Dekan

The OP means that you can't have movement, unless there are at least two objects, which move relative to each other. That seems logical. And so ... the "Big Bang" idea of a Universe moving outwards from one object, is illogical.

Fresh, why not just stay awake for as long as you can. Then eventually you'll get tired enough to sleep.

Lightburst's OP raises a point about Catholics. Do they really believe in their religion? Some of them don't seem to take it seriously. For example, this verse is from an old Dennis Wheatley novel. The 007-predecessor Gregory Sallust is about to engage in fornication with a Pussy Galore-style bit of stuff. Before doing the deed, they ribaldly intone: "Holy Virgin, we believe, That without Sin, Thou didst conceive; And now we pray, in Thee believing, That we may Sin without conceiving." The word-play is clever and amusing. But what does it imply, from a religious angle?

Yes, the beholder's eye can capture only a fleeting image of beauty. The image is transferred into the brain, and recorded in memory. There it acquires a beauty which doesn't fade, but rather becomes more beautiful as time passes. Because the recorded image is, so to speak, continually re-mastered and enhanced by the pleasure-seeking parts of our brain. Isn't that why we remember things as more beautiful than they actually were?

Yes, but can Hydrogen really pull itself together? A pure Hydrogen atom only has 2 particles in it: central Proton, and outer Electron. Both particles always stay the same distance apart. They are, so to speak, satisfied. They don't push or pull each other, but relax together in equilibrium. No gravity, just peaceful co-existence. The pure Hydrogen atom always stays the same size. So shouldn't a cloud of such atoms, also stay the same size?

Yes, doesn't it seem puzzling why Christians always get upset when someone dies. According to the Christian religion, a good deceased person goes to Heaven - a place of eternal bliss. Which would seem to make the funeral a happy occasion. Whereas, a bad deceased person goes to Hell - a place of sadness and eternal torment. So if, at a funeral, relatives and friends go about looking mournful and sad, what does that imply about their opinion of the person? Is it libellous?

.

"Beauty" is hard to define, because it's a vague abstract word. Like "Justice", or "Pleasure". Can we arrive at a precise definition of "Pleasure"?

Might the biggest force be neutrons? They have no electric charge. Yet they make protons stick to them in atoms. Could this be because the protons get pulled by the gravity of the neutrons. If so, neutrons might be the real cause of gravity. That would explain why gravity doesn't seem to affect Hydrogen gas very much. It's because pure Hydrogen molecules don't contain neutrons. So Hydrogen is not susceptible to gravity - it floats about freely throughout the Universe.

OP makes an interesting point. Maths can be done with simple numbers. Without striving for any futile decimal equivalents of Pi. If you want the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, you just take 355, and divide by 113. That gives a value accurate to the millionth part. Which is enough for everything. As Swansont wisely implies, useful values are the most important in Science.

The OP raises a good query. The interior of the Earth is supposed to be extremely hot. With temperatures of thousands of degrees. Where does all this heat energy go - shouldn't it push outwards - and so make the Earth's crust expand. And also bring all the Earth's oceans to boiling point. Why hasn't that happened yet?

The Electron must be real, because otherwise we wouldn't have electric currents powering our modern devices. The Neutron is also probably real, because it can kill people. Other putative particles, should be regarded sceptically. The idea of 4D, is good in works of fiction.

I think Popcorn's premise is valid. Only "pushing" makes sense. This is seen in everyday life. Like when you use a hoover to clean your carpet. The hoover doesn't "pull" the carpet-dust up. The dust gets "pushed " into the hoover, by outside atmospheric pressure. And isn't pressure just a synonym for pushing. The air pushes the dust up the aperture! This seems to demonstrate that nothing moves in the Universe moves, unless it gets pushed by something. So wasn't Aristotle right all along the line?

The above posts are disturbing. Some of us come on here, expecting a rational discussion of scientific questions.

If matter is made of physical particles, surely they can only interact by physically pushing against each other. Otherwise you get occult properties, like "attraction". What that means nobody knows, least of all Newton. He didn't finger any hypotheses, and was resisted by Descartes, who argued that vortices were more rational. But the Descartes was defeated, as the French usually are, and Newton won the day. Nevertheless, the question remains. How can a particle influence another particle, except by pushing it?

If God exists, and He created the Universe, He must have done it for a reason. The reason was probably this: the Universe provides Him with a source of entertainment. Like watching a soap-opera. After all, suppose you were God. A huge, omnipotent Being. Wallowing in the glorious radiance of your own existence. This would be nice. But it'd get boring after a while. So you'd want some diversion, such as creating Satan, and humans. Then watching how the wily Satan tempts naive Eve with an apple. She eats it. And then (get this) Adam, her dumb schmuck of a husband, eats it too! What a laugh! God must be having a fit, watching His divine soap-opera unfold - you must admit, it's great entertainment.

The above twisting and turning posts, strongly imply this: that the old explosive "Big Bang" theory is a busted flush. What we need is a good new "Steady State" theory. Who will supply it?

What about the National Flag of India? It's a stylish tricolour, with 3 horizontal stripes. The stripes are coloured Saffron (a mellow Yellow), White and Green. These colours must register with modern Indian citizens. Otherwise, how would they recognise their own flag? Maybe some elderly Indian citizens have memories of the Raj. When the British Union Flag, with its Red, White and Blue, flew over the country imperialistically. That might have limited vision. But those days are long gone. Don't all citizens of the Republic of India nowadays see things in full colour?

Doesn't it seem odd, that feathers haven't been evolved by bats. Bats rely on skin in their wings. The skin is crudely stretched between hypertrophied former hand digits. These digits, grossly lengthened, when viewed in schematic diagrams, resemble Pterodactyls and Pteranodons. Admittedly, these prehistoric animals used only one finger. Whereas bats employ the full hand set. But why haven't bats got feathers on their wings? Or conversely - if bats manage without feathers, why have birds got them?

The posts by Kvraghavaiah and CarbonCopy are valuable. They show the importance of language, when we try to define a word like "Science". The word "Science" is precisely understood in the English language. That's because English has a rich vocabulary. So many words! With this wealth of words, English speakers can make precise distinctions between "Science", "Knowledge", "Wisdom" "Learning" and so on. Other languages, like Sanskrit, can't express these fine shades of meaning, because they haven't got enough words. The small Sanskrit vocabulary, means that each word has to struggle to convey a wide range of possible meanings. Which of the meanings is intended has to be deduced from the context. And the context is often open to various interpretations. So Sanskrit can't be as lucid and precise as English. Therefore, should we bother with Indian languages, or discuss in English only?

Could we make a "Quark Microscope"? It would be like an "Electron Microscope", but with more resolving power.

Why don't we vaccinate all babies, as soon as they're born? Then they couldn't get any diseases. So the diseases would quickly die out, and wouldn't afflict us any more.

Humming-birds eat only sugar, which they suck up in liquid form, from flowers. The sugar seems to give the humming-birds great energy. It lets them beat their wings at an amazing speed. Could we follow their example, and just eat sugar?

Believing in Black Holes, is like believing in Relativity. They're both contrary to natural reason. And in that respect, they resemble Religious belief. Religious beliefs are strongly defended. They are mainstream beliefs, accepted by the religious community. The community does not like heretics. They get burned.

Perhaps God created us. And thought we'd be little players, in a game designed for His amusement. If so, God made a big miscalculation. He thought He could control the game. But we have discovered Science. That will enable us to bust God's ass off - Boy did He get it wrong!