Leaderboard

Great, so we don't need guns?

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-diamond-sky-lost-planet.html Study: Diamond from the sky may have come from 'lost planet' April 17, 2018 by Frank Jordans Fragments of a meteorite that fell to Earth about a decade ago provide compelling evidence of a lost planet that once roamed our solar system, according to a study published Tuesday. Researchers from Switzerland, France and Germany examined diamonds found inside the Almahata Sitta meteorite and concluded they were most likely formed by a proto-planet at least 4.55 billion years ago. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-diamond-sky-lost-planet.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03808-6 A large planetary body inferred from diamond inclusions in a ureilite meteorite: Abstract Planetary formation models show that terrestrial planets are formed by the accretion of tens of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos through energetic giant impacts. However, relics of these large proto-planets are yet to be found. Ureilites are one of the main families of achondritic meteorites and their parent body is believed to have been catastrophically disrupted by an impact during the first 10 million years of the solar system. Here we studied a section of the Almahata Sitta ureilite using transmission electron microscopy, where large diamonds were formed at high pressure inside the parent body. We discovered chromite, phosphate, and (Fe,Ni)-sulfide inclusions embedded in diamond. The composition and morphology of the inclusions can only be explained if the formation pressure was higher than 20 GPa. Such pressures suggest that the ureilite parent body was a Mercury- to Mars-sized planetary embryo. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: If this is validated, could this have been the planetary size body hypothesised to have collided with a young still partly molten Earth, resulting in the formation of our Moon?

What was misleading about it? Is he not a teacher at MSD? Did he not leave his gun in a bathroom? Did he not get arrested?

*Whispering so the mods won't notice* There is a bug in the software so that the votes don't appear immediately. If you come back to the thread, you should see it. And sometimes, there might appear to be a physical interpretation but it doesn't really mean anything. For example if you work out the fuel use of your car in, say, gallons per mile (for the Americans) the result has the same units as area. But I'm not sure what that area would mean.

A better analogy to the Newtonian relation between mass and gravity is charge and electric field, as they are both 1/r^2 dependencies. I would say that our understanding (or lack thereof) of why charge causes an electric field is similar to our understanding of why mass causes gravity. But people focus on gravity as being the mystical one, for some reason.

Ambiguous and misleading aren't really the same thing. But why does it matter that he didn't leave it in a school bathroom? It's the notion that this is not the only time it's going to happen (and law enforcement does this from time to time) and the short time frame it took is an indication of how often it might happen if we expand the number of people carrying weapons.

Having watched the video I fail to see how the inclusion of a god, as outlined in the video, is useful to Big Bang Theory. The video is asking why it couldn't have been god who caused the big bang without addressing why it matters or any proof that it may have been. Including god into Big Bang Theory doesn't improve the theory. Including god into Big Bang Theory only renders it more speculative. Big Bang Theory is not universally accepted and there are still a lot of details that are unknown. The addition of god as an additional variable, one which has no empirical basis in physics, does help the math so why include it?

This is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just post random unconnected thoughts.

QFT Time is seconds and length is metres. It doesn't need to be be overthunk; it's like analysing the fullstop at the end of this sentence.

Once you ask "what is time?" you are already into metaphysics. And time is movement, time is change runs into problems, which have been discussed ad nauseam in multiple threads.

You have admitted it tells the truth, so why do you want to spin it?

Except, almost by definition, you can't know. Solipsism and free will / illusion of conscious agency / predeterminism are unprovable and unfalsifiable, almost by definition. How could you ever know if you had a choice to have tea or coffee or if it was determined in advance. So if you were certain about it, it would just be a belief not evidenced.

