Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on September 20, 2007, 07:11:15 am
-
Hydrogen Atom Scale Model (http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/index.html) :eek2:
-
holy crap
explanation whi you cant pass through that space
http://aegmaha.com/?id=12470
-
The electron isn't actually at one given location... it has a certain area around the nucleus (orbital area) on which it has the highest chance of being in at any given moment.
The orbital works as a shell around the nucleus, interacts with other electron orbitals of other atoms, forms molecules and stuff. And stable molecules generally tend to repel each other due to negative-negative electric interaction of the orbitals... there are exceptions, though, like the Van der Waal's bind (which causes polar molecules to bind by their polarity) as well as some other phenomena. Physical chemistry is actually pretty cool.
The page was bugged on Opera, first it upped the CPUload to 100%, then the program stopped responding for a couple dozen seconds, then it showed a page with an electron at no-so-far left and no proton visible on the right side... but nevertheless, most of the matter is just space in quantum scale.
...if you could actually define a reliable size for basic particles. In standard model they are just points in themselves... but their quantum existence causes them to appear more like clouds of probablility, since you never know what the exact location and/or momentum of any particle at any given moment actually is... :nervous:
The weirdest thing about quantum mechanics is that it works.
-
Apparently the largest page on the Internet is here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20060216073455/http://www.deepskyfrontier.com/)
Unfortunately, the page is now down, so that's the archive copy.
-
Apparently the largest page on the Internet is here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20060216073455/http://www.deepskyfrontier.com/)
Unfortunately, the page is now down, so that's the archive copy.
What are the chances of 2 people each picking the same pixel on that page?... scary thing is it's more likely than a proton evolving.
-m
-
Sweet. Reminds me of the time I tried to make a scale model of the solar system with a basketball as the sun. I gave up after walking to Venus. :sigh:
What are the chances of 2 people each picking the same pixel on that page?... scary thing is it's more likely than a proton evolving.
Proton...evolving? WTF?
Can I have some of what you're having? It's been a rough week.
-
Whew. And I thought just the concept that all we are is vibrations was weird...
-
What are the chances of 2 people each picking the same pixel on that page?... scary thing is it's more likely than a proton evolving.
so in other words the phrase "2 people each picking the same pixel on that page" is a sentance that even makes sence, were as "a proton evolving" is some sort of technobable that would be used by some low budget scifi from the 1940s developed by some guy who once heard someone use the word 'proton' and in totally different contexts heard someone else use the word 'evolving' and thought they both sounded like cool words and so, without even bothering to look up the meanings of them he decided to use them in his dialog along with 'inverting the polarity' and 'quantum potato fields'
-
I think he meant protein...
which don't technically evolve but form...
-
oh, I remember this guy, he does drive by snipes about evolution, apparently in totally unrelated topics, and takes like four weeks to respond to anything that was said to him.
-
Ahh... well I won't interfere further in that case.
I am curious... how long would it theoretically take to scroll through that whole thing? (-scrollbar)
-
oh, I remember this guy, he does drive by snipes about evolution, apparently in totally unrelated topics, and takes like four weeks to respond to anything that was said to him.
Hm, well, I know him, and he doesn't check HLP that often, but if you respond to him & drop him a PM; he does check his e-mail regularly, so that'll bring him around.
-
well I don't really care enough to do all that, but it pisses me off when someone acts like he knows better than the entire accumulated scientific knowledge of the human race and then fails to respond to any followups, or worse yet ignores any comments and continue to act superior in his knowledge that the earth is in fact no older than him.
-
Ah, OK, I'll step up to the plate...
Bob, did we or did we not come from an explosion that resulted when all the matter in the universe existed in a space smaller than the head of a pin? Or at least, smaller than this period.
-
oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have a discussion about evolution.
but to answer your question, I'm not sure, the best models we have currently, don't say that. though I guess to someone who doesn't really care about them that's sort of similar to the big bang theory which says all matter and space expanded into exsistance roughly 14 billion years ago from some sort of singularity, which seems like a pretty good explanation of what I've seen of the universe. however astrophysics is not really area of interest, so I should probably allow someone more qualified make a comment on that.
now were would you like to focus this? around astrophysics, geology, or biology?
-
Bob, did we or did we not come from an explosion that resulted when all the matter in the universe existed in a space smaller than the head of a pin? Or at least, smaller than this period.
