41
Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« on: 07/07/2013 23:31:49 »
You'd better tread carefully, you don't want to sound too flat.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
42
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The expression "A moment in time" does it exist in physics?
« on: 01/07/2013 07:15:43 »
I've always imagined that a "moment in time" is as indistinct as a "location in space". Whatever scale you use, there is bound to be some sort of blobbiness that cannot be refined.
However thinking about it further, I wonder if the uncertainty principle could somehow apply to time in the same way it applies to space? I know that the exact location of any given object is difficult to pin down (or is it something to do with direction it is travelling in?)...
Anyway, I just felt there could be a limitation on time due to the uncertainty principle somehow, but i'd need a physicist to verify/shoot me down.
However thinking about it further, I wonder if the uncertainty principle could somehow apply to time in the same way it applies to space? I know that the exact location of any given object is difficult to pin down (or is it something to do with direction it is travelling in?)...
Anyway, I just felt there could be a limitation on time due to the uncertainty principle somehow, but i'd need a physicist to verify/shoot me down.
43
Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« on: 27/06/2013 04:35:48 »Anna needs a new 'G' string....C flat major."...a coo stick.
Do I sense Don_1's longing for an acoustic guitar? Or another acoustic instrument?
Ah coo stick to your original idea.
There was a problem at the guitar factory. Someone accidentally mixed sodium hydroxide in with the varnish. They ended up with a caustic guitar.
44
Technology / Re: What is "Stronger than Steel"?
« on: 18/06/2013 02:24:43 »
I've also heard anecdotally that living bone is stronger than steel, but again weight for weight.
It's always a bit of a headline though. I'm not sure I'd want to pit a ball bearing against my tibia, even if they did weigh the same. And I'm sure a jagged piece of wood would do quite a bit of damage to a sheet of foil of the same weight.
It's always a bit of a headline though. I'm not sure I'd want to pit a ball bearing against my tibia, even if they did weigh the same. And I'm sure a jagged piece of wood would do quite a bit of damage to a sheet of foil of the same weight.
45
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the sun appear to move faster at sunrise and sunset compared to midday?
« on: 04/06/2013 00:28:31 »
I think of it like looking at a scene through a back-to-front telescope. Everything looks really small and if someone walks across the field of view, they are visible for a longer time than they would be if we viewed them through an empty cardboard tube of the same diameter.
In your diagram, Anton, it seems that there is a longer time that the light from the sun is being pointed in our direction, in which case it is visible for more time than it would be without atmosphere and therefore would appear to be moving slower than it actually is.
Sunset vs sunrise is an interesting point and I'm not sure how that would resolve.
Hang on, I've just had a thought, perhaps as the sun moves into the lens created by the atmosphere, it appears slowed down, but as it leaves it speeds up so that the point we actually witness it setting, it does indeed appear to move faster than it should...
My brain hurts. I'm going to stop looking at the sun now...
In your diagram, Anton, it seems that there is a longer time that the light from the sun is being pointed in our direction, in which case it is visible for more time than it would be without atmosphere and therefore would appear to be moving slower than it actually is.
Sunset vs sunrise is an interesting point and I'm not sure how that would resolve.
Hang on, I've just had a thought, perhaps as the sun moves into the lens created by the atmosphere, it appears slowed down, but as it leaves it speeds up so that the point we actually witness it setting, it does indeed appear to move faster than it should...
My brain hurts. I'm going to stop looking at the sun now...
46
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How did the big bang happen? How can it come from nothing?
« on: 03/06/2013 04:59:15 »
okay, my two cents. I guess this is all philosophical as I was lead to believe that our current mainstream scientific theories are only relevant for the moments after the big bang, and it's only through extrapolation that we are left with a singularity containing the entire known universe.
I've always seen this moment as more a location on a time axis that can be labelled "zero", a bit like the north pole, so saying there was nothing before the big bang is a bit like saying "but what happens past the north pole?"
