One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32155
Credit: 13,937,129
RAC: 24,625
United Kingdom
Message 1322610 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 12:56:41 UTC

That is correct.

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1322641 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 13:14:40 UTC

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.
____________

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 561
Credit: 217,751
RAC: 109
Message 1322679 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 15:32:25 UTC - in response to Message 1322641.

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.
They did an experiment where one very accurate clock was flown in a jet one way around the world, and another was flown around in the other direction. Both clocks were obviously subject to the same weight-conferring property of gravity. Because of their motion relative to one another, the clocks then differed very slightly in their elapsed time. The amount of this deviation was consistent with that predicted by relativity theory.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32155
Credit: 13,937,129
RAC: 24,625
United Kingdom
Message 1322709 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 16:52:25 UTC

Einstein is consistently annoying !!!

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 561
Credit: 217,751
RAC: 109
Message 1322714 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 17:03:24 UTC - in response to Message 1322709.

And consistently right!

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32155
Credit: 13,937,129
RAC: 24,625
United Kingdom
Message 1322716 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 17:08:05 UTC

Yep, he tends to do that a lot ;-)))

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1322759 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 18:25:54 UTC - in response to Message 1322641.
Last modified: 31 Dec 2012, 18:26:21 UTC

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.


Weight is just the mass multiplied by the force of gravity (converted to units of earth gravity). So, on the surface of the earth one kilo of mass also happens to weigh one kilo. Take it to the moon and that same mass would weigh only 0.167 kilo. In orbit around earth, it would have effectively no weight. The mass, however, remains one kilo no matter where it is.
____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32155
Credit: 13,937,129
RAC: 24,625
United Kingdom
Message 1323614 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 14:56:06 UTC

Density = Mass per unit volume, Weight is due to gravity.

I was OK up until the point where the school chemistry lab renamed the Specific Gravity (SG) bottles to Relative Density (RD). I lost the plot after that .....

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8518
Credit: 4,203,279
RAC: 1,618
United Kingdom
Message 1323698 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 18:49:24 UTC - in response to Message 1323614.
Last modified: 2 Jan 2013, 18:53:24 UTC

Density = Mass per unit volume, Weight is due to gravity.

A significant observation for Relativity: 'Weight' due to gravity or due to acceleration are indistinguishable. (Which I find to be rather interesting...)


I was OK up until the point where the school chemistry lab renamed the Specific Gravity (SG) bottles to Relative Density (RD). I lost the plot after that .....

Relative to what standard reference?...

That sounds like a good move to avoid artificial units arbitrary conversion constants... Hence the SI units where strangely enough, the only 'arbitrary Human artefact' unit is mass... (Temperature is 'out on its own' as an arbitrary Human scale until being redefined with respect to Boltzmann's constant.) All of the SI system of units is being updated to be uniformly based upon physical constants only.

Anyone for the old femtofurlongs per second?


Keep searchin'
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8518
Credit: 4,203,279
RAC: 1,618
United Kingdom
Message 1323748 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 20:27:19 UTC - in response to Message 1323698.
Last modified: 2 Jan 2013, 20:31:02 UTC

Meanwhile, OT for a waste of time:

Anyone for the old femtofurlongs per second?


Anyone up to the 'challenge' of converting femtofurlongs per helek into something more understandable?!

It's all to do with a Hebrew system using Babylonian barleycorns! (See also the FFF system :-) )


Keep searchin'
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8707
Credit: 25,206,916
RAC: 29,457
United Kingdom
Message 1323764 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 20:57:43 UTC

Anyone for poundals and slugs , or ergs and dynes.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32155
Credit: 13,937,129
RAC: 24,625
United Kingdom
Message 1324289 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 19:16:18 UTC

Lets bring back ells, pecks, bushels, gills, grains, pennyweights, white fivers ....

Yes, fortify Dover, repel boarders, a plague on the Continent, Bournemouth for the incontinent, run up the Union flag .....



Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 76,936
RAC: 35
United States
Message 1331571 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 14:04:43 UTC - in response to Message 1322679.

Stop making sense with facts and logic!! Can't you just get along with the other people's delusions!!!

You are upsetting people and should be shamed! SHAMED!
____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1343893 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 23:32:58 UTC
Last modified: 7 Mar 2013, 23:39:05 UTC

People, humans know a lot more then they themselves can describe. But we do, it is obvious. This is done by knowing a face in a large crowd. Anyone of us can pick out a loved one in a crowd. We do so by understanding the design of our loved one. It is almost instantaneous depending on the size of the crowd. It is much harder to tell someone what a loved one looks like, example, if someone is lost and you need to tell another what they look like or if you were to tell an artist and he is to paint your loved one, but you yourself can pick out that loved one very quickly in the crowd. You do so by their design.

When a person reads, like you do right now, you do not read each letter and come up with the word, a child does at first, but you do not. You attend from the letters the word to their meaning. We focus on the meaning embedded in the arrangement not the letters themselves.

Natural scientist do the same as the above to define design in nature here on earth and the universe. Life itself is a book, one that is read in DNA. It's design is also obvious. Such complexity as a book would be not by a chance happening. Looking at it just like the written word tells of a design, this I'm sure will be denied by some but the overall vast majority of us who will not deny it.

Irony? Maybe. However, the more we learn about what it takes for life to root and grow into a thinking being like us the more remote the chance of life being on another planet. The Copernican Principle and indeed SETI actually reduces hope of finding intelligent life on another planet. With the revised Drake Equation we find that it takes a lot more for intelligent life to pop up then we once thought in the 60's. As I have said the more deeply we read the book of nature the more complex the book becomes and the less likely there is that life has popped up elsewhere. Chance in effect precludes chance the more complex things become.

Life as we know it, the placement needed for life, and complexity all deny a chance happening.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1343917 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 1:16:02 UTC - in response to Message 1343893.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2013, 1:18:09 UTC


With the revised Drake Equation we find that it takes a lot more for intelligent life to pop up then we once thought in the 60's.
....
Life as we know it, the placement needed for life, and complexity all deny a chance happening.


yeah maybe the %chance for life is alot lower than originally thought but we know now 99.8% of all stars in the universe have from 1 to 16 planets. not only we dont divide anymore the number of suns / by the chance to have planets. we instead multiply the number of suns by a median number of planets ( stars X 8 planets )
not counting the number of moons these planets have ^^
____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2519
Credit: 5,275,112
RAC: 7,222
United States
Message 1343942 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 3:11:14 UTC - in response to Message 1343893.

That is statistically silly.
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God

Copyright © 2014 University of California