Hey, it's an infinitely better explanation than magic! :p
Anyway, Bob makes a good point; Why the sudden leap from biology to theoretical astrophysics? Don't tell me you think the two theories are in any way related?!
-
Bob, did we or did we not come from an explosion that resulted when all the matter in the universe existed in a space smaller than the head of a pin? Or at least, smaller than this period.
Hey, it's an infinitely better explanation than magic! :p
No, it's not... because it is magic. Magic via un-scientific science, or magic via an all-powerful God. Take your pick.
oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have a discussion about evolution.
We did.. astrophysics, if you please. And please keep in mind that evolution is:
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Now that you understand that what m was saying makes perfect sense, we can get down to business.
-
ok, so you do _not_ want to talk about evolution (that would be #4 in your little list there), you want to talk about astrophysics, fine. well the universe is expanding, so doesn't it make since that at one point in time it was all together at one spot?
-
No, it's not... because it is magic. Magic via un-scientific science, or magic via an all-powerful God. Take your pick.
Sorry but I take exception to that comment. That's just a weasel word for people who want to group anything that isn't contradicted by the bible into science and anything that is into magic.
Lots of the stuff that gets put into the magic category will probably have much more scientific proof than stuff that isn't so it's pretty obvious where the bias in deciding which goes where is coming from.
-
The problem is not so much that scientists don't know how this could happen, there are actually a wealth of theories, it's just that the creation of the Universe isn't something you can really do on a small scale under laboratory conditions (assuming you had the technology to do so), so testing those axioms becomes difficult.
That's a problem with a lot of science at those sort of levels, back in the days when you chucked magnesium in a crucible and found that it actually gained weight, it was possible to physically test these things, but now you're dealing with balancing up numbers and modelling around the laws of physics as they are known, but never really being able to simply test your theories at ground level.
-
ok, so you do _not_ want to talk about evolution (that would be #4 in your little list there), you want to talk about astrophysics, fine. well the universe is expanding, so doesn't it make since that at one point in time it was all together at one spot?
No, we _do_ want to talk about evolution (that would be #2 in my little list there)... or do you not wish to accept a dictionary definition? Or are you simply having a hard time extrapolating from m's context which definition fit the bill for astrophysics?
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
but now you're dealing with balancing up numbers and modelling around the laws of physics as they are known, but never really being able to simply test your theories at ground level.
So, according to know laws of physics, it is indeed possible for all the matter that exists in the universe to exist in an area the size of a period? I kinda thought that wasn't the case... What exactly leads you to believe that such a feat would be possible? Just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean it was a single point at one time.
-
No, we _do_ want to talk about evolution (that would be #2 in my little list there)... or do you not wish to accept a dictionary definition? Or are you simply having a hard time extrapolating from m's context which definition fit the bill for astrophysics?
What the heck are you talking about? Are you referring to the biological theory of the development of life known as the Theory of Evolution, or simply 'evolution' as a word describing change over time? It's probably just confusion on my part, but could you make your point a little clearer? :)
-
Well, I suppose you could say that you should say "the Theory of _Biological_ Evolution"... Evolution meaning in this (m's) case the increase of order and complexity from the original, completely formless, solid state of (impossibly small) mass the universe once was. It's quite obvious he wasn't talking of the Theory of (Biological) Evolution, as he was not referring to Biology.
-
So, according to know laws of physics, it is indeed possible for all the matter that exists in the universe to exist in an area the size of a period? I kinda thought that wasn't the case... What exactly leads you to believe that such a feat would be possible? Just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean it was a single point at one time.
It gets a bit odd, but, according to the known laws of physics, the known laws of physics weren't the same when the Universe was young, certain constants were a bit confused etc. In fact, there's no reason to say that the Primordial Atom, or whatever you choose to call it, was that small, it gets confusing because before the start of the Universe, there were no dimensions to measure it with, and no time for anything to happen to it in. I'm not a quantum Physicist, but as I understand it, there are certain values in the Universe, things like the charge of a proton etc, that effect it massively if they vary, and evidence to suggest that this is what they did.
-
*brain fries*
-
No, we _do_ want to talk about evolution (that would be #2 in my little list there)... or do you not wish to accept a dictionary definition? Or are you simply having a hard time extrapolating from m's context which definition fit the bill for astrophysics?
oh, I'm sorry, I see talks about life and the word evolution I stupidly thought you wanted to talk about the theory of evolution, the thing that has to do with how species adapt over generations, but I guess you want a discussion of Etymology?