Imagine following experiment. We start with object at altitude/height h=20m, then we release object, and while it's flying we record position of object on timeline (easily done with modern high speed cameras). We received graph h(t). It can be put to e.g. Excel or OpenOffice Calc Spreadsheet. They have simple unit meter m. One entry of table per single exact time. Altitude measured from the ground. If you subtract entries in spreadsheet, A2-A1, fill it down, you will receive distance traveled each second, you can (in memory) divide this distance by e.g. 1s time delay between them. Put it in column B in spreadsheet. First row will be empty because of lack of data (B2=A2-A1... B3=A3-A2... B4=A4-A3... and so on..) (h(1)-h(0))/(t(1)-t(0) = dH/dt = local velocity at 1st second (h(2)-h(1))/(t(2)-t(1) = dH/dt = local velocity at 2nd second (depends on initial altitude whether there will be 2nd second of flight) (h(3)-h(2))/(t(3)-t(2) = dH/dt = local velocity at 3rd second (depends on initial altitude whether there will be 3rd second of flight) dH/dt has unit m/s. Now imagine that you're interested in how this velocity changes over time. It's acceleration. You have to take B3 and subtract from it B2 (In memory you divide by 1s). You have dV/dt. With units (m/s) / s = m/s^2 = m * s^-2 And this is how such example spreadsheet could looks like: I used 0.1 time delay between entries to show how it changes. Initial A1 = 20 - 1/2*9.81*T1^2 and then Edit > Fill > Down

We create meaning because the human brain is an organ that constructs meaning: presumably it benefits us as a species. It's just another thing the universe does when the conditions are right for it: another swirl in a mote of dust , no more or less real than the formation of spiral arms in galaxies. We could attempt to deconstruct it and ask what is going on, but i think it would be a mistake to treat it as an illusion. At some point though you just got to try to enjoy the ride.

Most black holes are not consuming any significant amount of matter. We know this, because when they do, the matter falling in gets incredibly hot and generates a lot of radiation and even seeds jets of matter out at nearly the speed of light. We see this as the relatively small number of quasars and "active" galaxies. Also, galaxies are not, in general, expanding. They are pretty stable (apart from occasional collisions). Expansion only happens at very large scales. It is the space between galaxies that is increasing. Actually, it is the space between clusters of galaxies that is increasing. (Which is why galaxies in clusters can collide with one another!) There is no evidence that anything can come out of a black hole or that they can convert matter to dark matter. And no theoretical reason to think it might happen. Welcome to the forum!

Obviously not. But if you are using "connection" in that vague sense, then your statement is so completely pointless that it becomes meaningless. On that basis my cat has a connection with science. The rocks in my garden have a connection with science. If, by your definition of the word, everything has a connection with science then saying that "religion has a connection with science" is pointless and meaningless. You have, once again, chosen to use words in a non-standard way that makes any discussion impossible.

He's talking about the old chessnut, a/a = 1 1 being Unity though for m/s^2, we're not dividing seconds by seconds, rather (1/seconds) by seconds, so it can't be used here. (1/a)/a = 1/(a^2)

Lasse, It is a good trick for religions to present themselves as science. But they just aren't. And calling for doing science is not science itself. And even if Buddhism has some empirical core, and is pretty rational, it is more like a world view (humanism), with strong philosophical components. But philosophy is not science. And I would also say that Buddhism at most has something to say about the workings of the mind, from the first person perspective. And that is also hardly science. Maybe it is wisdom. But again: also wisdom is not science.

This is not an example of religion having specifically a connection with science. The fact that the Vatican is promoting science (or some versions of it) does not imply in any way that science/religion are or can be part of each other.

