gravity. Particles seem to cling to each other when the come close.
BBC's "The Planets" is a great doco and the visuals make understanding this alot easier...


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Pat, you were talking about redshift... I just think of it as the doppler effect as observed by the eyes instead of the ears (doppler effect being the change in pitch as a formula 1 racecar goes past)
> 
> Doppler effect also used in speed radar guns apparently..
> 
> ...



Thanks 2020, But doesn't red shift also occur as light passes near gravity? (gravity stretching the wave length) I was under the understanding that Einsteins hypothesis was proved this way. I was just thinking if gravity can stretch a wavelength it should also be able to compress it.

Understand the doppler effect, the coppers use Lidar guns.


----------



## dj_420 (28 August 2008)

Pat said:


> Forget salt DJ...its MATTER and ZERO GRAVITY.
> Matter seems to be attracted to matter in zero gravity. Particles seem to cling to each other when the come close.
> BBC's "The Planets" is a great doco and the visuals make understanding this alot easier...




Atoms can be joined in a variety of ways, the salt atoms will bond through ionic bonding which is an electrostatic attraction, one ion has a positive charge and the other a negative. 

My point is that I assume salt would dissolve in water regardless of gravity or zero gravity. I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.

Regarding planet forming it takes billions of years of all these elements all swirling is a massive whirlpool effect to begin forming what we would know as Earth. Even when Earth was first formed it was thought to be a molten mass of magma, the Earth had to cool down for a long time before rocks could even form out of the big molten ball.


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> Atoms can be joined in a variety of ways, the salt atoms will bond through ionic bonding which is an electrostatic attraction, one ion has a positive charge and the other a negative.
> 
> My point is that I assume salt would dissolve in water regardless of gravity or zero gravity. I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.
> 
> Regarding planet forming it takes billions of years of all these elements all swirling is a massive whirlpool effect to begin forming what we would know as Earth. Even when Earth was first formed it was thought to be a molten mass of magma, the Earth had to cool down for a long time before rocks could even form out of the big molten ball.



Where not combining atoms, mearly arranging matter together. No chemical reaction takes place (in theory). 

For eg, say you had some sand from the beach, dust from the desert and soil from the rain forrest. If you where in zero gravity, and placed these substances in a bag of clear fluid and shook it up. What would happen is you'd have some pretty muddy fluid, but over time (minutes), the particles clump together in balls. Eventually you have balls of sand, dust and soil suspended in a clear fluid.

Much like the astronauts playing with their liquid food in space, floating around the space shuttle eating little balls of tasty mush. (I assume it tastes good, I don't like space food sticks though) 

They say this is the best explanation for the creation of planets etc.


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

dj_420 said:


> I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.



In regard to this, we don't understand, the liquid was used only provided a medium for the experiment to take place. There is video evidence too, I'm sure YouTube would have it, but i'm at work and cannot access that site.

Imagine a universe that arranges it self in quirky ways. So many questions, so much to fathom .


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 August 2008)

Pat said:


> Thanks 2020, But doesn't red shift also occur as light passes near gravity? (gravity stretching the wave length) I was under the understanding that Einsteins hypothesis was proved this way. I was just thinking if gravity can stretch a wavelength it should also be able to compress it...



Pat - spot on - you're ahead of me again lol - more reading req'd 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



> Gravitational redshift is observed if the receiver is located at higher gravitational potential than the source. The cause of gravitational redshift is the time dilation that occurs near massive objects, according to general relativity


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Pat - spot on - you're ahead of me again lol - more reading req'd
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



It's all too confusing and I find it hard to grasp the finer detail to complete the big picture. However I'm sure all scientists would feel the same as they try to explain the unknown/missing pieces to the puzzle.
I'm also 100% positive that any answers we find from the massive particle accelerator will only pose more, seemingly unanswerable questions.


----------



## spooly74 (28 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> The multi-billion euro LHC "experiment" is nearing it`s moment of truth.A few of us here will be interested in the findings and i hope they explain things in *laymans terms*.Higgs bosun.




Here is a good series on the Higgs et all. It's 7 years old but a good lecture on why and how they are looking for this field.

The Mystery of Empty Space (1 of 5)


----------



## Pat (28 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Here is a good series on the Higgs et all. It's 7 years old but a good lecture on why and how they are looking for this field.
> 
> The Mystery of Empty Space (1 of 5)



Great find spooly, awesome!!! To late to watch the other 4 vids, till tomorrow night.
Since I was a kid I've always loved to take things apart to see how they work. LOL

I've posted this before -
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
Its a great read from Nat Geo Mag and has helped me understand this "mess" just a little bit more . More laymans terms.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2008)

Thanks spooly i watched all of them and it hasn`t clicked for me yet.I`m getting the basics of the Standard Model worked out. 



> Q. How did the scientists come to the conclusion that there should be a Higgs particle?
> 
> A. Since the Standard Model says that all particles are massless, which is wrong, one had to extend the Standard Model. This mathematical extension by professor Higgs made it possible to have particles with mass, but it also predicts that it should exist another particle, the Higgs particle.




Also this explanation is fairly easy to understand ...



> In short, the Higgs field is the closest thing to the pop term "the fabric of space". The Higgs field supposedly causes a form of "drag" on matter, and thus is the source of the property of mass.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2008)

The Standard Model (cor


----------



## Pat (29 August 2008)

Wys, You might also say the Higg's bosun is what gives matter it's 'mass'.



> The preferred name for the God particle among physicists is the Higgs boson, or the Higgs particle, or simply the Higgs, in honor of the University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs, who proposed its existence more than 40 years ago. Most physicists believe that there must be a Higgs field that pervades all space; the Higgs particle would be the carrier of the field and would interact with other particles, sort of the way a Jedi knight in Star Wars is the carrier of the "force." The Higgs is a crucial part of the standard model of particle physics—but no one's ever found it.
> 
> Theoretical physicist John Ellis is one of the CERN scientists searching for the Higgs. He works amid totemic stacks of scientific papers that seem to defy the normal laws of gravity. He has long, gray hair and a long, white beard and, with all due respect, looks as if he belongs on a mountaintop in Tibet. Ellis explains that the Higgs field, in theory, is what gives fundamental particles mass. He offers an analogy: Different fundamental particles, he says, are like a crowd of people running through mud. Some particles, like quarks, have big boots that get covered with lots of mud; others, like electrons, have little shoes that barely gather any mud at all. Photons don't wear shoes—they just glide over the top of the mud without picking any up. And the Higgs field is the mud.


----------



## spooly74 (30 August 2008)

Maybe this Wys 

"The first thing to realize about the ether is its absolute
continuity. A deep sea fish has probably no means of
apprehending the existence of water; it is too uniformly
immersed in it: and that is our condition in regard to the
ether."
Sir Oliver Lodge


----------



## spooly74 (1 September 2008)

OMFG :horse: 



> The world's biggest and most expensive scientific experiment has been hit by a last minute legal challenge, amid claims that the research could bring about the end of the world.



 ...


> Opponents of the project had hoped to obtain an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights that would block the collider from being turned on at all, but the court rejected the application on Friday morning. However, the court will rule on allegations that the experiment violates the right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...N-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html


----------



## Pat (1 September 2008)

I second that OMFG!!!

What I don't understand is how these teeny tiny particles can create gravity, well enough 'G' force to attract/affect other particles. I'm of the understanding you need a massive object, like an asteroid the size of Tassie or something (the gravity created by an object this size would be negligible eh?).  

