Baby Astronaut

Would that definition of mass include plasma?

I didn't mean to imply... So true. You already have your eyes on the certainty of a next level rather than expecting to stop when you reach the goal. Thus you're better prepared/equipped.

The allegory implies that even after careful study is done, in the end it's all just shadows. Below is an excerpt, about a guy having left the cave and then returning to it after seeing the "real" world. I think we'd learn way more from direct observation than from inferring, which does yield very good results with calculations and experiments, but mostly along the lines of obvious reasoning, thus more apt to miss what's beyond our learned visual understanding. For instance, even if the 1500s scientists had 21st century mathematics and calculations at their disposal, they'd be unlikely to recognize bacteria as the culprit of a disease without first having known about them. I'm not completely sure, but you probably can't find out the existence of bacteria without some form of direct observation into the microscopic world, but even if you could, you'd probably learn far more by direct observation than you would by inferring what you can by precise measurements of how their shadows interact. There are many nuances you would simply miss.

I'm with you there. However, one additional point to consider: nature is self-balancing, so why not expect our approaches to need balance? By that I mean, seeking perfection is necessary and so is accepting that we'll never find the holy grail, but to each his own. And indeed it is balanced: the number of people who do one, the other, or both are noticeably mixed. Back to your point, though. I've noticed whenever we stumble upon a discovery, rather than it being a final resting stop on the path of knowledge, it's merely a plateau that shows yet untold heights of knowledge to reach. I've come to accept it'll always be like this, and it's an exciting thought really, but it doesn't stop me from looking for that holy grail either. Knowing your part in the scheme of things is not always a reason to stop what you're doing, but it's good to take a break now and then along the journey and enjoy it all too. To answer the OP, I think a few laws are eternal within a given boundary (the currently observable universe), and some might be upfaced eventually.

I take it back, you can't possibly research everything. You're correct about putting it in the form of a question if unsure, however back in the day I was more inclined to believe that if a statement would appear in a highly visible media, that itself was a deterrent vs forwarding a personal belief as if it were a known fact, especially because it dealt with science and because the authors displayed genuine care for its associated principles and sticking to the facts. I've learned since then to verify what I learn even when the source is trusted, because it's human nature to err, and bias can be difficult to avoid occasionally. But some things are nearly research-proof by the usual means. For example, the HOW and WHY of science and philosophy. One of my first stops in research now is a search engine. I'll begin with key words, and think about how often those words might appear in the context. For example, "how" or "why" are extremely likely to appear with the word "science" in an article, but what about at the same time? The possibility is still good because of all sorts of questions the general public has for scientists. Thus, my next step would be to include words that should appear only within the context of the science vs philosophy comparisons. If that fails, I resort to phrases. Below is an example of how my searches evolve. science how why (no help) science philosophy how why (one hit) science philosophy how "rather than why" (better luck) science philosophy how "not why" (not as good) science philosophy religion how "rather than why" (a few hits) Another trick I use is to put a minus sign in front of words I'd like to exclude, which helps only if a bunch of like pages totally unrelated to science or philosophy are found, because I can eliminate them in one fell swoop by including a word that would appear there but highly unlikely to appear on the desired page. However, in the searches above, I didn't have that luxury. So if I can't find anything (in this case, all the search hits just re-affirmed the HOW and WHY relationships to science and philosophy), I'll ask the experts. But if the premise is sound, I might fail to investigate and can't entirely be faulted. No one has all the time to research everything. At least, not by the usual means. Talking about it, especially in a science forums or some form of community, is a sort of indirect research tool. I probably learned more here than I would've by searching on my own. Yet ironically, a solution appeared while doing research for this. Science might be described by studying the "mechanisms of reality" whereas philosophy is better described by the "purposes of reality". You can substitute the word "events" or "being" for reality too, I suppose. What did the woman say? The part about platitude? Or the WHY and HOW definitions?

Matter is the ability to do work? Follows the logic.

I've gotta admit the source of that is "You Can with Beakman and Jax", a science weekly feature from the Sunday comics. And their definitions of HOW and WHY has stuck in my mind ever since. Though perhaps I shouldv'e done research before assuming it common scientific practice, but nevertheless it's been a good rule of thumb all these years. Jok Church brought the subject up again at a "Comics: Meet the Artist" interview in the Washington Post. And quoted below is an excerpt from the original comic strip that inspired me. I guess over the years I forgot they had included WHAT as being science, or at least the observation/conclusion part I would guess.

