The dumb questions thread

[humbleman]

bilby stated it simply and correctly, the BB is an attempt to explain observation.

When I took astronomy in the 70s it was the 'missing mass' of the universe. Depending on a number the universe was expanding, forever, oscillatory, or a one time out and back event.

The BB does not offer ultimate origins, it does not explain what led up to the BB.In a show I watched on cosmology the result of a simulation was shown. It was good enough to get to galaxies, crudely. Simulation starting at the BB particle level takes a lot of time even on fast computers.

It is good science that explains most or all of what we see, but I have some issues. The BB has come to be a modern secular creation myth of sorts. I'd like to see universe qualified as 'observable universe' . It bugs me when I see it presented as fact not theory in science shows. The BB is a theory that extrapolates back in time that can never be experimentally validated.

Well, I knew there was a creationist lurking in humbleman. In the 90s the Vatican allowed for evolution as a part of god's plan, why not the BB? Genesis says god created everything, it does not say how. Perhaps the B run repeatedly is god's Monte Carlo tool.Yes the BB is a fallacy. Based on ancient texts of unknown origin we must believe an ill defined super-being of unknown origin winked the universe into existence...yea that's it. Yo ho ho.

Unfortunately for many believers of the Big Bang theory, reality can't be explained watching videos with manipulated images.

Reality is learned by observing the real physical universe, and using real evidence to corroborate a theory.

A theory simply can't be "partially validated".

Or the theory is true, passing all the tests or, the theory is simply false, falling to pass the test.

The Big Bang theory has not passed any test.

Lets say the first one.

Where, how, when, by whom, a microscopic particle has been observed to expand and form macroscopic particles? Explosives are condensed particles which at the moment of the detonation will surely expand but into smaller particles than the originals.

This is caused by collision of particles.

The so called primeval microscopic particle should have to have an internal collision in order to expand, and regardless of the claims of no gravity and similar, such a microscopic solitary particle shouldn't go farther than three feet away.

 

[Angry Floof]

.
.
I moved hundreds of derail posts from this thread yesterday. We're not going to be making a routine out of that, so if you have issues with any questions or answers posted in this thread, please start a new thread. This one's for short discussions for those not in certain scientific fields to ask those who are knowledgeable.

For example, someone posts, "Fucking magnets, man! How do they work???!!!" and someone who knows how magnets work will respond with a bit of useful nerd-splaining that us regular folk can grasp. Maybe two or three more come and add a bit more nerd-splaining on the subject. Maybe the questioner has more questions and the cycle repeats. That's OK.

But these discussions that add hundreds of posts to the thread within a day or two with the same debunked arguments repeated again and again is NOT OK.

 

[Jokodo]

bilby stated it simply and correctly, the BB is an attempt to explain observation.

When I took astronomy in the 70s it was the 'missing mass' of the universe. Depending on a number the universe was expanding, forever, oscillatory, or a one time out and back event.

The BB does not offer ultimate origins, it does not explain what led up to the BB.In a show I watched on cosmology the result of a simulation was shown. It was good enough to get to galaxies, crudely. Simulation starting at the BB particle level takes a lot of time even on fast computers.

It is good science that explains most or all of what we see, but I have some issues. The BB has come to be a modern secular creation myth of sorts. I'd like to see universe qualified as 'observable universe' . It bugs me when I see it presented as fact not theory in science shows. The BB is a theory that extrapolates back in time that can never be experimentally validated.

Well, I knew there was a creationist lurking in humbleman. In the 90s the Vatican allowed for evolution as a part of god's plan, why not the BB? Genesis says god created everything, it does not say how. Perhaps the B run repeatedly is god's Monte Carlo tool.Yes the BB is a fallacy. Based on ancient texts of unknown origin we must believe an ill defined super-being of unknown origin winked the universe into existence...yea that's it. Yo ho ho.

Unfortunately for many believers of the Big Bang theory, reality can't be explained watching videos with manipulated images.

Reality is learned by observing the real physical universe, and using real evidence to corroborate a theory.

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and redshift ring a bell?

A theory simply can't be "partially validated".

Or the theory is true, passing all the tests or, the theory is simply false, falling to pass the test.

The Big Bang theory has not passed any test.

Except all the ones it has.

Lets say the first one.

Where, how, when, by whom, a microscopic particle has been observed to expand and form macroscopic particles? Explosives are condensed particles which at the moment of the detonation will surely expand but into smaller particles than the originals.

This is caused by collision of particles.

The so called primeval microscopic particle should have to have an internal collision in order to expand, and regardless of the claims of no gravity and similar, such a microscopic solitary particle shouldn't go farther than three feet away.

"humbleman doesn't understand X" does not equate "X is false".

 

[4321lynx]

/mod

Thank you!!!!!

 

[humbleman]

My dumb question.

In the branch of science, is "time" physical? Can be proved that it exists?

