I have to apologise, firstly, for posting any songs in other member's thread to explain an idea. I've done what I can to clean that away, so please anyone who has noticed a song in their thread, alert me, and I'll delete it promptly.
Music and science as one, it's not the done thing, yet it seems to creep into my mannerism when I'm in the middle of a scientific debate....it makes me want to break into song....not all the time, of course, yet on the odd occasion.....to convey a deep meaning. It sounds nuts, yet take this: https://www.delamora.life/pythagoras/.
If a theory of everything could be explained, it would be great to make it almost musical in nature, a perfect harmony of understanding to our senses that connects us to our environment, would it not?
Who knows, will the TV show "The Big Bang Theory" become a "musical" one day? What are the odds? Not sure if the TV show "The Big Bang" theory is a perfect harmony....lol.
Please post anything here musical you think helps explain a scientific concept . It could even be a dramatic skit...like from Monty Python's "Meaning of Life"...anything.
The point here is how we can use external media to add oil to the cogs of thought.....lets see if that works, as a thought experiment.
I've read theories (as per "gravitational wave" theory) that gravity as a force propagates at "c", and yet I've also read theories that gravity is far much faster than "c". Has anyone any ideas on this topic?
Distant spiral galaxies, very very distant, and thus presumably the oldest we can see, hold the same structure as our own closer galaxies. Yet this seems to contravene the idea of an ever constantly expanding universe, and accelerating expansion at that.
Is gravity immune to the idea of a constantly expanding universe? Is this why gravity is so hard to pin, owing to the big bang theory?
It's probably hard to judge, the Nobel prizes in science (physics etc, and yes not just physics) should be a guide, yet everyone has their own opinion, and everyone likes to hear everyone's opinion, ideally. Who wants to have a go? Consider it a 2018 wrap. Merry Xmas
Understood that they, the planets, take a different time to travel around the sun given their distance from the sun, and there are some very absurd answers on the web answering a question like this with "no, the further out the planets go, the longer it takes to circle the sun". Wow.
The first question in this topic is therefore, "Does anyone understand the question being asked?".
Is it wrong in thinking that current estimates of the speed of planets around the sun is according to a standardised time, and thus "the same speed". The issue is, if they are not at the same speed, the planets, then relativity issues become apparent. Would it be wrong to suggest that?
Surely this is one of the most common questions today in physics.
The angle presented here needs to acknowledge "relativity physics".
Cutting to that chase, if a body approaching close to light speed has the idea of time "slow", of course relative to who or what? Atomic clocks can show that satellites travelling faster than normal objects would register a very slighter slower recording of time, yet the recording of time is via radioactive in that description of recording time. Are we suggesting radioactive decay is intrinsic to a standard for a universal measurement of time? So, what is that "universal measurement standard"...."universal"? Outside that box/experiment, our time is as our time, yet another reference depending on its speed, in the speeding box, has its own time. So where's the universal reference?
Bacteria, do they perceive? What do they perceive? Fish, do they perceive, what do they perceive and how far? Dogs.....do dogs look at the stars, are they aware of the stars? Monkeys....they're not worried about comet showers.....
So what makes us "great" as humans? Knowing our nature? Imagine trying to be great without knowing our natural situation?
What do we perceive around us as humans relevant to us, our natural state of survival, food, shelter, that thing?
We do that. We perceive.
Where's the astro-boy jump humanity has developed in going for the stars, and why is it there, that astro-boy jump? Are humans a species that dreams too much in trying to hit an imagined better thing compared with plain sight?
A big undertone with these comments is "why just don't we think we are separate to the animal kingdom"? Better than, right? Like we can fly off and do without it....
Ok, as the Gods we presume to be, designing light lenses to contrive how we can plan events using associated sciences to exist elsewhere, "how did we get to be god in the Darwinian process?"
The new theory here is asking "are we expending everything here just to get somewhere else"?
Are we looking for a planet that can handle our "toxic tech" stuff, all this consumerism that the planet "cannot" sustain....at least in the next 20 years? Otherwise, what?
All quips aside, does anyone know what I'm saying?
Are we hedging out bets to get to another planet, have to (why?), or are we hedging our bets on staying here and making it work for a long time?
Am I right in saying that there is a "massive" amount of curiosity regarding life on other planets, and where we may have come from, to inspire the need to go to places like Mars, boots on ground with shovels and probes...to spin where we came from, like there's a Nobel prize to prove that somehow if life is found elsewhere?
I was asked in another thread what the definition of consciousness was. Science doesn't know...."how it began". Poets know "what it is in the here and now", philosophers know "what it is in the here and now", but science doesn't doesn't know "how it started". If you ask me, science is vastly outnumbered in trying to find the meaning of consciousness.