If we can't really see an atom, but only infer its existence through interactions with other atoms (I'm refering mostly to scenarios where just a few single atoms are being experimented with), the logic there seems to resemble the properties of a circular argument. I'm definitely missing an important component of the process, so I ask: how can you see what atom A did to atom B if you can't see either of them, or other atoms it would affect? But -- the question above isn't the main reason for this post. So here we go. I've had a thought. The manner in which we view atoms is closely related to the how reality is viewed in Allegory of the Cave. Imagine if one day we can directly view the atom, witnessing many things we couldn't tell by interactions alone. Maybe its proton wobbles like a quasi-liquid sphere would if poked, and/or its electrons are like high-powered slinkies. Or maybe the true nature of atoms would blow our minds. I'm unsure if magnification is really the problem in getting a direct view of the atom. It could be that a photon can't really bounce off an atom, thus preventing us from seeing it in the normal way of seeing things. But the future might hold a new way of sight. It could be found that a certain subatomic particle can be bounced off other subatomic things and hold a record of it in much the same way a photon operates, and that the information can be converted and absorbed by a photon so that we can now directly view the atom. Just a thought.

What if just ONE person (a moderator?), does the experiment (and others can see it by webcam), at a specific time, and forum members try to influence its outcome (even if they don't have a webcam)?

Science is never about the WHY, but rather it is about the HOW. Philosophy is about the WHY. And maybe geometry is about the WHERE. I'm not yelling in caps, just highlighting. That's how science has always been far as I know. Unless by WHY you really mean HOW? It's potentially confusing. Such as, if the planet Mercury exploded, WHY is suddenly less of a philosophical question, and seeking to know the HOW pretty much becomes "why? what caused it?". But that's the public talking. In science, it's all about the HOW. And when scientists find out how Mercury exploded, the public will say "this is WHY it exploded".

I think deoxyribonuclei's question might've been about two black holes front-and-back rather than side-by-side. That's what I'd like to know too. By what you've said, they're probably additive, however, I'd like confirmation. Basically, will the gravity of the rearward black hole reach through the frontward black hole and their gravities add up? Of course the frontward black hole's gravity would be the stronger one towards objects in front of it. Also, the way I visualize deoxyribonuclei's reference to a "portal" from net gravitational pulls is thus: imagine a vacuum cleaner hose sucking in things from your rug, which happens at the front of the hose, not at its sides. Now, imagine a line of black holes with a similar effect. At their sides, you'd have the normal gravity. But at front, you'd have a massive super black hole gravitational pull, and it wouldn't suck you into the first black hole in line, but rather into the gravitational "tunnel" formed by their alignment. In that scenario, all the gravities have merged into one, and the warped space of each black hole have merged into one giant warping of space. In other words, the "mouth" or rim of the warped space begins at the first black hole, and stretches back past all other black holes to the last one in the succession.

Seems the acetone will evaporate on its own and the styrofoam residue left behind is just the styrofoam without air in it. Unfortunately I couldn't find safe disposal for either. But this YouTube vid with loads of styrofoam poured into a bowl of acetone is probably close enough to the Mr. Wizard episode you watched.

Another question if you don't mind. This is a long-brewing set of questions for which I haven't found answers, so please bear with me. If a single graviton does create its own gravity from where it stands (or if it's believed to), then does that gravity pull into all possible directions at the same time? Or does the graviton pull in a linear direction only? For example, in an object the gravitons of the surface atoms would pull in the same direction as gravitons in underlying atoms, and those gravitons would pull in the same direction as gravitons in even deeper atoms within the object.

I thought an Einstein-Rosen bridge was a white hole and black hole end to end? Anyway, now I'm curious about multiple gravity sources aligned. Does all their gravities add up together to make a stronger gravitational pull than if just the largest/strongest of those sources were exerting gravity by itself? Please, just "yes" or "no", or something close that feels like a definite answer.

Post #3 I highlighted my math skills. That link had flaws I pointed out, but yes, all questions do in fact have simpler answers than the usual ones. I only asked how many joules of energy is needed to go 99% the speed of light. I did neglect to supply the amount of mass, but I'm sure a person could have said "well, you didn't specify the mass, but if it were a grain of sand, it would take ___ joules to accelerate it". A simple answer is possible. Very true. Not purpusely, though. I'm probably the only person who missed it and still does. Thanks. It's the first instance I actually learned something in this thread. A useful piece of information that can be used to arrive at other conclusions. For example, if the pure energy converted from a bucket of sand would power New York City for several days, or if the pure energy converted from a grain of sand is enough to boil 10 million kettles, then I can make the following deductions. The amount of energy needed to accelerate a bucket of sand to 99.99% light-speed would be the nearly equal to the amount of energy needed to power New York City for approximately 20 days to a month. The amount of energy needed to accelerate a grain of sand to 99.99% light-speed would be the nearly equal to the amount of energy needed to boil 60 million kettles. I can visualize the energy requirements to approach 99.99% c much better, and I'm certain others reading this can now too. It's one of the principle reasons for having first started another thread where I learned squat. People aren't obligated to supply answers, but the "do the math yourself" reasoning is a probably a fallacy of sorts. Many people here browse Wikipedia to supplant their knowledge. Yet instead of it being dotted with "figure it out yourself" statements, Wikipedia has lots of things spelled out by volunteers. After reading it, you're on better footing to research its contributed material and thus ensure its accuracy. I do lots of inter-disciplinary research, and so I must focus attention where my talents lay, and depend on the courteous help of those who understand the more vague areas better than me. Otherwise, learning becomes inefficient. I do my part in helping others understand. If someone had their college professor explain and re-explain the material after class, and they still cannot quite grasp it, I'll go read the textbook chapter, deduce what parts they likely don't understand (and reasoning out why not), and then I'll review the chapter with the person but substituting in my words and personalized descriptions and ignoring the book's terminology. Comprehension dawns in their eyes, and often a laugh of how simple it could be. The person goes on to get an "A" on the test. Had I just tossed the person a book and said "read and learn", then how would it advance their knowledge? We're all great at some things, and poor at others. Sometimes one does need things spelled out. I for my part do attempt to find out on my own first, but when you've searched in the library, and your eyes gloss over the paragraphs of jargon, and it takes many readings to simply end up not having grasped even the basic concepts, then is it really a bad thing to just ask for it straight? The information I seek is usually a precursor onto a further level of understanding. I'm better at visualizing than doing formulas. I'll see the universe's mechanics better in that light. So please, take into account how our minds perhaps function differently and with piles of other research on my plate, I don't focus on learning a new discipline whenever I hit a snag, but rather I'll follow a more efficient path and be helped when necessary, and in turn I'll help others (experts included) who lack my expertise. It's about communication, the transportation for ideas.