-
Well, I suppose you could say that you should say "the Theory of _Biological_ Evolution"... Evolution meaning in this (m's) case the increase of order and complexity from the original, completely formless, solid state of (impossibly small) mass the universe once was. It's quite obvious he wasn't talking of the Theory of (Biological) Evolution, as he was not referring to Biology.
There's nothing obvious about it. M said something about a 'proton evolving', which is a pretty abstract thing to say. Either he's talking about the proton-proton chain reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain) and subsequent fusion reactions (the "evolution" of hydrogen protons into heavier elements) in a rather cryptic manner, or he simply misspoke as Mars surmised and he actually meant to say protein. As Bob pointed out, m's history would heavily indicate the latter, so you can excuse the rest of us for being a little befuddled as to what he was on about.
Posting is not a very intuitive form of communication. While what he was talking about may have been obvious to you, it's not always as obvious to everyone else.
-
If my Physics profesor is correct (He's one of hte science heads at CERN) we will never know exactly what happened in the begining.
We can mesure teh gae of the universe.
We can see it is expanding.
But we cannot see beyond the smallest mesurable time fragment (Plancks time) so the very moment of creation escapes us. And wil lescape us...forever.
Tehre was no time before..there were no laws of physics..at least not any like we know now..and given there there was no time there or no matter, there is no eway to mesure anything that happened before.
so to sum it up.
We will NEVER know what happened up untill (if you can even use that gramatical construct, since technicly, there wasn't a before) the Big bang (and atad after that).
We can know things from Big Bang + Plank time and onward...
-
Maybe a 'Universe' is the amount of mass it requires to form a Black Hole which cannot be curved back to a white-hole elsewhere in the same universe, and effectively drops through to another 'energy level' or the like? For all we know, there might be countless universes, expanding out in an energy level as they pour through the entry point, cooling off, contracting and falling through to the next 'level' where they do it all over again.
Ok, so that's more powered by imagination than education, but, the real problem with the birth of the Universe is not that no theories make sense, it's that quite a lot of theories do, in theory, but we are never really going to be able to test them, they contain objects too small and too big to conceive in anything other than Model form. As Trashman says, the birth of a Universe is a very 'odd' moment in history, and we may never ever know what actually 'triggered' the change even if we figure out the nature of the expansion.
Edit: Actually, thinking about it, that idea could not possibly work ;) Cookie for anyone who can guess why :D
-
Maybe he meant proton decay.
-
We will NEVER know what happened up untill (if you can even use that gramatical construct, since technicly, there wasn't a before) the Big bang (and atad after that).
well now I wouldn't want to put such certainties into effect. we have no idea how to ever see back any further than that, it doesn't mean we won't figure something out in the future.
-
Indeed. A thousand years ago there was no way of telling what the sun was made of, or how far away the stars were, or even what lay at the very bottom of the oceans.
-
(http://www.hexellent.com/files/80/2007-05-20--when-im-king.png)
-
well now I wouldn't want to put such certainties into effect. we have no idea how to ever see back any further than that, it doesn't mean we won't figure something out in the future.
Well it doesn't make sense that you can, does it?
Can you travel back in time before the begining of time?
Anyway, my profesor seems pretty sure about it. After all ,science is not all powerfull. It can't do everything and answer all of our questions.
-
Indeed. A thousand years ago there was no way of telling what the sun was made of, or how far away the stars were, or even what lay at the very bottom of the oceans.
A thousand years ago we didn't have scientific methonds at all. Thus, you couldn't really tell anything.
With scientific method things change, as you knowledge increases, so do your predictions become more and more accurate.
-
I'm going to have to be picky and argue your first statement. Hipparchus, for example, accurately calculated the distances and sizes of the moon and sun before 100BC, so there was good science even in those days.
My point is that at any given time, there are things in nature that we can't explain because we either don't have an adequate model or theory for it, or we don't have the technology to make collect data on it.
If you went back to the day of Hipparchus and said "Hey, I know out how old the universe is!!11", not a soul on earth would take you seriously because back then nobody had the slightest idea of how you could determine such a thing. Quite literally it was impossible with the known technology and reasoning. Similarly in todays world we can't figure out what happened in the very first moments after the Big Bang, but I don't believe one can say for certain that a discovery wont be made sometime in the future which can allow us to do so.
-
A thousand years ago we didn't have scientific methonds at all. Thus, you couldn't really tell anything.
With scientific method things change, as you knowledge increases, so do your predictions become more and more accurate.
