Dekan

This business of "spin" seems quite puzzling. Everything seems to be spinning round. Eg, the Earth spins on its axis. The Moon spins round the Earth. Both of them spin round the Sun, which itself spins on its axis. And the Sun is in the Galaxy, which also spins. All this looks rather unnatural. Shouldn't things just be quiet, and rest steady. Instead of constantly whirling around. Why would they keep moving, unless the movement is only an illusion. Also, what about atoms. They're supposed to consist of smaller sub-atomic particles, which apparently possess the property of "spin". So the atoms would also spin round. Has the rotation of individual atoms been observed?

This is interesting, because how is it possible to see multiple images in a mirror. I mean, suppose you stand in front of a full-length mirror. And look at your legs in it. Your legs appear in the mirror as an image. But if you then look downwards, away from the mirror, you can also see an image of your legs. So, by rapidly flicking your eyes towards the mirror, then away from it, down towards your legs - you can get two separate leg-images. Supposedly, these images are produced by individual photons. Which enter your eye, get focussed by the lens onto the retina, converted into nerve impulses, then sent to your brain, where the visual processing parts of your brain interprete them as images. But couldn't these images could be multiplied without limit? Suppose you weren't just standing in front of one mirror, but a series, or array, of mirrors. Angled so that each sends an image to your brain. Your brain would process, and have to accept as real, a multiplicity of images - but would the actual photons be multiplied?

Doesn't Cladking, in post#3, make a valid point: "It's never legitimate to say that one apple plus one apple makes two apples, because apples differ." That's to say, every individual apple differs slightly - even if only at a microscopic level - from any other apple. So strictly speaking, there can't be two of them. This thought links to A A Adrieu's #5: "Why do we call the Sun, Sun?" A good point - why don't we just call it "star". It reminds me of a Science Fiction story. I can't remember the author. But some aliens had landed on Earth, and were discussing a course of action they needed to take after sunset. They didn't say: "We'll do this after the Sun has set". They said: "After the star has set". Their use of "star" instead of "Sun" has stuck in my memory! I suppose from the aliens' point of view, our "Sun" could be regarded as just another star. But is that really true. The Sun must differ from all other stars in the Universe. In the sense that there's no other star that exactly duplicates it. So we're justified in calling it: "The Sun" - a unique object. There aren't any other objects in the Universe which correspond to it, in every exact detail. Therefore the number of "Suns" is just this: 1. Any attempt to count beyond 1, for example to imagine 2 Suns, or 3, or 1,000,000, is interesting, but only theory. Which seems to bear out what Semjase suggests in #4 - numbers are only theoretical. They don't necessarily correspond to physical reality.

Thanks ACG52. But that can't be right, can it? I mean, if the Universe started as a very small point, then got bigger, it must be expanding in an outwards direction. How could it expand inwards - wouldn't that make it shrink. Surely all the matter in an expanding Universe must be moving outwards.

This business of the "Cosmological Principle" seems hard to grasp. If I understand it right, it means that the Universe looks the same, from any point within it. So whether you're standing here, in our Milky Way galaxy, or in the M31 Andromeda Galaxy, or in the remotest galaxy our telescopes can detect - it makes no difference. The Universe always looks the same to you. In all directions. But does that make sense. If the Big Bang theory is true, the Universe started from a single, central point. A point containing all the stuff, or matter, available. Then the point exploded - flinging all the matter outwards, in an expanding sphere. The sphere must have an outer surface. Suppose you were at this outer surface. Then, if you looked further outwards, you'd see nothing - just a void. Whereas if you looked inwards, you'd see all the matter within the sphere - the already formed stars and galaxies. So you'd perceive the "Big Bang" Universe differently - according to whether you looked inwards, or outwards. Thus violating the Cosmological Principle. So is the Cosmological Principle compatible with "Big Bang" - doesn't it require a "Steady State" theory?

Could it be, that Religion is for people who are too thick to understand Science - Religion gives such people something to cling on to?

Can you have an infinite object with a "size"? Isn't that a contradiction? "Infinite" means "without limit". Whereas "size" implies there's a limit to the object. So it can be compared to other objects. Like baseballs can be compared to cricket-balls. So what about the theory that the Universe that we see, is "all there is" - that there are no other external objects, or balls, to compare it with - that it's complete? Can't this theory be justly described as complete balls?