I suppose 'in theory' if one such hole was created, then a cascade effect could take place...  Even so I'd assume particles are colliding all around us and creating these micro black holes, every where, every day, but we'll never ever know as 'in theory' there will be no information to tell us that they're there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2008)

Lol
Hey Spooly 
Having watched 3.5 of those 5 youtubes ( it continues in my headphones as I type) - I say ...

put it to the ultimate test !!!

a Jury of 12 fair men and true ...  !!!  (like my drinking mates for instance) 

Let them listen to the good Prof Kim Griest of UCSD Division of Physical Sciences  !!!  ... and let them decide if it will result in the end ofthe world as we know it !!

lol

sheesh - I had some problems with statements like the one below  .... (maybe I misunderstood ...  I challenge you to find a double meaning to this quote ... in fact (as Kenneth Horne said ) "I challenge you to find any meaning to this" lol




> "if you could control the Higgs field,  it would discombobulate  ... "




As long as you understand it mate lol.


----------



## spooly74 (1 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I second that OMFG!!!
> 
> What I don't understand is how these teeny tiny particles can create gravity, well enough 'G' force to attract/affect other particles. I'm of the understanding you need a massive object, like an asteroid the size of Tassie or something (the gravity created by an object this size would be negligible eh?).




The tiny particles have mass, and where there's mass there's gravity.
At the scale of atoms though, any gravitational effects would be overwhelmed by the other forces.



> I suppose 'in theory' if one such hole was created, then a cascade effect could take place...  Even so I'd assume particles are colliding all around us and creating these micro black holes, every where, every day, but we'll never ever know as 'in theory' there will be no information to tell us that they're there.




Here is a Q&A with a CERN physicist and below is his answer to the doomsday scenario....good site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/asktheexpert.shtml

"The LHC has absolutely no chance of destroying anything bigger than a few protons, let alone the Earth. This is not based on theoretical assumptions.

It is, of course, essential that all scientific research at the frontiers of knowledge, from genetics to particle physics, is subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that our voyages into the unknown do not result in unforeseen, perhaps dangerous outcomes. CERN, and indeed all research establishments, do this routinely and to the satisfaction of their host governments. In the case of the LHC, a report in plain English is available here:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html 
cont.......
"


----------



## spooly74 (1 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Lol
> 
> 
> sheesh - I had some problems with statements like the one below  .... (maybe I misunderstood ...  I challenge you to find a double meaning to this quote ... in fact (as Kenneth Horne said ) "I challenge you to find any meaning to this" lol




Yeah, he got a bit excited there!
Imagine that you could turn off the Higgs fiels in a particular space.
Because the higgs gives the fundamental particles (matter) mass .... with no mass (in a particular space), anything in that space would travel at the speed of light ...or discombobulate


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Yeah, he got a bit excited there!
> Imagine that you could turn off the Higgs fiels in a particular space.
> Because the higgs gives the fundamental particles (matter) mass .... with no mass (in a particular space), anything in that space would travel at the speed of light ...or discombobulate




ahh that's so much clearer lol - you're a classic spooly !! lol

gotta feeling I'm gonna discombobulate off to bed soon


----------



## Pat (1 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> At the scale of atoms though, any gravitational effects would be overwhelmed by the other forces.



My thoughts exactly.  In essence, nuclear forces and electromagnetism play a more important role than some seemingly infinitely squished protons and neutrons?


spooly74 said:


> Here is a Q&A with a CERN physicist and below is his answer to the doomsday scenario....good site.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/asktheexpert.shtml



Tis a good site, my assumption about possible micro black holes occurring all the time seems to be correct.  (If they occur at all)

So...

Anything that has mass, including protons, will 'warp' space time (gravity). If the Higgs is what 'creates' this mass, then this may help amalgamate the theory's of relativity and quantum mechanics. Something no one has done, apart from Mr Hawking and his thermal radiation.

All this is very cool.


----------



## Pat (2 September 2008)

Pat said:


> ]In essence, nuclear forces and electromagnetism play a more important role than some seemingly infinitely squished protons and neutrons?



Make that electrons and positrons and whatever else they can throw around


----------



## Pat (2 September 2008)

Something I found while researching the cosmological constant-
Are we giving up because it's too complicated? or is there a creator?

This is a bit long but a good listen....


and another good listen...


Perhaps this belongs in the "is there a god" thread.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Perhaps this belongs in the "is there a god" thread.




Maybe

Reminds me, I meant to put "discombobulate" on the "word of the day" thread.

ahh it's too nice a day to discombobulate don't you reckon?


----------



## Pat (2 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Maybe
> 
> Reminds me, I meant to put "discombobulate" on the "word of the day" thread.
> 
> ahh it's too nice a day to discombobulate don't you reckon?



LOL!!!
What a great word... and yes, a nice day, too nice to... ahhh... confuse


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2008)

The more I think about it  the more I tend to believe it is no "freak occurence" that this perfectly positioned planet came out of a big bang.It is understandable that billions of humans believe in a god creating life because there is just no comparitive life to prove otherwise.sigh: feels alone in the universe again) Sadly confined in this small mind, wanting to be more, yet restricted by the very thing that wants to know.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2008)

They showed a special about the CERN thingy this evening on the Beeb; fascinating stuff!

So they're after the Higg's Bozon(?)?

It was refreshing to hear scientists discussing both the virtues and the problems with the current theories, very enlightening and faith in science restoring. (problems with the standard model equation etc)

A massive undertaking in science and engineering. Good luck to them.


----------



## spooly74 (5 September 2008)

Sounds like you may have watched the Horizon program.. which is the best I`ve seen so far on this project.
Heavy on the scientific nature of the LHC and light on the doomsday scenarios ...unlike the nonsense being pumped everyelse.

Small media at Large


----------



## Buddy (5 September 2008)

Off topice here :topic
I'm hoping not to be discriminatory here but why is it that Professor Stephen Hawking reminds me of Dr Stranglove?  Perhaps it is because Dr Strangelove was also infallible.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Sounds like you may have watched the Horizon program.. which is the best I`ve seen so far on this project.
> Heavy on the scientific nature of the LHC and light on the doomsday scenarios ...unlike the nonsense being pumped everyelse.
> 
> Small media at Large




The Sun.... haha... that paper is just unspeakably embarrassing.

Maybe they should wait till 2012 to switch it on to prove the Mayan prophesy was correct.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> The Sun.... haha... that paper is just unspeakably embarrassing.
> 
> Maybe they should wait till 2012 to switch it on to prove the Mayan prophesy was correct.



Thankfully, not every paper is like The Sun over here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4670445.ece


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/05/scilhc105.xml



> Scientists get death threats over Large Hadron Collider
> 
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
> Last Updated: 12:01am BST 05/09/2008
> ...


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/05/scilhc105.xml



I bet these peeps believe in God/Allah/Whatever...


----------



## noirua (6 September 2008)

Was it really a big bang?  Was it astronomical?  

Things only go bang if the pressure can't get out, so allowing it to build up. I read of a kitchen wall being blown down in a big bang when a sealed container exploded after being overheated.

I can't imagine that the pressure could not easily escape in the vast space we know about. Therefore, I have decided there was never a big bang, or indeed, a loud thump or even a fizz.

Of course, thinking about it, there could have been a lot of little bangs, thumps...spread over billions of years. Yes, this is the one I'm going for.

NOT a big bang, but, trillions of little bangs over billions of years. That's it.  Problems of space are now solved and the thead can therefore, NOW END.


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I bet these peeps believe in God/Allah/Whatever...



...or black holes?


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

"If you destroy the world I'll ####ing kill you"


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

Upon further study...

I'm not sure if believe/accept in "the Higgs bosun" until proved beyond doubt.

It seems similar to a hypothesis about something (I cant put my finger on it)... light/sound/gravity works in a *field* similar to Mr Higgs theory. (I know it's old school anyways, can anyone shed light?)


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

noirua said:


> Was it really a big bang?  Was it astronomical?
> 
> Things only go bang if the pressure can't get out, so allowing it to build up. I read of a kitchen wall being blown down in a big bang when a sealed container exploded after being overheated.
> 
> ...



