-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
I suppose it is a good job they didn't do that, then. If they had moved 1 stone per second, they could have finished in a month. Not surprisingly, the real construction time is somewhere between those two.
-
I am interested. That is why I am asking. I have just searched for the word "particle" through both pages of this thread. I cannot find the list of particles you mention. Why can't you just tell me which post they are in? (Why do you always have to make things so hard!) By how much do you expect them to stand out? The CMB is almost a perfect black body spectrum, so there are no frequencies that stand out by a large amount.
-
1. Please show in appropriate mathematical detail that this is consistent with observations. 2. Please explain the source of the CMB if the universe is not expanding.
-
Actual vs apparent universal expansion rate
Strange replied to StringJunky's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
You are confusing recesional speed with expansion. Expansion is a [constant] scaling factor (ignoring accelerating expansion, for simplicity). By simple arithmetic, this means that the speed at which two objects recede from one another is proportional to the distance between them. As there are no forces involved, there is no acceleration. -
There is no such part of the diagram. Nothing can move faster than c. Nothing with mass can move at c. I have no idea what you are talking about. Expansion is (a) predicted by theory and (b) consistent with evidence (e.g. the CMB). And as both expansion and the speed limit of c are a consequence of the same theory, then there is no contradiction between them. Hence the earlier distinction between constant and invariant! Indeed. We wouldn't even know that we can see objects receding faster than c if it weren't for the theory of relativity and the consequent expansion.
-
Was it. And so? I fail to see the point you are making. Perhaps you could write a succinct (single sentence) statement of your thesis. That might make it possible to decipher the rest of your incoherent rambling. Am I to assume you are questioning traditional dates for the crucifixion of christ?
-
Theism is just having a belief in a god or gods. That doesn't say anything about being good. Your god might tell you to be evil. And atheism is a about not having a belief in gods. Nothing to do with empiricism. I assume the rest of your post has as little basis in reality.
-
I think granpa has a future writing Fantasy novels.
-
Good. You won't be disappointed then.
-
As you are so reluctant to answer questions, it would probably be a waste of time. And I am not really interested. Nope. Looked again, still don't see a list of particles.
-
This comes up fairly regularly. The answer is no, for a variety of reasons: Gravity acts on things which have no electric charge. Electric fields attract and repel; gravity only attracts. We can shield electric fields but not gravity. Force due to electric field follows an inverse square law. This is only approximetly true for gravity. Etc. I don't think so.
-
Actual vs apparent universal expansion rate
Strange replied to StringJunky's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Someone (swansont?) posted a paper some time ago about estimating the lower bound on the lifetime of a photon. It is many, many times greater than the life of the universe. Maybe this was it: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/how-stable-is-photon-yes-photon.html -
I'm sure the cheque for 1 million dollars is on the way.
-
I suppose so. It seems an unnecessarily complicated way of saying "c is invariant". As you are talking about the impossible, there isn't really a scientific answer to that. Not really. The fact that we can observe objects with an apparent recessional rate greater than c is a consequence of expansion, not the reason. I'm not sure what any of that means. And, again, c is invariant. With or without expansion. And before you ask again: without expansion, c is invariant. You know, it is the same for all observers. Oh, and with expansion, c is invariant. You know, it is the same for all observers. In other words, c is invariant. OK? (Of course, one consequence of c being invariant is the theory of relativity. And hence expansion.) Now, what was the question we don't understand? Oh yes, whether c is invariant without expansion. I think the answer to that is yes.
-
Perhaps you should start a new thread on that topic and we can all make a fresh start. Be sure the reference the relevant science in your discussion.
-
Actual vs apparent universal expansion rate
Strange replied to StringJunky's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Oddly, there is another thread on the same subject (but that is taking a decidedly non-mainstream direction). Simply put, the expansion means that a photon has an increasing distance to travel as time passes. This means, for example, that a photon emitted 13 billion years ago would have been emitted approximately 4.5 billion light years away but has been "swimming against the tide" of expanding space since then and so took 13 billion light years to get here (the emitting source will be about 45 billion light years away now). The further away an object is (was), the greater the delay caused by expansion is. (Because there is more space to cross, all of it expanding. Or, equivalently, because it takes longer and so more expansion happens.) At some point, the object is so far away, and the delay so great, that the photon never gets here. -
Really? I mean, Really?? In response to my suggestion that you should read up on the science around abiogenesis, you only response was: I can only assume this was intended to imply that abiogenesis is not a scientific concept. Which would be why you deliberately chose to use that half of the definition and not the relevant part. Perhaps you could provide an better explanation for that post? I have no idea. You seem strangely disinclined to discuss the science, changing the subject or introducing non seuiturs when it is brought into the discussion.
-
Or maybe you just don't understand it.
-
So why did you cherry-pick half the definition of abiogenesis and ignore the relevant half? Just an accident, I suppose. But unlike Creationism/ID they are based on the evidence.
-
Why it was possible for dinosaurs to exist ?
Strange replied to Dlouro's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Perhaps because they had bigger predators? -
If they cannot communicate any information, then they cannot compare any of their measurements and therefore cannot compare their speeds. Does anyone think that? Is that just a straw man argument?
-
I can't see much sign of anyone being offensive -- but presumably I am one of the people you think is being offensive because I am asking questions and suggesting you learn some of the relevant science. How do expect to have a constructive conversation about a subject where you appear not to know any of the relevant science (or, at least, you haven't referenced it) make repeated strawman arguments about mobile phones, cherry pick quotes and other dishonest tactics? If you find it offensive for your arguments to be called dishonest, then start engaging in a rational discussion.
-
In which language does his name mean that? And why "his" and not "her" (or "its")? These can't be checked because you haven't quantified by how much the spectrum will differ from a perfect black body. Just saying these frequencies will be present, when that is obviously true from the nature of the spectrum, is meaningless. What particle list?
-
So go and learn about the ideas and come back when you are ready to discuss them in an informed and scientific manner. Then perhaps you will stop making petty arguments and be able to discuss the ideas. And then you might not irritate people so much by simply repeating the same arguments that creationists use. (Apparently you have independently invented the same flawed arguments, rather than just parroting them from Creationist websites. Well done. )
-
Not if they are causally disconnected. How could you compare times, positions, speeds, when there can be no communication of information, even in principle.