I've also had the thought that it seems there is a gradual shift from pure energy into pure matter. If the universe is indeed expanding than eventually all the suns will stop burning and all the energy of the universe will be locked up in cold matter. I wonder if this itself will trigger some new epoch on a quantum level as the journey towards absolute zero competes with the uncertainty principle.
Of course the energy is still there, just located at a different point on the time axis.
Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of a physics degree so they are all musings in my head.
I've always seen this moment as more a location on a time axis that can be labelled "zero", a bit like the north pole, so saying there was nothing before the big bang is a bit like saying "but what happens past the north pole?"
I've also had the thought that it seems there is a gradual shift from pure energy into pure matter. If the universe is indeed expanding than eventually all the suns will stop burning and all the energy of the universe will be locked up in cold matter. I wonder if this itself will trigger some new epoch on a quantum level as the journey towards absolute zero competes with the uncertainty principle.
Of course the energy is still there, just located at a different point on the time axis.
Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of a physics degree so they are all musings in my head.
47
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Why do spiders not get stuck in their own webs?
« on: 03/06/2013 03:06:13 »
I was lead to believe (although I can't site sources) that only the circular strands have the sticky stuff, the straight strands that all meet at the centre are free of the glue and it comes down to basically the spider knowing where to tread.
48
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the sun appear to move faster at sunrise and sunset compared to midday?
« on: 03/06/2013 01:53:36 »I think I meant atmospheric refractionI would have thought that if there was any sort of difference with how the sun appears to moves on the horizon due to refraction, it would appear to move slower at the horizon. If you consider that (according to my sources - the TV show "QI") at sunset, the sun is actually already below the horizon when we see it first touch the horizon, it would mean the image of the sun is taking longer to set than the actual sun.
Since the atmosphere refracts the light around the earth during sunrise and sunset (hence the sun appears there when it isn't) but not at midday.
So if I was watching the sunrise it would appear to travel a greater distance in less time since the curve is decreasing at the same time as it moves.
I hope that is more clear.
Sorry about the very nontechnical language.
Is this the effect you were referring to Anton?
49
Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« on: 31/05/2013 02:39:47 »
When the film festival buff was recommended a movie by his friend he retorted "at Carn I've oready seen it!"
50
Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« on: 31/05/2013 02:37:49 »
Just paws for a sec and consider the mane point. More pride should be taken in roar talont.
51
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What physics and math topics do people find hardest to grasp?
« on: 31/05/2013 02:28:28 »I'm very displeased that this thread has been taken so off topic that the actual topic is no longer being addressed.
That's a shame Pete, because I really wanted to talk about the Monty Hall problem again. I got all excited because after reading this thread, I finally get it. But I'll address the topic first and say that Maths never really bothered me much at the fairly low levels I studied it at.
What always baffled me was "particle" physics and what a "particle" actually consists of. I think that trying to simplify it diagrams of an atom made of billiard balls actually makes it harder to grasp on a deeper level of what is actually happening.
Now, Monty Hall. I find it interesting that you can think of the situation of 100 doors, where you are asked to choose a door, but then you are asked to decide whether the door has the prize, or a goat. Probability at that stage would say that you've probably chosen a goat, which is why when you are given the opportunity to change in the original scenario, you would.
What interests me is that if at the stage of having 98 goats staring out of opened doors and 2 closed doors, one of which has a prize, someone new enters the studio and is asked to choose a door, would he (or she) be given any advantage by asking what the previous person chose?
52
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What physics and maths topics do people find hardest to grasp?
« on: 14/05/2013 10:03:08 »
THat's all very well, but it doesn't tell me how I can win the $200 000 on "Deal or No Deal".
[
]
[
]
53
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where do people have trouble with physics and math
« on: 03/05/2013 04:23:51 »
It's been a while since I've thought about Maths and I think my main problem was not studying enough, but I can remember that whenever we learned a new formula, the teacher would take the effort to go through how it was derived from basic principles. I found this really helpful and especially useful in exams when I couldn't remember the formula, but could remember how to derive it.