LOL!!!
I think we 'think' the universe is 14 billion years old (not enough time for the lil big bangs?)... I can comprehend a big bang, but not without a "big crunch".


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> ...or black holes?



How about  *micro* black holes?


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

Anyway, it is a known fact that there is a huge black hole in the nation's finances. That hasn't destroyed the world yet!

(Maybe it wants to "do us slowly".)


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Anyway, it is a known fact that there is a huge black hole in the nation's finances. That hasn't destroyed the world yet!
> 
> (Maybe it wants to "do us slowly".)



ROTFLMAO!!!
World economy


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

I thought this was a funny exchange on another forum:



> I guess the fact that I work at CERN must make me a VI. But I do feel that a Ph.D. in physics and several years of experience makes me somewhat more qualified to comment on this than most.
> 
> Basically the concern surrounding the LHC is totally out of proportion. *The risk involved is absolutely miniscule.* For the doomsday scenarios to be correct invokes physics which has barely gone beyond a theorist's wildest dream. We are far more likely to wake up tomorrow and find that house prices have returned to 1940s levels, William the Conquerer has mysteriously turned up in parliament and is now in charge of the country and that ET was in fact a real alien and Drew Barrymore is negotiating a first contact with the aforementioned alien's elder brother.
> 
> ...






> Since we are talking about a mini black hole being formed which will head for the centre
> of the earth and will start sucking the entire planet into its cute little orifice, I think we
> would be more reassured to hear that the risk is ...
> 
> ...




LOL


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> I thought this was a funny exchange on another forum:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd say the word *miniscule* in your quote is equal/similar to the cosmological constant.  OMG its equal to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or there abouts


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I'd say the word *miniscule* in your quote is equal/similar to the cosmological constant.  OMG its equal to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or there abouts




So we should be worried then?


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I'd say the word *miniscule* in your quote is equal/similar to the cosmological constant.  OMG its equal to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or there abouts




Jayzuz! So basically more chance of destroying the earth than winning lotto!!


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> So we should be worried then?



Yes.
Reason being, we may actually find, or this leads to the find, that we are actually living a "Matrix" type life... everything seems so... planned out.


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Yes.
> Reason being, we may actually find, or this leads to the find, that we are actually living a "Matrix" type life... everything seems so... planned out.



We are living in a Matrix type life IMO. It's extremely hard to break out of the routine and dogmatic expectations implanted in us through our nature and nurture. Hardly anyone really escapes it. We're all robots; waking up, going to work, working 9-5, going home, recreating, mowing the lawn, doing the dishes, watching some US sitcom, going to bed. Repeat, repeat, repeat. zzzzzzzzz


----------



## spooly74 (6 September 2008)

This is from another thread but probably belongs here.



			
				noirua said:
			
		

> So many people have set their hearts on solving the problem of the Creation of the Universe with a "ONE BIG BANG THEORY". What a load of cobblers.




Cobblers indeed, that's a common misnomer.
The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the creation of the universe, nothing about what banged, how it banged or if it banged at all.



> Quite obviously this took very many billions of years, AND YES, there were trillions of little bangs going off all over the place.
> In terms of size these little bangs were indeed quite large, but but but, only small in UNIVERSE terms.




This is a POSSIBILITY  ... after all, whats so special about our universe?
Have a read of the Ekpyrotic universe here.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

No infinities 



> "No No No", I hear you say. However, get clever for once in your life.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 September 2008)

noi said:
			
		

> AND YES, there were trillions of little bangs going off all over the place



hey this is a family show


----------



## Pat (7 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Jayzuz! So basically more chance of destroying the earth than winning lotto!!



Sorry, no where near enough zeros. It's I part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. 
10^120 I think.

:topic

I heard somewhere you have more chance of being murdered six times than winning lotto.


----------



## Buddy (8 September 2008)

Sorry to pedantic here guys but rest assured the world does not end on Thursday, unless we get hit by a big rock that is.  It is actually a few weeks from now when CERN turns on the second partical beam to collide head on with the first beam (which is the one being turned on this Thursday).  Nothing happens until then.  So you have plenty of time to get some more trades done.


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

Nice little video for anyone interested about the LHC.

http://www.video.news.com.au?vxSiteId=164be818-84c2-4715-b29e-2db589f12564&vxChannel=frontPagePicks&vxClipId=938888&vxBitrate=300

And the one of the main article's on NEWS.com is-

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24317385-5014239,00.html

Death threats... pffft.


----------



## spooly74 (11 September 2008)

Saw these photos on another forum.

Never seen anything like it, looks like the clouds are on fire.


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

Looks like a very nice sunset


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

I've been pondering a potential paradox (in my mind).

At Zero Kelvin (absolute zero.. theorised) all movement stops. I'm going back to yr 11 chemistry here.

However electrons move 'more' freely (without much resistance) at temps close to 0c Kelvin. Do electrons stop moving to at absolute zero?


----------



## spooly74 (11 September 2008)

I guess in theory yes, but then they`d have no energy which can`t happen.


----------



## brianlc (11 September 2008)

Had to share this website:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2008)

LHC from the perspective of Electric Universe proponents:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm


----------



## xyzedarteerf (13 September 2008)

our own curiosity might only bring our own inevitable end.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/14/2363914.htm?section=justin



> Hackers claim they have broken into the computer system of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the mega-machine designed to expose secrets of the cosmos, British newspapers are reporting.
> 
> A group calling itself the Greek Security Team left a rogue web page mocking the technicians responsible for computer security at the giant atom smasher as "schoolkids", the Times and Daily Telegraph reported.
> 
> *The hackers vow they have no intention of disrupting the experiment *at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) on the Swiss-French border, they just wanted to highlight the flaws in the computer system's security.



no intention of disrupting .. phew

(then why do it  ...  OK they make a point I guess  . )



> "We're pulling your pants down because we don't want to see you running around naked looking to hide yourselves when the panic comes," they wrote, according to the Daily Telegraph.






> James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN, told the Times says there does not seem to be any harm done.
> 
> "We don't know who they were but there seems to be no harm done.* It appears to be people who want to make a point that CERN was hackable*," he said.




PS (on second thoughts) maybe it's a reminder to us all.    .  For instance, I personally think that those really powerful long range wireless hubs for home computer systems are a mistake .


----------



## white_crane (16 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I've been pondering a potential paradox (in my mind).
> 
> At Zero Kelvin (absolute zero.. theorised) all movement stops. I'm going back to yr 11 chemistry here.
> 
> However electrons move 'more' freely (without much resistance) at temps close to 0c Kelvin. Do electrons stop moving to at absolute zero?




Absolute zero is theoretically impossible since it requires the presence of a body that is at a temperature below absolute zero.


----------



## wayneL (16 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> Absolute zero is theoretically impossible since it requires the presence of a body that is at a temperature below absolute zero.



So the absolute lowest temperature is above 0 kelvin; that would be the _de facto_ absolute zero and _ipso facto_, absolute zero.

But then that temperature would require the presence of a body that is at a temperature below the _ipso facto_ absolute zero.... which is... impossible?



Why am I wrong with this logic?


----------



## white_crane (16 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> So the absolute lowest temperature is above 0 kelvin; that would be the _de facto_ absolute zero and _ipso facto_, absolute zero.
> 
> But then that temperature would require the presence of a body that is at a temperature below the _ipso facto_ absolute zero.... which is... impossible?
> 
> ...




Absolute zero is a theoretical construct.  It is the lowest temperature theoretically possible.  It is a limit.

Example of a limit: The limit of 1/x, x -> infinity is zero.  However it will never quite reach zero (only an infinitely small number).


