Royston

Congratulations Mooey and Klaynos, now go forth and refute those logical fallacies. Where's the maths ?!?

Can somebody please put me out of my misery, and lock this thread. The OP has been addressed several times, the other 90% is just drivel.

Entropy, energy...or you could use chemical formula's e.g Hydrogen isocyanide (HNC) or I have an HNd in Chemistry.

Well as disheartening as all that sounds. (I guess there's a lack of physics teachers these days.) I've dusted myself off, I'm already attempting my first assignment, which is due around mid February for my maths course (having studied the first unit), and hope to finish four units before the end of the month. So I should be two months ahead, which will give me ample time to revise for the resit. I've ordered past exam papers, plus assignments for my last course, which are part of next years presentation...just to keep it fresh in my mind. It's going to be tough (as I work full time as well), but ho hum.

Well I've just purchased, (and now master of) my Universe. I'm in the process of painting my cat green, and have bought a blonde bob wig from e-bay...I'm sure Pangloss will appreciate my new 'look'.

Yes, light (or EM radiation) has a colour and number, depending on it's frequency, and therefore it's wavelength. There are plenty of diagrams that show this, just google the subject. However to give you a taste, the frequencies range from gamma rays that have a wavelength of around [math]10^{-12} m[/math] and smaller, and a frequency of [math]10^{21} Hz[/math] and greater, to radio waves that have frequencies ranging around [math]10^{5} Hz[/math]. These frequencies have a colour (it takes certain instruments to record these colours...our eyes being one of them), red light being a lower frequency, then progressing through the spectrum, to visible light (which is around yellow) to higher frequencies such as blue and violet. This is the basics, I can go into further detail if you wish.

Aye, it was the theme I was using, thanks both.

That's odd, the festive theme is there when viewing the forums not logged in, but disappears when I'm logged on.

Well unfortunately I have to do a resit next year, just being a few percent below a pass, so my result was as expected, but I still feel incredibly sh*tty right now. I discussed the results with other students, and they couldn't believe I sat the exam under the circumstances I was in at the time. A tutor told me it was the first time he didn't have one distinction in his group...so it was tough, and I had too much going on outside my studies to be thinking clearly (anyone who thinks that as an excuse, can kiss my arse). The concensus was that the majority were just happy to pass, regardless of the grade. The problem I have now is that my revision for the resit will clash with my next course, albeit they're similar subjects, my next course being more math orientated. Anyway, despite trying to rationalise my result (i.e it's not solely my fault), I'm still seriously p*ssed off at the moment. I'm taking a break from anything remotely science for a few days, to get composed, and get back the determination and focus I have for the subject, despite this heavy knock to my confidence.

That's quite the claim. Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

It was particularly good conditions last night, and I managed to make out 4 of the moons (I presume the Galilean moons) possibly 5, all aligned to the left. Just with my humble Tal-1, which only has a 110 mm aperture. I could just about make out some colour, but no details...there are better times for viewing Jupiter, but still very cool.

What do you call a man with no shins ? Tony (hahahahaha) What do you call a man with no shins ? Toeknee (tumble weed drifts past) I was assuming that people would realise why I used the word 'fallacy' in the same sentence as the word 'suck.' However, I also assumed that YT was purposely urinating on my joke, so I didn't go through this whole painful process of explaining the original joke. It isn't the first time it's happened on here, and I'm sure (especially now) that it won't be the last. On topic, the OP's reasoning is flawed, historically and logically for the reasons already pointed out.

I don't wish to suck on your fallacy, young man...good day to you.

So, anyone for a tickle ?

Typical, this is just out of shot from my backgarden, but I managed to have a look through the window via my telescope, though this clearly muddies the view a bit. However, if it's a clear night where you are, have a look outside (towards the moon obviously)... http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/52786/moon-venus-jupiter-on-december-1

The solution is simple, get a nuclear reactor, and a thick steel wall so the decayed particles don't pass through, and you should get a stream (a wall) of neutrinos passing through the other side of the wall. Simply walk back and forth through the wall of neutrinos, the wall of neutrinos has mass, and you can pass through it with ease. I realize that's a bit a tenuous, but it's all I could think of.

What negative result ? The flaw in your argument was pointed out very early on, and then the thread veered off. How ? And why havn't you addressed the responses to your argument e.g No, there's no significance to it, because your original argument is flawed. Then we decided to chat amongst ourselves, it got slightly heated, but that's what usually happens when religion is thrown into the mix...this is a science forum after all.

Yes, the electron is defined by how it interacts e.g negative electric charge. If you collided an electron and a *positron you can create two gamma ray photons, at higher energies you can create heavier particles (namely mesons), due to conservation laws, and the relationship [math]m = \frac{E}{c^2}[/math] i.e the energy has to go somewhere (very basically.) Hope that makes sense. Keep asking if there's something you're not sure about. *electrons anti-particle

Listening to Lemon Jelly on the bus this morning. I had several best moments yesterday, ummm, actually it was the day before. Brushing up on my calculus for my next course (yeah I know that's sad), staring at M31 (Andromeda) for ages through my telescope and just contemplating on what I was looking at, the usual thing, is someone staring back at the Milky Way, it's taken 2 million years for the light from M31 to reach Earth et.c et.c Then, like Gilded, (but not finishing) making progress on a tune...I havn't had the chance to write music for a while due to other pressures this year. So it was a very fruitful evening.

