Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Exploration and discovery. The love of learning new things. And just the sheer challenge of doing it.
  2. Hitler? Maybe. I actually have no hecking idea!
  3. The Earth rotates you ignorant troll. I provided the link that you are too lazy/stupid to post. It rotates. Moron. More than once a year. Jesus Wept, you are dumber than a bag of spanners. Well, I have learnt that there is no lower limit to IQ or ignorance. So thanks for that.
  4. Really? I mean, REALLY? Did you leave school at 11, or something? Did you never study any science at all? How old are you? How have you managed to remains so unbelievably ignorant? I am stunned, shocked and amazed. Do you need someone to remind you to keep breathing in and out? Have you never heard of "inertia"? Have you never heard of an "orbit"? http://www.astronautix.com/n/newtonsorbitalcannon.html I can't believe that someone as monumentally ignorant and uninformed keeps posting threads trying to show that basic physics is wrong WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A F*ING CLUE. Jesus H Christ. I think the mods should close this now and just ban you to stop you wasting any more time (yours as much as anyone else's).
  5. Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is flat out falsified by the CMB.
  6. He was an astrophysicist. He found a solution to the Einstein Field Equations, based on the the universe being (approximately) uniformly full of matter. This showed that space must either expand or contract. (Einstein had noted this himself, of course, but had no evidence to support expansion or contraction so naively assumed it must be precariously balanced in between.) He showed that the available data about red shifts (i.e. recessional velocity) matched an expanding universe described by these equations. If that was all there was to it, you could call it "curve fitting". But the big bang model makes a number of other predictions that are also precisely matched by observation. At that point, it ceases to be a chance match and becomes a good theory. With the exception of the rather meaningless "created" word (*) that sounds like a description of the basic idea behind the big bang. If you accept that space is "created" then you accept the big bang model. (*) Is space created when a car moves away from where you are? No. The distance increases. That's all. The big bang model doesn't say that the universe is finite. It works equally well for a finite or infinite universe. This is getting off topic, but dark matter IS required (galaxy rotation curves don't match Keplerian/Newtonian predictions). But dark matter has little to do with the big bang medal. (Although, evidence from the early universe do confirm the existence of dark matter.) Perhaps what you mean is that "quantum foam theories" can provide an explanation for dark matter. Do you have a reference for this? It is not something I am aware of. Given the next sentence, this is a monumentally ironic question. You might want to ask yourself if some sort of blind belief is holding you back from learning science? You have no basis for that beyond, presumably, some bizarre and arbitrary dislike of the concept. This appears to have nothing to do with religion, unless your objection is a religious one? It certainly isn't scientific.
  7. Yes, by the time water from Alaska reached the Mediterranean it would be indistinguishable from any other seawater.
  8. That is one possible answer. There are others. That is not really an answer. "Why is the world the way it is?" "Because thats the way it is." Not very helpful. And this "intelligence" doesn't seem very intelligent. Why so many natural disasters and diseases waiting to kill people? Why is the human body so badly designed? So the same non-answer. You can answer absolutely any question with that and it is a totally negative and unhelpful thing to do. It stops any further investigation. "Why is it sunny today?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" (so we shouldn't bother trying to forecast the weather) "Why is the precession of Mercury not explained by Newtonian gravity?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" (so we shouldn't try and explain it, and so we don't get the theory of GR) "Why did so many people die in that earthquake?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" (so we shouldn't try to understand what causes earthquakes) "Why are galaxy rotation curves flat?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" (so we shouldn't try and understand dark matter) "Why is blue a nicer colour than green?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" "Why does randolpin believe in God?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" "Why is jazz better than heavy metal?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" "Why doesn't Strange believe in God?" "Because that is what an intelligent mind decided" I don't think much thought went into it. Your only thought seems to be: "How many ways can I tell other people that I believe in god?"