It's like the Giant Rat of Sumatra, the world is not yet ready for it Watson.

The Old Testament account of creation seems quite coherent and logical. It describes exactly the way one might expect a rational God to operate. It makes sense. So why do some people reject it? Consider this: Modern Physics books require us to accept, and believe in, all kind of absurdities. Like a particle going through two different slits at the same time. Or a cat being simultaneously alive and dead. Or a space-traveller going away for 40 years, and coming back only 1 year older. Doesn't the sheer ludicrousness, the irrationality of such beliefs, exceed anything in the Bible?

What's meant by "valid" science? Is it something which supports the current theory - so that makes it "valid". Whereas if it doesn't support the current theory - that makes it "invalid". I dunno what that is, circular reasoning, tautology, or something? Continental Drift was invalid until about 1960. Then Plate Tectonics made it valid. Valid, Schmalid! What matters is whether it's true. Unless Science is only a kind of consensus theory. Which actually, when you think about it, may be just what it is.

Do you drink a lot of tap-water? You should stick to beer. The alcohol neutralises the fluoridated water. The chemically-superactive fluorine rapidly bonds with alcohol, leaving an inert and harmless residue, which is quickly filtered and flushed away by the kidneys. Or drink only rainwater. Above all - never use fluoridated toothpaste. This sticky compound adheres to the gums. Which allows it to remain in our mouths. This gives the fluorine an opportunity to slowly percolate through complex oral tissue. Some of the fluorine gets absorbed and bonded. But enough remains to emerge into the bloodstream. There, it's free to circulate, and pollute our whole body. Our precious bodily fluids should not be made rancid by fluoride! Why can't people see this?

Inow, that attempt to shift the burden of proof is unworthy of you! Can you show a photo of a gay marriage with young male "maids of honor" accompanying the ceremony. Rhetorical question, cos you can't. I dunno what's happening to the United States of America. Gay marriages? The Chinese must be laughing at you, as they prepare to take over the world. Please get a grip.

Apologies for an obvious cliched rejoinder but: In 1933, when Hitler had just come to power in Germany, rumours were rife among the Jewish community that Hitler really meant what he said. Some Jewish people heeded the rumours, saw what was coming, and wisely left the country. Others must've said: "Stupid! Do you seriously think, that the legally-elected government of a modern, civilised, Western country, actually plans to exterminate a sizeable portion of its citizenry, for no reason? That the government is going to build concentration-camps and gas-chambers, to wipe us out? Rubbish!" They stayed, and we all know what happened to them. See, you can't trust politicians. So is it wise to dimiss fluoridation as merely a political desire to help us dentally?

In normal traditional "straight" marriages, bridesmaids accompany the happy blushing (female) wife-to-be. But in these new gay marriages, there don't seem to be any "bridesboys" accompanying the male wife. Why is that?

Gerroff. WWII recruits turned away because they lacked six pairs of opposing teeth? What were the recruits expected to do - bite the Germans/Japs to death. Even if a recruit had all false teeth, that wouldn't stop him firing his gun would it? The thing is, iNow, this business of wide-scale introduction of fluoride into water, seems odd. Strangely "off-key" somehow. Anyway, I'll leave it. Thanks.

When politicians are so keen to put fluoride into the public water-supply, the suspicion must arise that there's an ulterior motive. And it's not just a fervent desire to reduce the incidence of dental caries. But perhaps that's too cynical a view. Might the politicians be making us ingest fluoride, because they sincerely wish to make our teeth more healthy. Does that seem likely?

Does Buddhism really have 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities? That seems to load the odds in favour of the bad guys. Compare that to Christianity. It has a much more favourable balance - just one bad guy "Satan", up against a Trinity of no less than three goodies "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost". This provides a 3 to 1 numerical superiority over Satan. Quite attractive odds, in military terms. Offering good prospects for a Christian victory, and the rout of Satan. Followed by a peaceful heavenly future. Whereas the Buddhists seem to have bleaker prospects, facing a 42/58 inferiority in the correlation of forces. Perhaps they are relying on the blast of a Buddhist V-weapon, brighter than a thousand suns? Or is it all gibberish.