[/quote]
The scientific method existed back then (mostly anyways), but it just wasn't named or defined as it is today.
I think that's what you meant anyways.
But yeah - we're so far away from discovering so many things... how long has something like gravity or the brain been with us for all of our existence yet we still haven't come close to explaining it at all.
(Completely off-topic and tangental, but I'm of the idea that "Faith" and "The Scientific Method" are basically the same thing)
-
not exactly.
(http://www.hexellent.com/files/80/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png)
-
I would argue that not all religion is bad religion and blind anger towards a large segment of the worlds population is probably counterproductive...
On the other hand some people are damn annoying with they're belief higher things involved with conditions better explained by science.
-
Yay! Someone else who reads WellingtonGrey.net!
-
The same things that can go wrong with faith go wrong with science. And they do all the time.
The main difference being, faith-based ideas are much harder to change since they effect a person's everyday decisions and lifestyle. When science runs into that area as well, people are much slower to change. (Pluto losing its status as a planet... vs. someone telling you for the first time that those cigarettes you're smoking are extremely bad for your health).
-
I'm going to have to be picky and argue your first statement. Hipparchus, for example, accurately calculated the distances and sizes of the moon and sun before 100BC, so there was good science even in those days.
My point is that at any given time, there are things in nature that we can't explain because we either don't have an adequate model or theory for it, or we don't have the technology to make collect data on it.
If you went back to the day of Hipparchus and said "Hey, I know out how old the universe is!!11", not a soul on earth would take you seriously because back then nobody had the slightest idea of how you could determine such a thing. Quite literally it was impossible with the known technology and reasoning. Similarly in todays world we can't figure out what happened in the very first moments after the Big Bang, but I don't believe one can say for certain that a discovery wont be made sometime in the future which can allow us to do so.
True, you musn't forget that humanity has fallen into "dark ages" a few times, where a LOT of the knowledge and methods have been forgotten and later discovered.
But al lthis time we have been moving along. The really true and tried and universally accepted scientific method is a relativly young construct.
As you said yourself, if you had a claim in those time, nobody woudl belive you. Today it's not the case. They'd think about it, make tests and such. That's the advantage of out time...and yes, we are indeed advanced enough to be able to claim SOME things with allmsot absolute precision. If we can't, then what's the use of science?
and think about your last statement a bit. You'll see that reason, logic and everything we currently know say it is impossible.
------
@Bobbau - as much as I find that picture insulting, I can't help but chuckle at it.
Still, I find it balantly wrong.
-
well at least the humor isn't lost on you :)
but if you have a better flow chart for faith, give it a shot.
-
Flow chart for science ------> same flow chart for faith.
You could even swap their titles and it could still be accurate. It all depends on the individual. Global warming is a great example (oh SNAP I went there). :drevil:
-
You could even swap their titles and it could still be accurate. It all depends on the individual. Global warming is a great example (oh SNAP I went there). :drevil:
How do you figure? There's still quite a bit of debate and most retain an open mind about it. It's only the people who vehemently support or oppose the theory that really fall into that "faith" flow-chart, and 99% of those people are most certainly not scientists.
-
I've read a lot of information on global warming, I'm not convinced it's caused by human activity. it's prety clear it's happening, but aside from that we've been comeing out of an ice age for the last few thousand years, just because the rise of human civilization happens to coenside with rising temperatures does not mean humans caused higher temperatures, it could very easily be the other way around. now I'm sure many of my contemporarys will disagree with me, but that just goes to show we follow the evidence not the dogma, unlike faith based beleife systems were you would be called heretic and excommunicated for taking such a position.
-
well at least the humor isn't lost on you :)
but if you have a better flow chart for faith, give it a shot.
I havn't made one, but the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general (and Christianity more than any other religion) has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
the most important question about religion cannot be answered by science. Sure, there's allways some ...shall we say too enthusiastic or impressionable individuals (..yes lets) who don't question any aspect of faith/religion, not even some that just balantly don't make sense.
Examples include:
- taking EVERYTHING literary
- ignoring everything science sez
- going against one's own logic (God is love. God loves all! Kill for God!)
But then again, you can find people like that everywhere, religious or not. Religion only gives them anoother outlet for their stupidity or another thing to get lost into.
On another note, I had to make a report/seminar/essay on Global Warming and after checing a LOT of sources and wadiug trough half the friggin internet, my conclusion is that it is allmsot certain we caused it. I'd say 80-90% probability and I'm being generous here....