This is the Newtonian view: that gravity is a force (inherently) associated with mass, in the same way the electric/magnetic forces are associated with charge. (We have an alternative model now, which I will talk about in a moment) Also, note that an inverse square law means that gravity extends for infinity (but with a decreasing effect). This means that the mass of a single star, for example, becomes insignificant at some distance but the mass of a whole galaxy of stars might still have a measurable effect. That is sort of correct but could be misinterpreted. The difference is that you can get closer if the radius is smaller. There is no difference in the actual gravity from two objects of the same mass. So if you had two objects with the same mass but different densities, then at the same distance the gravity would be the same. For example, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole, it would have no effect on the Earth's orbit. (But it would get very cold and dark!) There is, as you say, potential energy inherent in the gravitational field (because energy needs to be expended to move something higher) but there is no transfer of transmission of energy between objects (I don't think that is what you meant but, as lawyers say: "for the avoidance of doubt"). Yes. But the occasions when matter is converted to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation) are pretty rare and insignificant on a grand scale. And the conversion of energy to matter (e.g. pair production) is even rarer. The conversion between mass and energy is more common; e.g. fusion in stars. True, but I doubt this is measurable (off the top of my head - perhaps we should work it out ...) Electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of the more general electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic radiation is the propagation of changes in the field. The reason why light, for example, is affected by gravity and a magnetic field isn't, is because it is moving. (A better explanation of this is possible with the "other" explanation of gravity I mentioned before...) Magnetism is due to the movement of electric charges. The force between two electric charges follows an inverse square law (like gravity) and so extends forever. As you say, because a magnet is a dipole, the force follows an inverse cube law (and also extends forever). If you could have a magnetic monopole, it would have an inverse square law. I think that statement is too general to be useful. Energy is not a thing that exists by itself, it is a property of things. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" in this statement. It sounds like you might be thinking of electric charge? The gravity of a spherically symmetrical object (a good approximation for the Earth) can be considered to come from the centre. So if the all the mass of the Earth were at the centre, or all concentrated in a thin shell at the surface, we would not see any difference. So the modern view (if 100 years counts as "modern") is that gravity is caused by the curvature of the geometry of space-time. And that curvature is caused by the presence of mass (or energy). Lets try an analogy. Imagine two people who start walking parallel to one another but a few feet apart. If they are on a flat plane, then there will be no change in the distance between them. For the sake of this analogy, lets call the distance between them "space" and the direction they are travelling "time" (so they are walking into the future at a steady pace). Now, instead of walking on a flat plane, they are on the surface of the Earth, in the Arctic, walking towards the North Pole. As they move towards the pole (into the future) they get closer together. There is not force pushing them together, it is just the nature of the curved geometry of the surface of the Earth. Now, simple extend that analogy to four dimensions and it will all make sense! And this is why light, for example, is affected by gravity: it is travelling in the equivalent of a straight line in curved space-time. You might ask, "why does mass cause the geometry of space-time to curve?" And I guess the only answer is, "that is the definition of mass." Science doesn't really deal with the ultimate "why" questions. Newton refused to guess what might cause the force between two masses; it is just there. That will probably just raise more questions but I hope it helps... The energy to accelerate something to the ground, comes from the fact you have to use energy to lift it up in the first place. So, being on the ground is a lower energy state but there is no energy transfer due to gravity itself. It doesn't require a source of energy to maintain a static gravitational field. In the same way, it doesn't require any energy to maintain a static magnetic field. A magnet doesn't use up its "power" by being attracted to things.

One could say that religion is a part of nature. But then science can study it, but as a natural phenomenon. So religion is in fact studied, e.g. by sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, history, comparative religious studies. But none of them is concerned with the question if the religious propositions are true. In general, religions themselves do not even have methods to decide what propositions are true. They only have traditions to fall back on. They have nothing to do with science: except that they can be an object of science. But that is true for any natural phenomenon. Sorry, Lasse, but you are just proclaiming your world view that obviously feels good for you. It doesn't stand any rational criterion.

What kind of format and topics are you thinking of? We did indeed have debates years ago, but scheduling them, picking a good format, and getting participants is a fair amount of work, and the right format is important to make the debates work.