----------



## wayneL (16 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> Absolute zero is a theoretical construct.  It is the lowest temperature theoretically possible.  It is a limit.
> 
> Example of a limit: The limit of 1/x, x -> infinity is zero.  However it will never quite reach zero (only an infinitely small number).



I know what AZ is. But have a look at my logic. It's obviously flawed, but why?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2008)

when you're that cold, your brain doesn't work properly?


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> Absolute zero is theoretically impossible...






white_crane said:


> It is the lowest temperature theoretically possible.



You speak in tongues Yoda. 

I understand zero kelvin is theorised limit, not so sure if you need a body "colder" than zero kelvin, I assumed (I mean I thought I learned) it was an absence of energy... all energy. 

And thus my post on electrons and the resistance created by matter at lower temps...   You know what I'm getting at?


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Why am I wrong with this logic?



Because It's before the fact???


----------



## wayneL (16 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Because It's before the fact???




I don't know! LOL

Going on WC assumptions, there seemed to be a loop, like when you have a mirror in front and a mirror behind.

Ignore.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> Absolute zero is a theoretical construct.  It is the lowest temperature theoretically possible.  It is a limit.
> 
> Example of a limit: The limit of 1/x, x -> infinity is zero.  However it will never quite reach zero (only an infinitely small number).



1.  Reminds me of the frog who lines up at the start of a 100m track. 

In his first jump he jumps 50m, 
then half the remainder, (25m),  
then half the remainder, (12.5m) etc 

Will he ever reach the end?
I mean, he will always have half the remaining distance to go ?

2.  Suppose his forward speed is constant (say 50m / min)  , so that each jump is made in half the time of the previous one.   

In his first jump he jumps 50m, = 1 min
then half the remainder, (25m),  = 0.5 min
then half the remainder, (12.5m)  = 0.25 min. etc 

Will he ever reach the end?


3.  But hang on!! lol
If his speed is constant (at 50m/min) - of course he will reach the end ! 
and it will take 2 minutes 

(and 2 mins later he'll be a further 100m etc )


----------



## Speewha (16 September 2008)

Hello, 

Do you guys think that Zero Kevin would be better than Zero Kelvin.

My Brain stops working with one Kevin. 


Regards


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> (and 2 mins later he'll be a further 100m etc )




then again, 

4. he should have stopped at the finish line, as he continues to jump half the remining distance for ever and ever amen. 

i.e. he continues past the finish, yet he stays there 

Questions. / multiple choice
Does he fall into a time warp at the finish line ?
Does he fall into a black hole at the finish line 
or
Does he go to heaven at the finish line ?


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1.  Reminds me of the frog who lines up at the start of a 100m track.
> 
> In his first jump he jumps 50m,
> then half the remainder, (25m),
> ...



I learnt that from the movie/book "Contact". Can't remember the name of the paradox....

In essence, movement is impossible.


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

Here it is- 

*The dichotomy paradox*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion

Movement is an illusion.


----------



## spooly74 (16 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Here it is-
> 
> *The dichotomy paradox*
> 
> ...




This is flawed for mine.
The reasoning seems to be that because you must go through an infinite number of steps before reaching somewhere, it should take you an infinite amount of time.
Any observational evidence for this? :

It's not space and time .... it's spacetime.


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> The reasoning seems to be that because you must go through an infinite number of steps before reaching somewhere, it should take you an infinite amount of time.



I like that one.... very good.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> .....because you must go through an infinite number of steps before reaching somewhere, it should take you an infinite amount of time....




because the frog makes an infinite number of smaller and smaller steps (approaching zero distance) 

... and he does them faster and faster ( approaches infinite rate of jumping)

....... question becomes, I guess, is the distance approaching zero faster than the rate of jumping is approaching infinity?  or vice versa. ?



> Questions. / multiple choice
> Does he fall into a time warp at the finish line ?
> Does he fall into a black hole at the finish line
> or
> Does he go to heaven at the finish line ?




PS Does the frog turn into a little pool of hot melted green butter at the finish line?


----------



## Pat (16 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Does the frog turn into a little pool of hot melted green butter at the finish line?



Yop could say a super frog in a sock...or maybe the jumpin green flash?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2008)

Pat said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion

It certainly must have been a fun question for an after dinner chat at the Aristotle's house.
(not bad considering he lived 384BC - 322BC) 



> Achilles and the tortoise
> “ *In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead*. ”
> ””Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15
> 
> In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, for example 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, in which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. *Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise*.






> Status of the paradoxes today
> 
> *Mathematicians thought they had done away with Zeno's paradoxes with the invention of the calculus and methods of handling infinite sequences by Isaac Newton *and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the 17th century .....
> 
> However, some philosophers [14] insist that the deeper metaphysical questions, as raised by Zeno's paradoxes, are not addressed by the calculus. That is, while calculus tells us where and when Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, philosophers do not see how calculus takes anything away from Zeno's reasoning that concludes that this event cannot take place in the first place. *Most importantly, many philosophers do not see where, according to the calculus, Zeno's reasoning goes wrong *.




lol - moral of the story... it doesn't pay to follow only philosophy without a bit of mathsematics as well ..


----------



## white_crane (16 September 2008)

:rant

The frog doesn't get faster, his speed is constant (which you stated) 50m/1min = 25m/0.5min = 12.5m/0.25 min....

And if he only ever jumps half of the remaining distance, he will never quite get to the 100m line.

Also, there is an issue with accuracy, it depends on how precise we can measure the thing.

Now just to complicate things, I want to throw the Heisenberg uncertainty principle out there....explanation
which basically says, you can't measure both an object's speed and position at the same time.

However, the frog should be where you expect him to be at a certain point in time, as you know the path he will take (half the distance remaining etc.)

Of course none of this matters if I stomp on him! 

:end rant


PS  At absolute zero, a molecule has only zero-point energy.  This is Einstein stuff, I'm not Einstein.  I'm Yoda.


----------



## spooly74 (17 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> The frog doesn't get faster, his speed is constant (which you stated) 50m/1min = 25m/0.5min = 12.5m/0.25 min....
> 
> And if he only ever jumps half of the remaining distance, he will never quite get to the 100m line.




He will ...this is the apparent paradox ... as you get down to the tiny distances (dividing by 2 infinity) you also get tiny lenghts of time and as you move that tiny distance infinite times you get a real distance and a real amount of time.

The series 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ... adds up to infinity,
but the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... adds up to 1, bye bye Zeno.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> The series 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ... adds up to infinity,
> but the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... adds up to 1, bye bye Zeno.



sounds good to me
divergent series vs convergent series yes? 

Now which type of series do they get when the energy given out by these colliding thingos starts to build as they bounce off the wall and collide some more and...  ? lol


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

I was thinking the frog speed is constant, but because he's jumping half distances, the poor lil frog has to leap quicker and quicker to keep his speed up... 'super frog in a sock!'


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> Now just to complicate things, I want to throw the Heisenberg uncertainty principle out there....explanation



I think there's a nice little youtube cartoon type video posted on this somewhere in this thread, or the old science/astronomy type thread... 

2020 do you remember?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I think there's a nice little youtube cartoon type video posted on this somewhere in this thread, or the old science/astronomy type thread...
> 
> 2020 do you remember?



pat
I think you're right about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - then again, there's a certain amount of uncertainty when I say that. 

(sorry m8 they don't come any cornier than that).  Will look for it "later".  Someone will probably beat me to it. 

Personally I find some of this stuff an unnecessary headache.  I mean , lol,  if a frog wants to jump his way up a sprint track at 50m / min - then let him get on with it !!  If he takes more than 2 minutes, then he obviously karked on the way.   No need to philosophise unduly over whether or not he gets to the other end.  

 - and all due respect to Aristotle, but that goes for Achilles and the Tortoise as well - obviously Achilles screams past the tortoise lol 

- and also for Heisenberg and his Uncertainties.  