Nice thought. It would probably have to be figured by way of quantum mechanics, yeah I know obvious. Don't know if anyone tried such a measurement, but seems it would have very practical use at the quantum level.

It might take a non-egghead like me (and I say egghead as a compliment ) to understand what deoxyribonuclei is trying to say. Occasionally you have to reach across the intellectual aisle to us of lesser scientific vocabulary. For now I'll reach across that aisle as an interpreter. I'll assume that you mean the gravity of each black hole aligned in close enough proximity would somehow merge and form a huge gravitational "tunnel" of black holes. So, am I correct? (my first interpretation...)

Ah. Makes sense. Appreciate your responses. Martin, thanks for the helpful link to that book. A friend had recommended Fabric of the Cosmos but I should probably avoid it, huh? Anyone interested can find the closest libraries with the book. Or any library item for that matter.

My apologies for not understanding, but does that "yes" answer part "B" of the first question, the second question, the third question, or does it answer "yes" for all three questions at once?

Proton, not photon Best of luck on getting an answer. To whom it may concern: I browsed the web seeking tips on how to ask questions, and while that site has great advice for how to ask a question, there's one glaring flaw in the article. Sometimes there's a good reason for a person to write a brief question: to save the reader time. To write out that I did do research and found nothing uses your precious time. And having you read my explanation here does likewise. Another glaring flaw: everyone has their area of expertise. Sometimes you get help solving a problem and other times you help someone else. Honestly, how would I learn calculus in a timely manner to do the equation? If someone can point me to an online calculator and a good tutorial on how to use the calculator with no knowledge, then perhaps, but otherwise, I need a starting point. From that info, I'll be able to calculate other things. For example, if you say it takes 4,000 Joules to bring a 30-ton object to 99.99% light-speed, and 3,000 Joules to bring a 22.5 ton object to 99.99% light-speed, then I can do the math from there onwards and calculate that it'll take 200,000 Joules to bring an 1,500 ton object to 99.99% light-speed. But if you give me equations that I don't understand, it's a waste of time for both of us.

Is a single graviton believed to itself exert gravity? Or does an object instead "radiate" a bunch of gravitons in all directions and whatever they land on is attracted in that direction? If the latter, does the graviton keep going through whatever it landed on, and attract the next thing in line? For example, if it went through A, does it continue on to B, and then to C and beyond, attracting everything it made contact with towards the direction of its home source? Also, is there any material that can hypothetically "block" the passage of gravitons?

What if the Higgs is in there but only a special instrument can detect it, however we don't realize that, mistakenly believe it's not there, and discard certain theories when we shouldn't have?

Martin, on the last page of that article by Ambjorn and Loll, what does the following mean? I understand that it repeats itself, but don't get how size doesn't exist. Wouldn't the subsets of a fractal be smaller as you go deeper? If so, then size does exist when you compare a larger piece with its subdivisions. For example, the cantor set image on page 7 has a line subdivided into smaller and smaller sets. And measuring them, the size differences are obvious.

Actually, probably not. The human brain is geared to command a network of bodily structures and functions in a human body, not an avian one. Therefore something might not "compute" (or a bunch of signals get crossed ).

A visual trick with a laptop screen, cellophane tape, and polarized sunglasses. You tape up the LCD screen, and rotate the sunglasses for colorful effects/patterns. Is the plastic hard enough to drill into and the screw can't be pulled out? If not, does anyone know of a way to create a DIY mold actually that hard? Smooth would be nice.