Baby Astronaut

They probably should have put microscopes on the rover for detecting microorganisms.

Flatulence on Mars?

Magnitude of the other forces. Electromagnetic Force: 1,000 newtons Weak Force: .01 newtons Gravitational Force: [math].10^{-33}[/math] newtons Those are my guesses on each force's approximate strength within a distance of 1 femtometer.

Fixed Edit: Ouch! Not a good word to follow the other with

Surely that won't be misinterpreted I know you're not a dolt by your style of trollism. Or as Sayonara called it, ridiculous pantomime Your opening statements were a bit jumbled but with nuggets of insight. So thanks even if you hadn't intended it. I can see you'll possibly get booted soon for crafting your responses in a way that focuses back on your disproved points, and feigning ignorance of this occurrence. To put it another way: you've been "caught". Stating the obvious, I know. Now we might either have a real discussion, or you'll continue a path that seems to be constructive only for getting your kicks. Hopefully the former.

This might be answered, but it raises a ton of possibilities. Maybe others already knew these, but for me it's a leap of insight. Solids, liquids and gases are only distinguishable on the molecular scale by their behavior, which has a root cause identical to the mechanisms of diffusion and thermal equilibrium previously mentioned. Amazingly, the sole reason for all of it is cause and effect, by the 4 known forces.

PlayStationX, they are not wrong. If anything, you're probably better off claiming the notion of "a pair" is limited rather than wrong, since obviously its math has been proven to support it millions of times with endless calculations by thousands of people. From what I can understand, what you're saying is that back in the day, someone had began making these calculations using only two equal and opposite variables, when in fact they could have used any number of equal and opposite variables, not just two. Correct? I'm not fluent in math, so can't test your equations. But I'm curious what the "r" signifies in F= m*a = G*m1*m2/r^2.

Interesting scenario, going back in time might change the events leading to the invention of your time machine. Oh, and welcome Now, let's see. We're at the speculation phase with time travel. So you might not get any conclusive response from others. And just so you're warned, the thread could be moved to an appropriate section if a moderator decides it. With that out of the way, I'd like to add something a bit curious. If you travel into the past, you're likely just traveling into your future. Dwell on that a moment, you'll get it. See? Thoughts in your head are still progressing forward, not backwards. Pretty cool, eh?

"Only force accelerates" can imply an unintended meaning. _________________________________ I am a force. I can accelerate myself. Nothing else can accelerate itself. _________________________________ It's very possible I'm wrong, but the only method of knowing for sure is to test it out. Can't answer your one question, since I'm unaware if an equation that contains acceleration but not force exists.

I actually think the "new" direction is relevant. More importantly, the only speculation we've had is in determining the significance of an original choice of wording. Seeing if you can reduce a statement to its bare essentials, and considering it's a scientific one, I think is a good exercise to develop a well-constructed vision of its mechanics. Isn't it valid to discuss changes in the way science is taught, if we alter none of its conclusions in any way, but instead manage to clarify them? Martin attempted a philosophy of science area, where maybe the thread would fit better. I don't think it's a good idea to split it though, for the context might be lost or diluted. Maybe a historical science branch is needed today, where one can investigate how science has evolved throughout the ages, without its mixing into contemporary understanding. Not with equations, but yes. 1. The science establishment can select a group to unanimously determine that a reduced statement doesn't omit anything necessary and has less potential confusion. 2. It's tested with newbies and students alike to verify that no confusion has occurred with its intended meaning. It can go wrong. A person might think the force itself is the only thing able to accelerate. Force alone causes acceleration. Simplified one more notch: Force causes acceleration. As you can see, however, it doesn't explain that velocity maintains its state. I'm not sure if that even covers it. Perhaps the statement below. "Within any frame of reference: a state of rest or uniform velocity is perpetual unless acted upon by a force" Keep in mind that we can go too far in simplifying and then it's counterproductive. We'd have to test the new statement with people to ensure no accuracy/meaning is lost on the other end.

Or even if people here are convinced, they would meticulously separate this inner conviction from any scientific claims they make. *Optimally* Even if every scientist in the world downright believed the video, they would refrain to make scientific claims about it without falsifiable evidence at hand. That's why scientists who believe in a higher being don't make *scientific* claims about that higher being. Faith depends on suspicions, mental logic, feelings, etc. Occasionally, these could lead someone to observe, experiment, test the results, and have it all done again by other people. But then its conclusions are no longer faith, and you are looking at science. What any of us sees in a video or presentation, if it doesn't include testable evidence, is a matter of potential credibility -- decided by the viewer on grounds of personal logic and/or faith -- and it could be something we believe and even discuss among friends, peers or colleagues, yet it's not something we can debate about in a forum that's designated for science. Unless we have evidence to back up any of the claims.

I like where you're heading. Maybe it can be broken down even further. "Uniform motion is perpetual unless acted upon by a force"

It's possible this is already obvious in the math, but if so, I don't have the luxury of understanding equations on that kind of level. So here goes. I understand thermal energy always moves from a hotter source to a colder one. But logically, I would think it moves in both directions, but the hotter source moves faster and thus wins out. The same logic I would think applies to similar events like diffusion. It's possible my thought experiment is correct but popularizations, and the way it's taught in earlier schooling, makes it less intuitive, as if some unknown force were biased towards heat and equilibrium. Am I on track here?

I don't believe czimborbryan is able to supply that evidence, not a mathematician. To the OP: I have wild ideas also, most do not uproot established science but just changes a variable or two. Yet I won't post them as certainty anymore, like in a previous thread not too long ago.