Think I wrote a poem about this once when I had nothing to do :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88164&highlight=relative#post88164

Hard to imagine how they would have felt, exPlaining to men (stubborn mules!),
After they’d preached of their blackholed, uncertaintized, relative, fringe-dwelling rules,
Can’t you just picture it, Einstein and Herzy, Wobbling around on barstools,
"Audience laughed ven there vasn’t a joke, - Mein Gott!! vott a kreat pack of fools!".


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

LOL!!!
Here it is, thanks spooly...




spooly74 said:


> LOL but I`m pretty sure it`s Faster than light!
> 
> Here is something else you might enjoy 2020 et all.
> 
> A little look into the strange world of Quantum Physics ...but don`t let it know you are watching


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

here is the thread, I wonder if the mods can open it up again or something or other 


Recent events beyond earth... 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6817


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2008)

Pat, a similar one, even more weird?  
only 1m 09s - worth the wtach ..

"everything is still touching - space .. (is an) illusion"  
Personally I can't understand a word of it lol. 
Any questions, ask spooly lol


 Amazing Facts of Quantum Physics


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

I love those Dr Quantum vids, i'll be watching these tonight, maybe i'll have a better understanding later this evening...


----------



## spooly74 (20 September 2008)

Two shuttles on the pad for the last time.



> It’s a rare event anyway, but this is the last time ever. Two shuttles are now sitting on NASA's two launchpads at Kennedy Space Center. Space shuttle Endeavour completed a 4.2-mile journey to Launch Pad 39B Friday morning, Sept. 19, at 6:59 a.m. EDT, and this is the first time a shuttle has stood by as a rescue vehicle.




http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/19/two-shuttles-on-the-pad-the-last-time/


----------



## spooly74 (8 November 2008)

Hello ... Is there anybody out there



> Dive right in to this image that contains a sea of distant galaxies! The Very Large Telescope has obtained the deepest ground-based image in the ultraviolet band, and here, you can see this patch of the sky is almost completely covered by galaxies, *each one, like our own Milky Way galaxy*, and home of hundreds of billions of stars . . . .




http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/07/deepest-ultraviolet-image-shows-a-sea-of-distant-galaxies/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 November 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Hello ... Is there anybody out there
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/07/deepest-ultraviolet-image-shows-a-sea-of-distant-galaxies/




More traders ?

gg


----------



## Pat (17 November 2008)

A space elevator, 36 000km trip. Hope the music is good.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24662622-5014239,00.html
Not much on the web regarding carbon nano fibres, I'm at work and don't have much time to research.

You wouldn't want the cable to snap.


----------



## spooly74 (30 November 2008)

Police dash cam view of Meteor over Edmonton, Canada :22_yikes:


----------



## spooly74 (16 December 2008)

An introduction to String Theory: 10.30pm tonight Disc Science.

fwiw


----------



## white_crane (17 December 2008)

I won't be watching it, however having read Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku I've decided that this is really complicated stuff. LOL  (he does a good job of explaining it though)


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> An introduction to String Theory: 10.30pm tonight Disc Science.
> 
> fwiw




Good program spooly?


Well in coincidence with 400 years since Galileo looked skyward with a telescope, the International Year of Astronomy is year 2009.

So for us earthbound specks of insignificance, (must be a few of us) it provides an opportunity to learn more about Earth and beyond.
I myself don`t have a telescope but it is on the wish list and probably a better way to appreciate and understand about what makes up the infinite space surrounding our live planet.The only one known to the human mind at this point in our evolution.

There are numerous activities for the IYA in Australia with a calender of events at the above URL.   Good luck and hope some enlightenment is found in looking beyond the petty foibles 1 inch back from forehead. :

Wys.


----------



## Pat (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> An introduction to String Theory: 10.30pm tonight Disc Science.
> 
> fwiw



I let my foxtel go. 
I WANT MY FOXTEL BACK!!!

There's a few youtubes on string theory, but I want to watch that show...


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Good program spooly?
> 
> 
> Well in coincidence with 400 years since Galileo looked skyward with a telescope, the International Year of Astronomy is year 2009.
> ...




Yeah Wys, a good introduction to the forces of nature and how we know the things we know .... and the things we think we know.

It was hosted by Brian Greene, good vid below (19min) "The universe on a string"
Also, recommend his book 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' ...an indepth non technical read, ask Santy!



A telescope is on my wish list too, been looking into it for about 6 months now and have to say it's a struggle. 
The results speak for themselves though.
The following images are from some backyard astronomers ... [envy]


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 December 2008)

Interesting theory about the fabric of space/time.It really is hard to imagine that particles make up the surrounds of solid objects.Then again a solid object is only something we can see or touch.I suppose these particles haven`t become a solid object yet so they hang around in space until needed.

Anyway the Hadron Collider won`t be re-commissioned till sometime next year after the expensive faulty connection between two magnets.
Is mankind about to discover something that it should not.Global economic declines, nostradamus predictions, global warming, peak oil --- nah, no connection, just an eerie thought.


----------



## derty (20 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> It really is hard to imagine that particles make up the surrounds of solid objects.Then again a solid object is only something we can see or touch.I suppose these particles haven`t become a solid object yet so they hang around in space until needed.



What really spins me out is that solid matter isn't solid at all. The atomic nucleii only amount to 1/10,000th to 1/100,000th of the volume of the atom and add to that the spaces between atoms bonded together in the solid and you have a truly infinitesimal amount of actual solid matter. Particles like the neutrino can pass through the entire Earth as if it wasn't there.
http://www.romunpress.co.nz/gravitychap6.html

What we feel when we touch a solid is the electromagnetic (EM) force that is holding together the constituent atoms. We do not feel the atomic nucleii. We feel a balance between the EM repulsion of the atomic nucleii and the EM attraction of atoms that share electrons or atoms that have a net electrical charge. 

So when we touch anything, what we feel is the energy. We feel our energy (EM) field that binds us together coming into contact with the energy field of the solid. 

Now imagine what happens when the EM repulsion between protons in the nucleii is removed as when a neutron star or black hole forms during a supernovae. Once the forces of gravity in the core of a star overcome the EM forces of repulsion, the protons (+ve) and electrons (-ve) are fused into neutrons (no net charge). All of a sudden there is no repulsion and all that empty space is removed when the strong force that binds the atomic nucleii in conjunction with gravity take over. There is a very large bang when it all meets in the middle. So a neutron star is essentially a very large atom. An atom that sits at 0 on the periodic table and has an extremely large atomic mass  :

How we can see these solids is a whole other story.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 December 2008)

> It really is hard to imagine that particles make up the surrounds of solid objects.Then again a solid object is only something we can see or touch.I suppose *these particles haven`t become a solid object yet so they hang around in space until needed.*





I don`t think so as there is only change of state/form!What is already present in form will decay as a new form is created BUT nothing comes from the space surrounding what is already present.

There can be no more or less on this planet, only a change of form.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16392-weekend-moon-will-be-biggest-of-the-year.html


> *Weekend Moon will be biggest of the year *
> 18:11 09 January 2009 by Maggie McKee
> 
> The Moon will shine especially bright this weekend, as it will come closer to Earth during its full phase than at any other time in 2009.
> ...






> *This will make it about 14% bigger and 30% brighter than typical full Moons.*


----------



## CoffeeKing (10 January 2009)

C'mon 2020, we all know this is your old bowling ball...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

CoffeeKing said:


> C'mon 2020, we all know this is your old bowling ball...



lol
bull ****, (how to avoid ****  - only shows up when you drag the cursor over it) -  it looks more like a Fred Flintstone special.

Actually I have that well-known closeup of the moon on my desktop.  Spend a bit of time looking at the craters from impacts of asteroids - and daydreaming ...  makes you realise we should take nothing for granted around here.  