 

[Kharakov]

My dumb question.

In the branch of science, is "time" physical? Can be proved that it exists?

What do you mean by time? If you mean relative change, yes it does.

If you mean some kind of timey-wimey thing that exists outside of the continuum, then no.

Continuum.

 

[steve_bank]

My dumb question.

In the branch of science, is "time" physical? Can be proved that it exists?

We have been through the question ad nauseum over on relativity. Now you are just trolling. Time as I refereed to is the Systems International second. Which along with the meter and kilogram are base units, the MKS or meters-kilograms-seconds systems. You are either unable to grasp the concept of unit definitions, or are willfully refusing.

Start a thread and ask your questin on science and time.

Two questions for you, what is the direction up, and what is energy?

 

[fast]

I have a question that's been buggin' me for awhile. The idea that "if you've seen one atom, then you've seen them all" is faulty as demonstrated by the fact an atom could be from any number of pure elements; hence, an atom of one element is not the atom of a different element, as proven by the different number of protons.

I think there are there differences among protons too, but that's hard to square with the periodic table of elements. For example, if I show you an atom from a particular element, you can name the element by counting the protons in the atom, and if we were to repeat the experiment with an atom from a different element, you could again name that element too.

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

 

[beero1000]

I have a question that's been buggin' me for awhile. The idea that "if you've seen one atom, then you've seen them all" is faulty as demonstrated by the fact an atom could be from any number of pure elements; hence, an atom of one element is not the atom of a different element, as proven by the different number of protons.

I think there are there differences among protons too, but that's hard to square with the periodic table of elements. For example, if I show you an atom from a particular element, you can name the element by counting the protons in the atom, and if we were to repeat the experiment with an atom from a different element, you could again name that element too.

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

No, protons are  identical particles. Adding/removing protons/neutrons to atoms is exactly how new elements/isotopes are made in  nuclear transmutation.

 

[George S]

Instead of painting dots on a balloon, glue sequins. The sequins do not expand.
The galaxies do expand, but gravity makes that expansion undetectable. Wait a trillion years galactic expansion will be detectable.

 

[Jokodo]

I have a question that's been buggin' me for awhile. The idea that "if you've seen one atom, then you've seen them all" is faulty as demonstrated by the fact an atom could be from any number of pure elements; hence, an atom of one element is not the atom of a different element, as proven by the different number of protons.

I think there are there differences among protons too, but that's hard to square with the periodic table of elements. For example, if I show you an atom from a particular element, you can name the element by counting the protons in the atom, and if we were to repeat the experiment with an atom from a different element, you could again name that element too.

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

We do have the ability to "tinker with protons" and have had it for the better part of three quarters of a century -- and when we do so, the nucleus being tinkered with becomes a different element: When you add, through proton bombardement, a proton to F-19, that is a (stable) isotope of fluorine, it becomes Ne-20, a stable isotope of neon. When nature adds a proton to C-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon by switching a neutron to a proton, it becomes N-14, a stable isotope of nitrogen. When nature "adds" a proton to tritium/H-3, again by switching a neutron, it becomes He-3, helium.

 

[humbleman]

I have a question that's been buggin' me for awhile. The idea that "if you've seen one atom, then you've seen them all" is faulty as demonstrated by the fact an atom could be from any number of pure elements; hence, an atom of one element is not the atom of a different element, as proven by the different number of protons.

I think there are there differences among protons too, but that's hard to square with the periodic table of elements. For example, if I show you an atom from a particular element, you can name the element by counting the protons in the atom, and if we were to repeat the experiment with an atom from a different element, you could again name that element too.

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

We do have the ability to "tinker with protons" and have had it for the better part of three quarters of a century -- and when we do so, the nucleus being tinkered with becomes a different element: When you add, through proton bombardement, a proton to F-19, that is a (stable) isotope of fluorine, it becomes Ne-20, a stable isotope of neon. When nature adds a proton to C-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon by switching a neutron to a proton, it becomes N-14, a stable isotope of nitrogen. When nature "adds" a proton to tritium/H-3, again by switching a neutron, it becomes He-3, helium.

will that means that particles will maintain their same class regardless of the interchange of elements, like to say no gold obtained from interchanging particles from other metals?

 

[humbleman]

Dumb question

If time is "the Systems International second", can this second actually dilate? hmm?

 

[beero1000]

I have a question that's been buggin' me for awhile. The idea that "if you've seen one atom, then you've seen them all" is faulty as demonstrated by the fact an atom could be from any number of pure elements; hence, an atom of one element is not the atom of a different element, as proven by the different number of protons.

I think there are there differences among protons too, but that's hard to square with the periodic table of elements. For example, if I show you an atom from a particular element, you can name the element by counting the protons in the atom, and if we were to repeat the experiment with an atom from a different element, you could again name that element too.