Metres4 is a 'section property', called Moment of Inertia by structural engineers, materials engineers and the like. The fourth power arises because it is defined as the Integral the product of an area and the square of its distance from the pivot axis. For a given shape [math]{I_x} = \int {{y^2}} dA[/math] Where Ix is the Moment of inertia of the shape about the x axis dA is a small (differential parcel of area of the shape y is the distance of that area from the x axis This section property appears in formulae involving bending in beams etc. Here is a table for various shapes of cross section. Note that the formulae involve four lengths multiplies together to get the fourth power. Does this help? Funnily enough Prometheus is currently doing a grand job helping a new member with some statistics. Moments of area are also used in statistics.

There is no come back for me from this, this is just too hilarious. I admit that the English quotations are just a button away for me on my iphone, I’m just too lazy to do it but, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come your strenght” Sigmund Freud.

He was fired by the Right, called a slime ball by the Right, labelled a leaker by the Right, and POTUS was just claiming yesterday that Comey broke the law so there is a chance the Right may demand Comey be investigated. All the Left did was lament about the time of an announcement. The Right actively tried to hijack Comey's investigation while he was in office and have since taken his career from him and actively worked to soil his his reputation. Degree matters. To the degree that it impacts Comey's life and the FBI as an organizations the Left vs Right's objections and treatment of Comey exist of separate scales.

That is exactly what I am doing. I really love to live. I enjoy the feeling to be part of Nature. Tradition and old books are important too. They are part of our history. Perfect test to spot the unreal and outdated and filter out what can be true.. The new knowledge anyway needs firm base. History and religions are part of nature. I like to recognize that, even they are not my main source of information since a while. Science observe and measure Nature. Your cat and stone are parts of Nature. It depends where from you look at it.

Can you give some indication that you in fact understand Eise’s post above and are capable of drawing rational conclusions from it? So far you’re just going around in circles incoherently repeating your mantra, trying to marry science with religion not accepting anything that is being layed out for you. Your other thread is closed, how many does it take? Or do you think that everybody is talking trash and you’re the only one right?

What swansont said about having to have knowledge to understand complex problems is ofcourse right. What geordief said about the ability to explain difficult problems in easly digestable ways is also right. These two things seem unrelated. I’ve never heard any phycisist talk 100% comfortably about time because we simply do not have the means to explain what it is other than math. We can try all kinds of flexing of spoken of written language but it just never sticks. The wonderful quote by Minkowski above, Im sure can be difficult to understand to someone who has no idea about spacetime and GR. The other friday I was asked by a pharmacist at a social meeting over a drink about what I think about time...I imediately started to explain to him what spacetime is, what implications GR has to everyday life, what gravity is, GPS examples of time dilation, etc. I have many years of experience as a teacher teaching adults (not physics) and it was very difficult for me to get through this guys head that gravity is in fact spacetime curvature. He couldn’t grasp it, went over his head multiple directions not to understand it despite really wanting to. Hes a college graduate and he is a rationally thinking man, he couldnt get it.

Hmmm... based on your knowledge how high would you put the probability that minimum one advanced AI exist longer than 10 million years in this minimum 13.8 billion lightyear big system? Now that we are their at it's gates in our own reality (let it be 1000 years). Does an advanced AI would count as a supernatural entity for you? Any advanced AI supported biological entity could be supernatural maybe? What is supernatural? You, me, we? Maybe for our gut bacteria if they would be able to perceive US. I kind of believe that someOne/something is out there evolving with (in) the system. I would put it's probability on 99.99.9...% I can not imagine that there is exactly One such superintelligent entity exist in the system... Note we do not have the same habitat as they, so what they would want from us? They would want to have earth as a London resident would want the spot of space of an universally harmless bacteria in the Amazon river.... Than what is leading to Advanced AI if not Science...? Or is it the final question? Is there a God or not? There is consciousness in the universe... Who knows how small God could have been.... Maybe the smallest information after Nothing....the moving force behind the velocity of spacetime. Which just had had to be a basic consciousness(fundamental information) in proportion to nothing... Seems to be singular...