And to think we've landed there and returned.  



> Just lookin’ at the moon tonight
> a ringside view in floodlit light
> I think back to our Armstrong friend
> who made it there and back again.
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 January 2009)

An event took place in June 2007 in which solar winds carrying charged particles "entered" the earths magnetosphere (the field which shields the earth from solar winds).Maybe dinosaurs and human races became extinct this way!!!!  

Video explanation is here. 

and NASA article is here. 



> The magnetosphere is a bubble of magnetism that surrounds Earth and protects us from solar wind. Exploring the bubble is a key goal of the THEMIS mission, launched in February 2007. The big discovery came on June 3, 2007, when the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening. Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance.


----------



## derty (2 October 2009)

A newly discovered planet that precipitates rocks! 



> If there were life on the newly-discovered exoplanet COROT-7b, they would face a unique problem. Unlike Earth, where precipitation falls in various forms of water, on COROT-7b it actually rains rocks.
> 
> Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis [WUSTL] have been running models of the planet that was discovered in February. According to these models, the atmosphere “is made up of the ingredients of rocks and when "a front moves in," pebbles condense out of the air and rain into lakes of molten lava below.”



http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m10d1-A-planet-that-rocks


----------



## Chris45 (2 October 2009)

derty said:


> What we feel when we touch a solid is the *electromagnetic* (EM) force that is holding together the constituent atoms. We do not feel the atomic nucleii. We feel a balance between the EM repulsion of the atomic nucleii and the EM attraction of atoms that share electrons or atoms that have a net electrical charge.
> 
> So when we touch anything, what we feel is the energy. We feel our energy (EM) field that binds us together coming into contact with the energy field of the solid.



Electromagnetic or electrostatic? I've always thought that it was essentially the electrostatic repulsions between the outer electron clouds of one object and the outer electron clouds of the other object that prevents the nuclei of the two objects approaching each other (unless they're approaching at really high speeds).

So, if I punch someone, could I then argue that I never touched him? 

Maybe I could be charged with "Assault with an electrostatic repulsion".


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 October 2009)

While the rover "Spirit" is bogged on Mars I thought of bringing into view the current project in Chile. The ALMA project. ALMA is an acronym for Atacama Large Millimetre Array. There will be 66 antennae positioned on the Atacama Desert plateau in Chile at an altitude of 5000 metres where the air is drier along with less pollutants. Project set for completion in 2012 and the first antenna was positioned last month. 
The following explains more, along with an artists impression of the site ... 



> *ALMA will enable transformational research into the physics of the cold* *Universe, regions that are optically dark but shine brightly in the millimetre portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.* Providing astronomers a new window on celestial origins, ALMA will probe the first stars and galaxies, and directly image the formation of planets.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

spooly74 from post #98 said:
			
		

> Australian SKA project - AuSKA
> 
> Rudd has been lobbying senior officials to back the nation’s candidacy. Meeting with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington, he put forward Australia’s case, and is likely to repeat this in New York, Brussels, Bucharest, London and Beijing.
> 
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=65521






			
				2020hindsight from post #101 said:
			
		

> spooly ,
> I understand we are making some prototypes for sure.
> I was lucky enough to meet some of the visiting scientists in Perth the other day. Apparently much greater sensitivity than current radio telescopes.
> 
> ...




More good news last month ...
http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/FACILITYTOLINKGERALDTONWITHWORLD-CLASSCOMPUTING.aspx



> 01 Oct 2009,  $4M FACILITY TO LINK GERALDTON WITH WORLD-CLASS COMPUTING
> Geraldton is set to play a key role in Australian astronomy with an announcement today of a new $4 million facility to support Australia and New Zealand's bid to host the $2.5 billion Square Kilometre Array (SKA) radio-telescope.
> 
> Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr announced the facility following a meeting with the Mayor of the City of Geraldton-Greenough, Cr Ian Carpenter.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

... PS  That Rudd bloke  - always bignoting himself 



> "The Rudd Government will continue to do all it can to promote WA as the world's best core site to host one of the world's great science projects," Senator Carr said.
> 
> *The SKA is a large-scale, new-generation radio telescope with a discovery potential that is 10,000 greater than current instruments*. A decision on the final site is expected in 2012. Senator Carr visited the proposed SKA site with the WA Government yesterday.
> 
> The Geraldton facility is planned to be completed in 2011 with the design tender opportunity to be announced shortly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Further to that Square Kilometre Array SKA post, 
or for the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope ... 

CSIRO are looking at questions to be addressed. 
 amongst the favourites are 
EMU 
 and
WALLABY :-

http://www.ska.gov.au/news/Pages/CSIROsetssciencepathforASKAP.aspx


> “An international panel of expert astronomers picked the 10 top projects that will take advantage of ASKAP’s huge survey speed and large field of view,” Dr Lewis Ball said.
> A breakdown of the 10 projects illustrates the international interest in the ASKAP program.
> 
> The projects represent 363 unique authors from 131 institutions. The breakdown of unique authors by region was 33 per cent Australia and New Zealand, 30 per cent North America, Europe 28 per cent, 9 per cent rest of world.
> ...




PS
I spose if the Kiwis won the SKA project, we'd have the 
MOA
and 
KIWI projects ...

MONITORING OF ASTEROIDS, 
and
KILOBYTE INTELLIGENCE-WEIGHTED IMAGINATION projects


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 December 2009)

Just imagine the the visible universe as we know it was actually formed from a larger celestial body from a larger universe. A bit like the Matryoshka dolls (Russian nested dolls). So this universe is actually what we see as a galaxy, existing within an even larger universe. That's big.


----------



## Riddick (13 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.
> 
> Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job.
> 
> ...






You are making some pretty big statements here. 
1. That Dawkins et al make assumptions that can neither be proven nor dispoven. If you provide examples of these maybe we can debate the voracity and integrity of assumptions utilised to create falisifiable models, which is essentially the heart of the scientific model.

2. Scientific theories are completely different in every regard to religious doctrines. There is a lot of literature available out there that discusses this point though a great place to start would be by reading the work of Victor Stenger a physics PhD and prolific writer. Dont take my word for it though I am happy type out some relevant chapters and email them to you. 

3. You obviously have never done a great deal of reading on ther origins of the universe to make a statement like "the big bang sucks". Do you understand the falsifiable nature of theoretical science? Do you have a solid foundation in newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory through which you can accumulate and analyse verifiable and reliable data in order to create you own theory of universal orgins? Do you understand the process of quantum tunelling? Are you aware of up to date research regarding the creation of matter around black holes (hawking)?

4. All kind of concepts invented over the years to slavage the theory? Are you serious? Care to give examples? Do you understand the difference between doctrine and falsifiable critical science? Do you think that because new evidence is accumulated and an idea has to be extended or changed to accomodate and explain this information that all previous ideas on this issue were wrong?

5. I'm not meaning to get stuck into you but your post reeks of religious fervour and misinformation. It has been the modus operandi of religious scholars over the years to attempt to critique verifiable science by utilising imperfect logic at the same time as offering *absolutely no evidence or examples* to back up their claims.

Just because you can't see the answer doesn't mean therefore the answer is not there.


----------



## derty (29 October 2010)

A recent survey by NASA has found that Earth sized planets are more common within close orbits than the larger gas giants in the Milky Way. By their extrapolations 23% of Sun-like stars would host Earth-sized planets, with an estimated 46 Billion Earth-sized planets within the Milky Way.