-
the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general (and Christianity more than any other religion) has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
so, in other words, you get your faith, don't question it, and keep your faith forever.
-
the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general (and Christianity more than any other religion) has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
so, in other words, you get your faith, don't question it, and keep your faith forever.
It has withstood all question I threw at it... and a whorde of question others threw...so I'm keeping it.
-
the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general (and Christianity more than any other religion) has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
so, in other words, you get your faith, don't question it, and keep your faith forever.
Protestant Reformation, Christianity, Buddhism, and a slew of other religions say hi.
-
hey, I was just going by what he was saying.
-
hey, I was just going by what he was saying.
From what I was reading, no you weren't. You were using a sarcastic rebuttal. So yes, my post was valid.
-
I wasn't saying that was my position I was saying that is what he was saying.
but anyway if your so antsy why don't you come up with a better flow chart?
-
I wasn't saying that was my position I was saying that is what he was saying.
but anyway if your so antsy why don't you come up with a better flow chart?
Trashman said that his religion has withstood every question put to it. You said that just means he doesn't question his own faith and that he keeps it forever. I responded with evidence that in history people haven't done that.
Well, we're both wrong here. I didn't take the time to figure out what was being said, and responded with a totally irrelevant comment. You were wrong because you misinterpreted what he said. So, let's pretend the whole thing never happened. Here's a better response from me.
He already said he questioned his faith, and it withstood the test. Your response was that he keeps his faith and never questions it. He's already questioned it enough. You seem to be saying that if his faith hasn't broken, he clearly hasn't questioned it enough. I'm not entirely sure what his faith is, but don't assume your own conclusions.
-
this is the quote I was working with.
but the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
the second part he is not saying he has questioned his faith, but that faith in general has been questioned, not by him, because for him there isn't anything to question.
in response he said he did question it some. perhaps clarifying what he said earlier, or simply contradicting it.
-
or simply contradicting it.
There is enough tension here that there is no need for n00bishness. :p *wishes he could make an extra long tongue to stick out* :lol:
-
On a note related to science and religion, I found a very interesting article on why science is faltering in the Islamic world. Before anyone starts jumping to conclusions, the author is the head of the physics department of Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan, so I think he would know better than us what it is really like there. Definately worth a look.
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml
-
Flow chart for science ------> same flow chart for faith.
You could even swap their titles and it could still be accurate. It all depends on the individual.
I can point to several places in science where there have been major upheavals in the way something is understood because the old theory has been proved false or a new theory has been proved correct. Epigenetics, the big bang theory replacing steady state, quantum mechanics replacing Newtonian physics. The list goes on.
Show me a change in any major faith as big as that one and then you might have a point. And I don't mean a fork where half the people keep believing what they used to believe and you end up with a new religion. I mean a change where the entire faith has changed position and anyone who continues to believe in the old version is regarded as a crackpot.
-
I think they're currently two, fairly civil debates going on. One of which was always about religion right from the start. So I don't know what you're complaining about.
And if the 75% who are leaving were only interested in jawing on hard light then how are they active?
-
this is the quote I was working with.
but the thing with faith is, that there's really not much to question about it. Faith in general has been probed and question and attacked from every possible angle and every possibel weapon in the arsenal.
the second part he is not saying he has questioned his faith, but that faith in general has been questioned, not by him, because for him there isn't anything to question.
in response he said he did question it some. perhaps clarifying what he said earlier, or simply contradicting it.
Maby I should have wrote - there's really not much to question LEFT.
Yes, it has been questioned by thousands of people trought history. Some question were asked again and again, and answered again and again. I came to the same answers to those questions and they satisfy me.
To the few question that weren't asked before (to my knowledge) I have allso found more than satisfactory answers.
-
I find this funny :
"For example, certain American cattle tycoons have for years been working with Israeli counterparts to try to breed a pure red heifer in Israel, which, by their interpretation of chapter 19 of the Book of Numbers, will signal the coming of the building of the Third Temple,7 an event that would ignite the Middle East."
LOL
Show me a change in any major faith as big as that one and then you might have a point. And I don't mean a fork where half the people keep believing what they used to believe and you end up with a new religion. I mean a change where the entire faith has changed position and anyone who continues to believe in the old version is regarded as a crackpot.
There have bee na few events in the past where the Church, after a long debate, has changed it's views on some things and interpretations of the Bible. for hte better f'course.