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

We do have the ability to "tinker with protons" and have had it for the better part of three quarters of a century -- and when we do so, the nucleus being tinkered with becomes a different element: When you add, through proton bombardement, a proton to F-19, that is a (stable) isotope of fluorine, it becomes Ne-20, a stable isotope of neon. When nature adds a proton to C-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon by switching a neutron to a proton, it becomes N-14, a stable isotope of nitrogen. When nature "adds" a proton to tritium/H-3, again by switching a neutron, it becomes He-3, helium.

will that means that particles will maintain their same class regardless of the interchange of elements, like to say no gold obtained from interchanging particles from other metals?

No. Gold is regularly made from other metals.

Dumb question

If time is "the Systems International second", can this second actually dilate? hmm?

You really should put in at least a little effort to understand what relativity says about time dilation. It's blatantly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[bigfield]

Dumb question

If time is "the Systems International second", can this second actually dilate? hmm?

The second is a unit of measurement and therefore immutable.

Your question, like the essays of dribble you've already offerred on this subject, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how time dilation actually works.

 

[humbleman]

Dumb question

In a frame of reference where a body is traveling close to the speed of light, how it comes that the traveling body can't be affected at all by the fast motion but is the Systems International second the one suffering dilatation? hmm?

What is the mechanism? I wonder...

 

[bigfield]

Dumb question

In a frame of reference where a body is traveling close to the speed of light, how it comes that the traveling body can't be affected at all by the fast motion but is the Systems International second the one suffering dilatation? hmm?

What is the mechanism? I wonder...

The second is just a unit of measurement; it is not dilated.

It is also false to say that the travelling body is unaffected; it gains kinetic energy for starters.

The "mechanism" responsible for time dilation is spacetime, in which causality has a speed limit, c.

 

[humbleman]

Dumb question

In a frame of reference where a body is traveling close to the speed of light, how it comes that the traveling body can't be affected at all by the fast motion but is the Systems International second the one suffering dilatation? hmm?

What is the mechanism? I wonder...

The second is just a unit of measurement; it is not dilated.

It is also false to say that the travelling body is unaffected; it gains kinetic energy for starters.

The "mechanism" responsible for time dilation is spacetime, in which causality has a speed limit, c.

It is known that light is assumed to have a top speed, which is c.

However, if space is expanding and light is inside space, then by relativistic abstract conclusion, light is now traveling faster than c.

Isn't this a total contradiction to the statement that nothing is faster than c when -regardless of the phenomena- that light is traveling faster than its own limit?

- - - Updated - - -

The "mechanism" responsible for time dilation is spacetime, in which causality has a speed limit, c.

Is space time a mechanism? Wasn't suppose to be the "fabric of the universe"?

 

[beero1000]

Dumb question

In a frame of reference where a body is traveling close to the speed of light, how it comes that the traveling body can't be affected at all by the fast motion but is the Systems International second the one suffering dilatation? hmm?

What is the mechanism? I wonder...

The second is just a unit of measurement; it is not dilated.

It is also false to say that the travelling body is unaffected; it gains kinetic energy for starters.

The "mechanism" responsible for time dilation is spacetime, in which causality has a speed limit, c.

It is known that light is assumed to have a top speed, which is c.

However, if space is expanding and light is inside space, then by relativistic abstract conclusion, light is now traveling faster than c.

Isn't this a total contradiction to the statement that nothing is faster than c when -regardless of the phenomena- that light is traveling faster than its own limit?

No. You should start with special relativity and try to understand it instead of looking for more stupid 'gotchas' and derailing this thread yet again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I'm saying is the protons from one atom of an element is actually different in nature from protons of an atom of a different element. My question is, am I right about that? The reason I think I am is because I think tinkering with protons (supposing we had the ability too) such that we added or removed or especially switched protons from an atom of an element, we would no longer be able to identify the element by counting the number of protons in an atom of an element.

They are identical.

There are basically two components to the atom: The nucleus, which basically controls it's mass and radioactivity; and the electron shells that control it's chemical properties. In both cases it's the arrangement of the pieces that matter, the actual pieces are cookie-cutter.

With the nucleus it's a balance between the nuclear binding force and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons. Too many or too few neutrons for the number of protons and the binding is weak and prone to failure. As you walk up the table the numbers for too many and too few converge, when they cross you get an atom with no stable isotopes. Note the way the pieces pack in matters--even numbers pack better than odd numbers. (Observe the number of stable isotopes of even-proton atoms with odd-proton atoms.)

With the electrons they are arranged in shells, the chemical properties are basically a function of the mass and how full that outer shell is. If it's exactly full it has no interest in electron sharing, you get a noble gas. (Although fluorine is so reactive that it can get the heavier ones to reluctantly share an electron.) Almost full, it wants to borrow one--we call these things oxidizers. Almost empty, they want to lend an electron--we call them alkali metals. Between these extremes, we generally call them metals, although there are a few at the border between metals and oxidizers that aren't.