The problem with education is that different ways work for different people. Some people might be better at learning a few basic principles and extrapolating them out for whatever purpose, other people might do better at memorising large amounts of facts to call upon when required.
The problem with education is that different ways work for different people. Some people might be better at learning a few basic principles and extrapolating them out for whatever purpose, other people might do better at memorising large amounts of facts to call upon when required.
54
Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Is Immortality Possible?
« on: 03/05/2013 03:42:08 »
If you took a long-term approach to extending life (albeit extremely long term), i've often wondered if restricting the minimum age for intial reproduction would result in evolution favouring longer living health.
What I mean is, if you were preventing from reproducing until say, 40, healthier 40 year olds would be favoured over those who suffer from "wear and tear" earlier. Over many generations, this could be gradually increased until we have a population of 90 year olds who are healthy enough to produce viable off-spring.
What I mean is, if you were preventing from reproducing until say, 40, healthier 40 year olds would be favoured over those who suffer from "wear and tear" earlier. Over many generations, this could be gradually increased until we have a population of 90 year olds who are healthy enough to produce viable off-spring.
55
New Theories / Re: The Need To Be A Winner Leads To An Unethical Communal Delusion
« on: 30/04/2013 04:14:26 »
The way I see it is this.
We are all scientists. No matter what we believe, whether it is that God created the Earth several thousand years ago or we are populated by dead aliens who use us as puppets, or even that we are the results of billions of years of baryonic particles becoming more and more complex, we come to that conclusion because it fits with all the evidence presented to us. The evidence gathered over the years through our senses is analysed and the model that would best fit it all is chosen.
The difference between the religious belief and the scientific belief is that the religion becomes the standard to which all subsequent evidence is evaluated, while a scientist will question everything, and cross-reference personal evidence with what other people have come up with, thus insuring that the conclusions drawn relate not just to the individual, but to the universe as a whole.
The problem with "atheism" is that it falls into the trap as religion. It is one thing to say "there is currently not enough evidence to prove that God exists", but another thing entirely to say "I believe that God definitely does not exist".
Whilst the Big Bang may be wrong, the force we call gravity may not exist, 1 + 1 may in fact equal 17, the issue is that all the accumulated evidence that has been built up over many years from many different independent sources has shown that the current mainstream scientific model is the one that fits all that data the best.
No one is saying that this is the end of it but if you propose a model, you have to have the observations to match it. You also have to open it up for criticism as it can never really be proved, it can only fail to be disproven. As soon as one person can disprove it, the model needs to be revised or scrapped.
I do think it's noble of you to try and explain the universe without maths but I think that's where the problems with "pushing and pulling" come from, ie. from trying to explain things to people like me who can't understand the maths. The world is the way it is regardless of whether we have the correct words to describe it. Also, I agree with Yor_on in that if you are using a computer in any way, you can not limit the involvement of maths, especially when the crux of your arguement seems to come back to a mathematical formula (1 + -1 = 0).
In terms of this forum, it has been repeatedly mentioned by all the moderators in numerous threads to numerous posters that this forum is for the Q and A of current mainstream science. That is probably why "We" is used. It denotes the current consensus of what mainstream science in.
Maybe I've missed your point, and I'm sorry if I have. I didn't mean to rant so much but once I started I couldn't stop!
We are all scientists. No matter what we believe, whether it is that God created the Earth several thousand years ago or we are populated by dead aliens who use us as puppets, or even that we are the results of billions of years of baryonic particles becoming more and more complex, we come to that conclusion because it fits with all the evidence presented to us. The evidence gathered over the years through our senses is analysed and the model that would best fit it all is chosen.
The difference between the religious belief and the scientific belief is that the religion becomes the standard to which all subsequent evidence is evaluated, while a scientist will question everything, and cross-reference personal evidence with what other people have come up with, thus insuring that the conclusions drawn relate not just to the individual, but to the universe as a whole.
The problem with "atheism" is that it falls into the trap as religion. It is one thing to say "there is currently not enough evidence to prove that God exists", but another thing entirely to say "I believe that God definitely does not exist".