You mean if something has just proof science can not use it? Lets say Nature is the proof of God? Why this information useless for them? Aren't they interested about Nature and what/how/why it is? There are quite some good God alternatives here. Thanks op for the special One

How about we focus on the threads topic? It is inevitable at this point that people will proceed with genetic alterations. It will most likely become a common thing and many will use it purely for cosmetic reasons. So while I have strong reservations about it I also realize it is a question of how it should be used and not a question of if it should be. Knowing it will be used leaves me left wondering what possible constraints might be put in place. Protecting ones genetic privacy might be the best we can hope for. Even there (privacy) I can imagine issues. For example genetic alterations might end up replacing vaccines one day and schools might require information on who has had the alterations.

We established that you reinvent the meaning of words to suit your agenda so this marriage is true but only for you.

I understand what you say but I Think you are not right. I listen Everything but I am not a robot to accept Everything have been said without questioning it (independent it is Science of Religion). I recheck the post in reality. I never said that science is a religion or that any of the religions would be science. I said that they have some level of historical correlation i.e. they are not absolutely separate. I do not have more to say about this turbulent science/religion connection in human history even we disagree.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the language barrier might be the reason behind the „confusion” but it looks like you’re just trolling.

Thats good to hear. You will need to start trying to draw rational conclusions from the discussion and stop developing new meaning to words and concepts to convince people otherwise. You also need to stop contradicting yourself, you don’t get to say that you „finally understood the God of science” and then claim that you never said that science is a religion. Since you’re not trolling, maybe you should start understanding what is being said in this thread, for starters read Eise’s posts again and respond...coherently.

Considering that time is a temporal dimension which is inseparable from spacial dimensions I think it doesn’t make much sense asking what it is without context. If put to the wall I would answer that space which is volume and not some „real thing” has 3 spacial dimensions which describe it and Time has its arrow which describes it so its not some „real thing” as well - we would have an equally hard time describing what width, height or lenght is. Acording to relativity, both the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension play predictible game with matter/energy so it would make sense to me to treat time on equall terms with the other dimensions...at least then, it becomes clearer what time is.

You look it from the wrong point of view. More believer more support for research and task execution. Science has already a strong philosophy. So easy to understand. It would not be easy to corrupt it, specially if there are few billion interested eyes looking for clear information. To jump back to the original topic: Finally I understood The God of Science, The only supernatural state possible to exist, the source code of the Universe: The state of physically Nothing: 0 Task completed. Final question of life answered. Science and Religion lived happy ever after...

I might be confused but I do not troll.

Define what nothing is and why. Give a mathematical symbol to it. Define what finite means in the terms of science. Why? Define what infinity means in the terms of science. Why? Why infinity does not apply everywhere? I am looking for dogma im your science and yet I would not accept it as my Religion... it is dogmatic. I can not accept unexplained, untested, unprovable dogma. 1/0, 1*0 The final answer on can science be my religion is: Of course it can. What else could be? But the science you practice todays is not yet that science. Said well: science is a process. Yes it is evolving. Different times has different questions and recognitions. There is a reason for the op too... You can recognize it or not. 1....0 Everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value... Can you deny that?

With all my respect on this we disagree. Time and the sense of nothing sooner or later will solve this problem. You do not pay enough attention. Maybe you post too much which comes with a hint of superficiality in topics you are not that interested in. (Religion)

It is already married at some level you like it or not, you can go around in circles trying to deny it but that will not make your Point of view true in reality.... It accept and support the work of science. But maybe I missundersand what: promote it`s research means....

So you mean you did not learned anything science had to offer, and your opinion is absolutely not effected by anything what science have to teach. The same I quess you mean to be true for any religion as well. So basically you say that if I accept a political parties ideology and support their activity, it is meaning that I have absolutely nothing to do with politics. Try to explain this in the communist Hungary of the 70` 80`. (those times they called such an individual the enemy of the state and punished with strong sentences ) Or for religion: If I accept a religions ideology and support their activity it is meaning that I do not have any connection to that religion. Explain this to the CIA when they are checking potential threats