If there is only a 1 in a billion chance (1:1,000,000,000) of life taking hold on a planet, then by those numbers there would be 46 other instances of life within the Milky Way. If life is much easier to initiate then the Milky Way would be literally teeming with life. It's a nice thought.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-357


			
				NASA said:
			
		

> The astronomers extrapolated from these survey data to estimate that 23 percent of sun-like stars in our galaxy host even smaller planets, the Earth-sized ones, orbiting in the hot zone close to a star. "This is the statistical fruit of years of planet-hunting work," said Marcy. "The data tell us that our galaxy, with its roughly 200 billion stars, has at least 46 billion Earth-size planets, and that's not counting Earth-size planets that orbit farther away from their stars in the habitable zone."




To go a little further and to place the whole life in the universe possibility in context. Firstly have a look at the image at the end of the post. This is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. It represents a long exposure image taken of a section of dark sky. That section of space revealed around 10,000 galaxies. Those dots in the image are not stars they are individual galaxies (actually the few that have the cross shaped flares are actually stars within the Milky Way). Each of those galaxies has an average of around 100 billion stars each (100,000,000,000). So that image contains about 1000 trillion stars (1,000,000,000,000,000) and using a 1 in a billion chance that gives 1 million instances of life. 

Now this is when the numbers get boggling. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image represents a section of the sky that would be covered by a 1mm by 1mm piece of paper held 1 metre from your eye.

one of the issues of these exercises is that imagining very big numbers is very hard, but using sand is a good analogy. Beach sand has an average of 8 grains per cubic millimetre. There are 1000x1000x1000 millimetres in a cubic metre so therefore 1 cubic metre contains 8 billion grains of sand. If 1 star = 1 grain of sand then it would take 25 cubic metres of sand just to represent the Milky Way. You can carry on the exercise from here.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 November 2010)

derty said:


> A recent survey by NASA has found that Earth sized planets are more common within close orbits than the larger gas giants in the Milky Way. By their extrapolations 23% of Sun-like stars would host Earth-sized planets, with an estimated 46 Billion Earth-sized planets within the Milky Way.



The 'chance' due to sheer numbers is thought provoking. Considering the evolution of life elsewhere and the infinite possible paths the evolution could have taken. No wonder the movie fellas come up with such imaginative anatomical distortions. Maybe the 'Hundredth Monkey' effect?


----------



## lindsayf (1 November 2010)

one day our descendents might be trading intergalactical markets


----------



## FreshTrader (30 September 2011)

lindsayf said:


> one day our descendents might be trading intergalactical markets




Haha loving it.  Interesting think to think about. What would the brokerage fees be like on such a trade?


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 December 2011)

Just thinking the Universe could be moving toward life on a hard-for-human-brain to comprehend time frame. That being the alignment of all the right factors for life to exist.


----------



## spooly74 (5 July 2012)

Last piece of the jigsaw complete for the Standard Model  probably 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...on-announcement-from-Cern-as-it-happened.html

New Baby Boson is Born


----------



## pixel (5 July 2012)

spooly74 said:


> Last piece of the jigsaw complete for the Standard Model  probably
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...on-announcement-from-Cern-as-it-happened.html
> 
> New Baby Boson is Born




Now all we need is an instrument that isolates those Higgs Bosons, and we have the perfect weight-loss pill. I can see the commercial headlines screaming *"Lower your Body Mass! Send us all your unwanted Bosons."*


----------



## spooly74 (18 September 2012)

Incredible footage of Curiosity's recent landing on Mars.

http://io9.com/5943016/weve-decided...use-holy-crap-is-it-spectacular?tag=astronomy


----------



## spooly74 (23 November 2013)

Amazing!

The Sound Of Deep Space

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...led-for-first-time-in-stunning-new-recordings


----------



## burglar (23 November 2013)

FreshTrader said:


> Haha loving it.  Interesting think to think about. What would the brokerage fees be like on such a trade?




10,000 credits plus GST :


----------



## Alter2Ego (27 November 2014)

*Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

*ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*

For the average person, repeated instances of precision indicates an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows: 

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy" 


The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that *HAPPENS BY CHANCE* and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



*AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:*

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. Precision leaves no room for error or for surprise results. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms””from which the Earth's elements are made””are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography) 



*QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:* 
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown? 

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome? 


*NOTE TO MODERATORS:* I have debated this topic elsewhere as I find the topic meaningful.  I thrust that is not against forum rules, especially since I actively debate the topic.  In other words, I do not simply post threads and disappear. 




________________
*"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
*


----------



## SirRumpole (27 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

Accident or Design ?

Whatever you want



Seriously , see threads "Religion, Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy etc"


----------



## Joe Blow (27 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Alter2Ego said:


> *NOTE TO MODERATORS:* I have debated this topic elsewhere as I find the topic meaningful.  I thrust that is not against forum rules, especially since I actively debate the topic.  In other words, I do not simply post threads and disappear.




I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market? If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.


----------



## Tisme (27 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

Is this one of those long bows being drawn to justify the existence of some invisible Skylord by looking at natural tessellations and pondering how our navels all look similar?

Even chaos fits a pattern and is predictable, so what part of established religions offers a guide to decrypting the secrets of the nucleosynthetic universe I'm wondering.  Afaik religions work on the spiritual and moral guidance issues to keep the tribe together and servile? 

Why does society still get polluted by the Uriah Heeps in every generation if religion was doing its job to make everything sweet and harmonious.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Tisme said:


> Is this one of those long bows being drawn to justify the existence of some invisible Skylord by looking at natural tessellations and pondering how our navels all look similar?
> 
> .




yes, I believe it is, considering the quote in the signature block.

The argument from precision has got to be one of the least convincing arguments, however it is one that apologists use to quite successfully to trick people into thinking the universe is designed. A lot of it is basically an argument from ignorance.


----------



## pixel (27 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Joe Blow said:


> I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market? If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.




I was about to suggest moving this new thread into one of the many religious/philosophical topics and leave it to the flat earthers to slug it out. Seeing you have already taken note and denied the OP membership, why not simply remove this thread instead.


----------



## Alter2Ego (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Joe Blow said:


> I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. *Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market?* If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.




*ALTER2EGO -to- JOE BLOW:*

I did not see anything in forum rules saying "genuine interest in the Australian stock market" is a prerequisite to posting in the _General Chat_ portion of this website.  I was under the impression that _General Chat_ is for anything that has nothing to do with stocks.  

There are other people here that are willing to debate this topic.  So long as people are respectful towards one another during their debates, *YOUR* personal rejection of religion is no excuse to attempt to control other people's freedom of speech simply because you hold the *ban stick*.  Besides, everyone here knows there are threads in the _General Chat_ area by others who do not have "genuine interest in the Australian stock market".  So why the double-standards?  I see hypocrisy.  


If you  have a Religion section to this forum, feel free to simply move my thread to that section of the website so that I can proceed with the debate. 


That said, I am removing my avatar in light of your present threat to ban my account.



________________
*"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)*


----------



## basilio (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

Well at least you are totally upfont about being a Jehovoh Witness.

ASF is a very broad Church. We welcome anyone and everyone who is considerate, articulate and respectful. We particularly pride ourselves on incisive and logical discussions which add to each others knowledge in areas we might not have first hand  experience.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



basilio said:


> Well at least you are totally upfont about being a Jehovoh Witness.
> 
> ASF is a very broad Church. We welcome anyone and everyone who is considerate, articulate and respectful. We particularly pride ourselves on incisive and logical discussions which add to each others knowledge in areas we might not have first hand  experience.






I think the OP made a fair point about the General Discussion Section, but the subject has been done to death (unless there is life after death) in other  threads , mainly the Religion, Science, Scepticism.. thread so imo the discussion could be continued there if there is interest.


----------



## galumay (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

I really cant see the point in leaving this sort of spam on the forum, the privelige of posting in the general discussion area of this and other forums is generally considered to be a consequence of active discussion in the topical areas of the relevant forum - in this case participation in discussion of the australian share market.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



galumay said:


> I really cant see the point in leaving this sort of spam on the forum, the privelige of posting in the general discussion area of this and other forums is generally considered to be a consequence of active discussion in the topical areas of the relevant forum - in this case participation in discussion of the australian share market.