Whilst the Big Bang may be wrong, the force we call gravity may not exist, 1 + 1 may in fact equal 17, the issue is that all the accumulated evidence that has been built up over many years from many different independent sources has shown that the current mainstream scientific model is the one that fits all that data the best.
No one is saying that this is the end of it but if you propose a model, you have to have the observations to match it. You also have to open it up for criticism as it can never really be proved, it can only fail to be disproven. As soon as one person can disprove it, the model needs to be revised or scrapped.
I do think it's noble of you to try and explain the universe without maths but I think that's where the problems with "pushing and pulling" come from, ie. from trying to explain things to people like me who can't understand the maths. The world is the way it is regardless of whether we have the correct words to describe it. Also, I agree with Yor_on in that if you are using a computer in any way, you can not limit the involvement of maths, especially when the crux of your arguement seems to come back to a mathematical formula (1 + -1 = 0).
In terms of this forum, it has been repeatedly mentioned by all the moderators in numerous threads to numerous posters that this forum is for the Q and A of current mainstream science. That is probably why "We" is used. It denotes the current consensus of what mainstream science in.
Maybe I've missed your point, and I'm sorry if I have. I didn't mean to rant so much but once I started I couldn't stop!
56
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can air pressure replace gravity?
« on: 18/04/2013 06:53:26 »
I was listening to the ask TNS podcast recently where Ben was discussing the tremendous pressure air puts on us at all times. It made me wonder:
a) would our weight change on a atmosphere-less Earth? and
b) would it be possible to simulate some sort of "gravity" on a space ship by somehow increasing the air pressure on top and decreasing it below.
Actually, just thinking about this as I type, that would just be a really big ceiling fan for a space ship. So now:
b)i) would a really big ceiling fan on a space ship put enough pressure on bones to reduce the osteoporosis (spelling?) suffered by astronauts?
a) would our weight change on a atmosphere-less Earth? and
b) would it be possible to simulate some sort of "gravity" on a space ship by somehow increasing the air pressure on top and decreasing it below.
Actually, just thinking about this as I type, that would just be a really big ceiling fan for a space ship. So now:
b)i) would a really big ceiling fan on a space ship put enough pressure on bones to reduce the osteoporosis (spelling?) suffered by astronauts?
57
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If you travel faster than light, could you look back and see past events?
« on: 16/04/2013 01:40:28 »If you really want to see the past, why not take a "selfie" on your smartphone?
It certainly brings into question the concept of "present" when everything we see, hear, touch etc. is actually a past event. Even if we see something "live", time has passed between the event occuring, and the light reaching our retinas, and then further time for the event to be recognised in our brain as an event.
In regards to the original question, if somehow Jiminy Cricket rose from the dead as a zombie, had enough fairy dust and somehow managed the 1 light year per hour speeds, wouldn't "conventional" theoretical physics then kick in and possible send our insect friend back in time? Then he could probably send the pictures to Earth and they would still be of the past!
Of course, if he kept going, he might make it all the way back to the big bang. Lucky for him, zombies are already dead. [xx(]
58
Just Chat! / Re: Star Wars. LIVE!
« on: 13/04/2013 08:13:25 »
so we'd need some sort of giant, interstellar moon-sized space station?...
59
Just Chat! / Star Wars. LIVE!
« on: 12/04/2013 02:08:48 »
If the events of Star Wars happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, does that mean if we had a good enough telescope, that we could watch it be played out before our very eyes?
60
Technology / Re: Questions on Quantum Computing
« on: 11/04/2013 23:52:07 »
I'm sorry Voxx, I'm no scientist, but I always thought the issue with quantum entaglement is that you can't manipulate it, you can only measure it.
If I measure a single entangled electron I can find it has certain properties, but I can't control what those properties are, and therefore cannot control what the state of it's pair is.
Happy to be corrected by someone who knows more though!
If I measure a single entangled electron I can find it has certain properties, but I can't control what those properties are, and therefore cannot control what the state of it's pair is.
Happy to be corrected by someone who knows more though!