Around the age of 5 until just before my teens, I wanted to be a professional artist, and model maker. I used to make pop-up books, come up with cartoon characters, fantasy artwork et.c This then progressed to creating monsters with latex and simple mechanisms to operate any moving parts...so at that time I wanted to work for Jim Hensons creature workshop. Around the age of 8, I was listening to a radio show where a young boy was talking about the expansion of the Universe...it was very parrot fashion, and I started wondering about what caused this. Certainly wasn't a passion, but this interest in the cosmos was lurking in the back of my mind since then. Hit my teens, and wanted to be a professional musician for a while, then realized the music industry sucked, so was happy to stay as a bedroom producer (which I still do to this day) except my studio is in the, what should be, the dining room. Early twenties was a bit confusing, had nothing to focus on, so I buggered off round the world. Came back with itchy feet (quite literally with all the trekking) and started pondering over those all important questions, which lead to starting a degree in physics, and also took up amateur astronomy. My ambition now is to become a cosmologist, it took a long time for it to dawn on me, but it just clicks for me. Well, that was more like my life's story, but I'm bored at work, so sorry for rattling on.

Please excuse my tone with the following...but dear God. Lol ? Oh really, please go ahead. Ya think ? Well judging by the quality of your post, it seemed like you needed that explained to you. The school of thought for a long time was far from what you're stating as 'obvious'...read up on Laplace's demon. It wasn't until the likes of Poincare' and Bohr et.c that turned the predictive powers of math and physics on it's head. I have no problem with your sort of reply from somebody who clearly knows what they're talking about, but it's perfectly obvious you don't. As usual, it's more of your meandering airy waffle. What ? EDIT: Hmm, a bit strong I guess, I've stuck you on ignore, that'll be best for both of us, eh ?

There's no reason to believe that the Universe (matter/energy et.c) is not infinite, but you can still ask why it's infinite. I thought I mentioned 'competing theories.' i.e big bang scenarios.

I hate to bring up the how/why argument again, but you may as well ask 'why are things the way they are', it's irrelevant which epoch you choose to use that question. This statement is meaningless if you accept that some outcomes are inherently unknowable, i.e there's a probability of certain outcomes, or certain outcomes are subject to chaos. To predict the state of the Universe 13.7 billion years from now, via initial conditions is utterly ludicrous. It only takes a basic understanding of current theories to realize that's possibly the case. This certainly isn't ammo for the likes of Mr.g, it's just 'from what we've gathered so far' this is how the Universe operates, and certainly doesn't address his 'something from nothing' argument. Which (as already been covered) has many competing theories. The point being, the origins of the Universe might be inherently unknowable, and that's possibly the nature of the Universe, not our shortcomings. However, I'm in the camp that can't make any solid conclusions based on the data and theories we have, when it comes to the 'where did it all come from' type of questions. Even if we did have a solid model for the primary conditions of the Universe, we can still ask 'why' those conditions are as they are, and it doesn't matter which way you tackle it, science simply doesn't deal with that type of question. I feel that it's the human condition to ponder over such things, and not something that's embedded in some historical context. Sure, as we developed and gained understanding of nature, we have whittled away the absurd from the predicatively correct. That doesn't mean the 'why' questions don't stay intact, so far they have, within this context at least.

Ok, then you should be more than familiar with optics, correct ? This should certainly help you with your choice. However, being an amateur myself, I've actually done most of my astronomy so far purely by eye, and looking at star maps, getting a sense of scale et.c It's good to become familiar with the nights sky, before using a telescope, hence I recommended a pair of binoculars and a star atlas. I've avoided using setting circles, as exploring and using star maps is invaluable experience before I start getting precise. Albeit I've practiced setting up my telescope correctly, and targeting on a few objects...but this took the fun out of it for me personally. But I'll presume you're going to buy a telescope, so let's start from the top... What price range are you looking at ? Saying cheap, isn't very specific...are you looking at $ 200 - $ 350 for example. What objects are you most interested in ? Planets, or deep sky objects for instance. Does your telescope need to be portable? That'll do for now. Also, I strongly recommend you get a copy of The Backyard Astronomers Guide (Dickinson and Dyers) before you do anything. I picked up a copy for £ 5, from Amazon. It is an excellent book, and will provide all the information you need, from your first purchase, to more advanced astronomy.

One of the first lessons you learn about buying a telescope is to ignore the magnification. Other than that, can you please be a bit more specific i.e what's your price range, what objects are you interested in viewing, do you need it to be portable et.c et.c If this is your first stab at Astronomy, then buy a pair of binoculars and a star atlas, and get yourself orientated first.