In that case I had better resign as I have never posted in the stock section.

I hope galumay's opinion is not reflected by the majority who post here, I don't think we are that intolerant, regardless of what you think about the subject matter of this thread.


----------



## Tisme (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



SirRumpole said:


> In that case I had better resign as I have never posted in the stock section.
> 
> I hope galumay's opinion is not reflected by the majority who post here, I don't think we are that intolerant, regardless of what you think about the subject matter of this thread.





Thank goodness I dabble in the sharemarket .

Seen one skyfairy seen 'em all I say. They are like nymphs at the bottom of the garden, if they want you to see them they will let you, just like goblins, elves and that Irish nuisance that keeps shuffling the pot of gold everytime I get near to the end of a rainbow.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



galumay said:


> I really cant see the point in leaving this sort of spam on the forum, the privelige of posting in the general discussion area of this and other forums is generally considered to be a consequence of active discussion in the topical areas of the relevant forum - in this case participation in discussion of the australian share market.




I get your point but I would'nt think so, both are separate area's and everyone to their own, read and contribute to what they want.

In the end this website is a business, Joe's living and its success is determined by traffic yours and mine.

I post in both areas although less so in the trading areas these days but really appreciate the intelligent views from the likes of Rumpole etc in the political treads I even like that Fabian bloke Noco 

I cannot say I would be fond of an evangelical US type turning up to harass us all (I cast no ill aspersions on any  member who is a believer BTW) but it would be a test I guess of everyone's good manners still Joes site, Joes rules.


----------



## Tisme (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



IFocus said:


> I get your point but I would'nt think so, both are separate area's and everyone to their own, read and contribute to what they want.
> 
> In the end this website is a business, Joe's living and its success is determined by traffic yours and mine.
> 
> ...





Something even more important I Focus, I notice you live in Mandurah. My grandparents had a holiday house in Tuckey Street for decades ... no guessing where I spent my schools breaks. I'm sure it's very different and populated these days?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*





And just because it's Thanksgiving in the U.S. the rare turkey troll for your enjoyment.


----------



## Joe Blow (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*

I have gone ahead and revoked Alter2Ego's ASF membership on the grounds that this person is a well known internet troll and has no interest whatsoever in engaging in a genuine, constructive discussion. Alter2Ego is entirely agenda driven and is interested only in religious threads, more specifically this particular topic. A quick Google search makes this apparent.

However, I'm not sure if this topic has come up at ASF before. If it hasn't already, it inevitably will. For this reason I will leave the thread up and merge any future threads on the same topic into it. If I find another existing thread on this topic then I will merge this thread into it.

Obviously I would prefer it if all ASF members had an interest in the stock market and posted in stock market related threads. After all, ASF is a stock market forum. However, I accept that this may not be the case for everyone. It then becomes an issue of what kind of contribution individuals make to the community. If someone is a positive influence and engages in intelligent, thoughtful, constructive discussion then I see no reason to exclude them. If, however, like Alter2Ego, they are one issue posters here solely to push an ideological barrow then I think they do far more harm than good.

My first priority is ensuring the health of the ASF community as best I can. I don't believe that anyone here wants to see ASF over-run by trolls, troublemakers, and ideologically-driven fruitcakes. I know I don't. There are hundreds of other forums that allow these type of people to post and anyone who is interested in the kind of toxic atmosphere they create can easily find it elsewhere.

However, I *would* like to see more posting in stock market related threads, especially threads on specific stocks. I have no objection to the General Chat forum but I don't want to see ASF evolve into a general chat forum overall. I want it to continue to be a stock market forum with a lively and active General Chat forum.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Tisme said:


> Something even more important I Focus, I notice you live in Mandurah. My grandparents had a holiday house in Tuckey Street for decades ... no guessing where I spent my schools breaks. I'm sure it's very different and populated these days?




Lucky you holidays in Mandurah back in the day when it was a holiday town.

Still is in some ways I guess but it has grown really to a point of being a Perth outer suburb now with train and freeway / parking lot at peek hour.

Mandurah is still a nice place to live raise kids etc and the foreshore / boat harbour serves a great coffee / meal with a view of water, dolphins, sea bird life and the like which in WA isn't that common unlike the East Coast.


Your grandparents holiday house in Tuckey Street would be worth a few bob now


----------



## Value Collector (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Joe Blow said:


> However, I'm not sure if this topic has come up at ASF before. .




It has, In the religion and science thread. The argument is PRATT ( previously refuted a thousand times )

It's the go to argument for religious apologists who have no real evidence to back up their claims, they try and prove through false logic that the universe has been fine tuned, and then once they have established that, it just so happens this cosmic finer tuner is their particular brand of their version of a god.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Value Collector said:


> It has, In the religion and science thread. The argument is PRATT ( previously refuted a thousand times )




That's your opinion, others may disagree. But I'm not going to go through it all again.


----------



## artist (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



Tisme said:


> . . . pondering how our navels all look similar?





Well, except perhaps for Adam and Eve http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis


----------



## pixel (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



SirRumpole said:


> That's your opinion, others may disagree. *But I'm not going to go through it all again.*




So it HAS been done to death.
One more reason to either delete this thread, merge it into the crazy religion topic, or even add it to the Humour section. Sir O's cartoon is already half-way there


----------



## Joe Blow (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



pixel said:


> So it HAS been done to death.
> One more reason to either delete this thread, merge it into the crazy religion topic, or even add it to the Humour section. Sir O's cartoon is already half-way there




I found an old "big bang" thread to merge it with. Essentially the same topic, just a slightly different angle.

Anyway, for those who wish to continue debating the topic, or post funny cartoons relating to it, please do so here.


----------



## Tisme (28 November 2014)

*Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?*



IFocus said:


> Lucky you holidays in Mandurah back in the day when it was a holiday town.
> 
> Still is in some ways I guess but it has grown really to a point of being a Perth outer suburb now with train and freeway / parking lot at peek hour.
> 
> ...






yes my mother sold it on behalf of my grandma just before the first boom,  around late 70s.

It was a big time place in summer for swimming lessons and between the jetties, the porpoise would hang around at a distance, we would catch fish from the bridge undercroft, go to Halls Head and Silversands for a bit of surf, iceman would deliver blocks to the door for the Coolgardie safes, lotsa crabs boiled in old coppers, fresh fish from under the houses of the local fisherman, fresh bread from the bakeries at 4ish in the morning, pink zinc and girls to fiddle 

The mongrel laid back lifestyle of Mandurah was much better than "Our Fine Tuned Universe" California style.


----------



## trainspotter (28 November 2014)

Pretty much sums it up nicely. AGAIN !


----------



## Logique (29 November 2014)

Cosmic scientists..well I still think they made Dark Matter up..


----------



## DB008 (29 November 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Pretty much sums it up nicely. AGAIN !




Yeo


----------



## burglar (29 November 2014)

Logique said:


> Cosmic scientists..well I still think they made Dark Matter up..




It's just a label.
So Comic scientists can debate it!


----------



## noirua (7 February 2021)

__





						A giant black hole suddenly went dark, and no one knows why
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2021)

Aren't they already dark (black) or do you mean dark in the sense that its presence suddenly can't be detected? For instance, its gravitation pull on nearby stars.


----------



## cynic (7 February 2021)

bellenuit said:


> Aren't they already dark (black) or do you mean dark in the sense that its presence suddenly can't be detected? For instance, its gravitation pull on nearby stars.



The headline for that article is a bit misleading. It's saying that x-rays issuing from materials colliding on their journey (into the black hole) are no longer being detected.


----------