Tsunamis can be explained as ripples in the "Ocean". And the Ocean is made of water. That makes sense. A ripple, or wave propagated through a medium - oceanic water. But in Quantum Theory, there's apparently nothing to wave and ripple in. No Ocean. That seems silly. Surely if an electron behaves as a wave, it must have something to wave in - like the Universal Aether. How can you have a wave in nothing?

But isn't "light" just the part of the electromagnetic field that our human eyes can see. There aren't two different things - "light", and "electromagnetic field". They're the same. So isn't saying: "Light is understood as ripples in the electromagnetic field", the same as saying: "Light is understood as ripples in light" Does that explain anything much, except the beauty of a symmetry?

Perhaps our modern ideas about "time" have been strongly influenced by the invention of cinematography. A reel of film can be run - and projected onto the cinema screen - in either a forwards or backwards direction. It can show us a seed expanding into a flower - or, with the film run backwards, the flower contracting into a seed. Both seem equally valid on the screen. This is bound to give us the idea that "time" can go either way - forwards or backwards. So I suspect that the concept of time travel, and its huge popularity in SF, arose from motion pictures. Were there any pre-cinema SF stories of time-travel?

Yes, he had the Force. In his autobiography, he frankly confessed that as "Gamesmaster", he hadn't a clue what the games were about, and just read the TV script in front of him! Yet he carried it off. He was evidence of the "Great Man" theory. His book "The Boy's Book of Astronomy" was a companion of my youth, and an inspiration. I still have the worn copy in my bookshelves today, all these many years later. His passing away was inevitable, but he did more than most of us in life.

If I may, I'd like to pick up on the word "glaring". The screen does seem to "glare" now. That's because of the very bright central area. It's such an intense white, that it makes my eyes hurt, and shy away from it. Could the central screen area, be toned down a bit, by using for instance, a pale blue colour - like in the side strips? This would make the screen easier on the eyes, and more comfortable to look at.

I agree that Phlogiston wasn't really absurd. It was a rational theory. After all, why shouldn't "negative weight" exist, as far as physics is concerned. Lavoisier's physical weighing experiments didn't do the theory in. What made phlogiston redundant, was the superior oxygen-combustion theory. Which was really a chemical explanation. So maybe Dark Matter could be best explained by chemists? Or is that heresy!

This "Dark Energy" (DE) is very interesting. It apparently has the negative force, to make huge objects, like galaxies, fly apart from each other in grand and spectacular fashion - completely defying Gravity! This would be highly useful on Earth. Even if used on a smaller scale. For example, in the aircraft industry, or in building. The engineering and architectural advantages are clear. And for sport and leisure. Will scientific research enable us to control and exploit this "DE"? Or should we re-investigate the possibilities of negative-weight Phlogiston. Phlogiston in the 18th Century. Dark Energy in the 21st. Both equally absurd. Nothing really changes, does it?

Thanks CharonY - appreciate your advice. The spectacles I referred to aren't "prescription glasses" from an optician after an eyesight-test. They're a very cheap pair, bought for £1.00 from a chainstore. So I can certainly understand why using them might cause eyestrain. What still puzzles me though, is why similar eyestrain isn't caused by the big 4", hand-held, single lens. This lens too, wasn't prescribed by an optician - in fact I got it for £1.00 from a store, just like the specs. But whereas the specs make my eyes ache, the single 4" lens doesn't. Tentative explanations that occur to me are: 1. With the big single lens, both eyes can look through the same optical medium. Which is what happens naturally, when we look at things through the air. And this might be easier, and produce less strain, than if each eye is forced to use a different medium - as it is with the two different lenses of the specs. 2. The big single lens is not constantly held in front of the eyes. Eg, suppose you're reading a book, with the lens held in your hand. When you turn a page, or put the book down, to reflect on some thought, or light a cigarette, or sip your drink, or whatever - it's easy to lay the lens aside for a moment. Thus allowing your eyes to obtain relief from the lens's influence. So your eyes can relax periodically, and strain doesn't build up. This is not the case if you're wearing specs. Specs can hardly be continually whipped off and put back on again all the time - the lenses stay in place in front of the eyes. And so the strain does build up. I'm aware that the above thoughts are a bit clumsily expressed! I'd be glad of any comments - thanks again.