aaabha

A Theory Of Co-existence I have come to the conclusion humans were created to co-exist with the Universe, in which case the Universe was made for us, for without us it serves no purpose. Before the humans & animals came to be, you had the Universe. Space, stars, planets etc. We can be certain that the microscopic particles and atoms do not have the intelligence to comprehend their existence, correct? The humans, & a majority of animal species have what is called an eye. Light is reflected off matter, passed through the eye and converted by our brains into what we see (the visiual). We can see planets & stars, they can’t see themselves. Meaning their magnificence & beauty is blinded to themselves, but visible to creatures with eyes. So basically everything has purpose, so what purpose does a star or planet serve if it cannot be felt? appreciated? colonized? let alone seen? Only we can do that. Unless you believe in aliens. .

Can we be sure that decay times are constant? Particle decay is clearly some statistical process. Generally speaking, particles are some stable solutions of some physics (like a field theory) - they are some local/global energy minimums for given constrains like spin or charge. So from energetic point of view, particle decay should be getting out of some local energy minimum by crossing some energy barrier and finally reaching some lower energy minimum - just like in thermodynamics (?) Energy required to cross such energy barrier usually comes from thermal noise - in case of particle decay there would be required some temperature of vacuum ... Generally the universe is built not only of particles, but also can carry different interactions - EM, weak, strong, gravitational. This possibility itself gives vacuum huge amount of degrees of freedom - some fundamental excitations, which not necessarily have nonzero mass like photons ... and if there is some interaction between them, thermodynamics says that they should thermalize - their energy should equilibrate. We can measure thermal noise of EM part of these degrees of freedom - 2.725K microwave background, but degrees of freedom corresponding to the rest of interactions (weak, strong, gravitational) had billions of years to thermalize - should have similar temperature. The EM part gives about 6*10^-5 of energy of vacuum required to obtain expected cosmological constant, maybe the rest of interactions carries the rest of it ... Anyway we believe that this microwave background is cooling - so 'the temperature of universe' should so. Shouldn't it became more difficult for particles to cross the energy barrier to get to a lower energy minimum? It would increase decay times ... We have experimental evidence that physical constants like e,G are unchanged with time, but is it so with decay times? Maybe radiometric dated things are a bit younger than expected... Similar situation is for example for excited electrons ... .

Q about teaching gravity Hello I came across a secondary school physics teacher recently who said that he explicitely teaches his pupils that gravity is not a force. His reason for this is that gravity is the field and weight is the name given to the force of gravity. This is giving me quite a headache for the following reasons: Pros of teacher's argument: 1) He's right, as in nothing he said was factually incorrect. 2) Looking at the big picture, its kind of good that the teacher had a deeper knowledge of the subject than most science teachers. Cons of teacher's argument: 1) He's just trying to be a smart-rse. I have a physics degree and no-one from my school teachers right up to university lecturers (who listed gravity as a fundamental force) has seen the need to pick apart the language of gravity in such a way. Thus I feel gravity being called a force is accepted by everyone else Ive ever met so why would the teacher be so picky? So the questions Id like answered is does the teacher have a point and more importantly, should he be teaching kids this point? Is it an important distinction like weight/mass or substance/material, or is it just about the English language? ....

Easier to get into Grad school with 2 degrees? Is it? Currently Im majoring in Psychology with a minor in Sociology. I was thinking however, getting a major in Sociology as well would be beneficiary - although it may take an extra semester. (Currently Im a 1st semester Sophomore). Just wondering what you thought. I'll probably go through with it, but as far as grad school is concerned, will it help a lot? for example, if it was between me and someone else, and it looked like this: Kid - Major in Psych, minor in Soc. 3.8gpa. Me: Major in Psych and Soc. 3.2gpa Still think they would take me over the other guy (even though he has a higher gpa)? thanks ....

Does Science consist of facts? Hey guys and girls, I have to write a 1500 word essay on the following questions, Does Science consist of 'facts'? If so, what are these facts, and how can we be sure that they are 'true' or 'correct'? If not, what does science consist of? Can anyone offer any advice or any comments on this? ....

HOw do i measure in grams without an expensive scale? For a chemistry experiment, i have to measure in grams, but i don't have a scale at home, what do i do instead of buying one? Please help me ....