Science is not about trust. Of course not. But then it's not science. It's possible you're caught up in the media's hyped up presentation of science, where entertainment often trumps facts. It's fine if a group of special investigators, or friends, or concerned watchdog organizations speculate on alien existence, or if they're among us, or on possible cover-ups, etc, and try to increase awareness of the possibilities. But it's not science. When these groups point to a remark by a scientist about how the universe is so big it must contain life, that's not science either. It's just a person giving an opinion. Maybe the show counts on you not realizing this. Higher ratings. It'd be nice if they informed you that what you hear isn't proper science. Would it lower ratings? Who knows. But realize there is a clear distinction of what is science and just mere opinion.

One philosophical thought I'd like to contribute, which I suspect many in this community might already privately harbor, is that mathematics which detail existence is reducible far beyond its usual framework into very simple components. One reference I can point to is E=mc2. I believe all mathematics can achieve this simplicity or better. However, if even one variable were off, an increase of complication ripples through the framework until it nears its current state. The variable I mentioned has many faces. Conclusive evidence is one -- and what if it turns out to be incorrect? When Einstein proved that energy and matter were one and the same, I would imagine it had a ripple effect that simplified other formulas. Consequently, a lot of divergent theories may have been collapsed into a simpler framework. The leap of insight with electromagnetism most probably accomplished a similar thing. I've noticed in researching mathematical origins that the authors of certain formulations had used personalized notations. The implications of this leads me to hope a few will realize that our mathematical architecture in its formal state might need a complete overhaul and redesign, in order to accommodate new explanations for reality which might be lurking just beyond its range yet within the grasp of a less complicated system of notation. One day, computers will be able to rearrange the math system by tinkering around with many variables in novel ways, until it hits an approach that collapses a lot of formula notations down to unforeseen sizes. The key might be a different base number than we're used to, or a combination of two base numbers. And such might later be combined with an elegant method of arrangement for notations.

Then I might humbly suggest the forums add a new section to resemble this, where people with innovative deductions or "lightbulb moments" can submit them without being requested to provide the math. If any experts in that area feel it's worth investigating a bit further and it has enticing potential, they can humor it by playing with some math variables and test whether it comes apart immediately. Or they can ignore it altogether. Its OP realizes there's no interest pursuing the avenue.

Thanks for clarifying. I may have pinpointed my confusion. I had been imagining a photon occupied the distance between each light wave. But judging from more recent definitions of light, it seems people are tending away from the idea of a photon anyway. Still, I have a few questions about light wavelength that may help me understand it better. 1. Is light detectable if the first wave in its wavelength has reached the light detector, but the second wave hasn't yet (due to its tremendous length)? In other words, do you have to wait until the entire wavelength from end to end has passed completely through the detector before you can detect the light? 2. a) Waves in the ocean do not exist in isolation. They are connected to waves in front and waves behind. I imagine the same holds true for light. A wavelength being the distance between two waves, is it possible for the two light waves that form one wavelength of light to exist as a pair in isolation? b) Even though a liquid wave is normally followed by other waves, it seems possible to cut the second wave off and isolate the first wave, allowing it to continue alone. Is it possible for a single light wave to exist in isolation if one tried a similar approach? The result might be no detectable wavelength, since there'd be no second wave ever coming. 3. If redshifting can transform light from one state to another, for example a microwave to a radio wave, then how does the observer know that a distant light was redshifted and that it's not just in its original state?

Awesome. That's going to be some mighty fine weather. Hey, if you want some internet, just borrow some kid's laptop

Good point, but now it attracts a new observation. swansont mentioned how an analogous set of laws exists for rotation. Is it possible these laws are further collapsible into one with Newton's laws of motion? I mean, if a spinning ball on a frictionless surface would continue its state forever, then I'd imagine it's in a kind of static motion, but motion nonetheless. Thus all you'd have to do is remove the "straight forward" criteria from insane_alien's quoted translation of Newton's First Law, perhaps, to merge them into one law. I could be wrong since I'm less familiar with the rotation laws. Well, the gun isn't attached to the base. It would fall soon as the ball rolled forward enough. However, it would be enough to get the ball rolling. And if it were next to top edge of a steep hill...

I'm fairly certain established science thinks of the pre-Big Bang existence as unknown to us. Which is not the same as empty or nothingness. There is currently no way to test or verify the information, far as I know. So anything you hear wouldn't even qualify as theory.

I would like to revisit the first statement in this quote and the unanswered questions. If no one minds Also, I just found out about gravitational redshift. So now there exists Doppler, Cosmological, and gravitational redshifts. How can anyone tell the difference? Are there various shades of redshift corresponding to each particular source?

Like so. I can't draw However, this next image perfectly illustrates what I mean by an object being acted upon by an internal force. Say hello to the cute hamster, the newest physics volunteer experimenting for science.

Isn't that a bit oddly written? Seems like a popularization. Newton's First Law (also known as the Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and that an object in uniform motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force. If it is just a popularization, I'm unsure why it had to say "tend" when it's more accurate to say "object at rest stays at rest and that an object in uniform motion stays in uniform motion unless acted upon by..." Otherwise, it implies that an object doesn't always stay at rest or in motion even if it weren't acted upon by an external force. Plus it says nothing about an internal force. I can imagine a ball with a propulsion device inside firing a small object at its inside, causing it to begin rolling. Just something I wondered about.

Or these ones?