  9. Why is what happening? Your question is not very clear. Water from melting ice will be (nearly) salt free and therefore less dense. It will therefore tend to float on top of the existing salty water. They will eventually mix, though, as winds and currents stir the water. Seems unlikely as they didn't even know Alaska existed.
  10. Your blog is a demonstration of stunning levels of ignorance. Also, reported for spamming and sockpuppetry.
  11. Isn't that what the sentence that you quoted says (with less detail)? I'm not clear why you think it is a misconception?
  12. So pointing out the logical flaws in your dream is "useless"? Presumably you didn't come here for rational discussion. "The things you think are useless, I can't understand." Reelin' in the Years, Steely Dan Or maybe you should listen to John Lennon's "Imagine" again. Officially the worst pop record of all time, with childish pseudo-philosophical lyrics.
  13. In an ideal (according to your ideals) maybe. But it is completely unrealistic. If there were lots if vegetarian organisms then, sooner or later, one or more of them would evolve to prey on the others as a better source of food than eating grass or berries. You seem to want to live in an artificial universe that works according to your wishes. I think this is quite dangerous. You need to learn to live in the real world. Not even plants? What are we supposed to eat? I don't see any connection between physics and your wanting to change the way evolution works. (Apart from being equally unrealistic.) That is utterly delusional.
  14. Excellent post.
  15. Same thing. Lions are carnivores. They would die.
  16. You are a very cruel person: "Sorry, no hunting. You must starve to death."
  17. This image, I assume: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm#Page_8 Are you saying that you think Jupiter is only visible for 6 months of the year? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Earth rotates on its axis.
  18. Searching for Cavendish on Wikipedia (which is what I assume you mean) brings up several possible pages. Only one of which looks like it might be relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish The words "2 micrograms" do not appear, and there is only a passing reference to the force of gravity. Perhaps you could be a little more specific than "here are some numbers I read somewhere or made up". OK. I guess this is what you are referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment#The_experiment So that summarises how the necessary accuracy was achieved. What is your question? And where does your value of the measurement uncertainty being "one milligram" come from? Is that what you think the likely error in the mass of the balls was? Which would be an error of 1 part in 158,000 or 0.0006%. That sounds impressive. Do you have a source for this?
  19. So you want a sort of "open this link on device X" type functionality? I'm sure it is technically possible, using some sort of protocol to transfer the link to an app waiting on the other device but would, presumably, require some coding.
  20. Get a job as a science writer? You could work freelance and sell your services. Or get a job with an academic publisher or the marketing department of a company doing relevant work. Using blogging to establish a reputation and so potential clients/employees can see samples of your work. (Note to self: must start blogging!)
  21. Massively. For one thing, there was no oxygen. For all we know, that could be a requirement for life to start. (Actually, there is probably still very little oxygen at hydrothermal vents where it seems likely some components of living organisms developed.) However, the evidence (e.g. all life being based on DNA with the same coding for the same amino acids) seems to suggest that life only appeared once. But I have no idea whether that means conditions are just not suitable now, or it is just very unlikely, or panspermia, or ...
  22. But that is not really what we are talking about. A single bacterium probably could survive, and even thrive, in some environments where there were no immediate predators. But something as complex as a bacterium probably required millions of years of evolution. I imagine that the prebiotic "chemical evolution" that could have led to the first things that would be classified as "life" probably required a stable and very specific environment for a very long time. That cannot exist now as anything containing useful chemicals would be treated as a food source by existing biota. Anything that started to emerge as a collection of, and source of more of, those organic molecules would be even more popular as a food source.
  23. And, when anyone says, "but why would he do that?" there is always the "mysterious ways" answer. (Or he/she just has a really wacky sense of humour.)
  24. If you have multiple tablets (do you?) then surely all you need todo is start with the PDF open on each of them, then open different links on each... or am I missing something?
  25. I am amazed that anyone managed to work out what the OP was on about. To me, it just looks like random strings of unrelated words, with no grammatical structure.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.