1

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 03/04/2020 06:29:49 »

im having trouble working out what a corona doctor and some random bible passages have to do with the thread title.
should i start discussing the compression ratio of various diesel engines.? perhaps there a link to the trustworthiness of the bible there somehow?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the big bang come from?

« on: 30/01/2019 01:19:52 »

yor_on
would you mind translating all that for a dumb ass?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the big bang come from?

« on: 28/01/2019 09:11:38 »

Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0

this stuff makes my head spin, but i still like it.
so the idea that there could be a space that exists where time is 0, doesnt that mean that 'nothing' can happen? for any action to happen, even on an atomic level, wouldnt time have to pass?


so another thing i wonder, if something is moving faster it feels time slower.  ISS to earth for example.
does that also mean if something is moving slower, it would feel time faster.
is "our measurement of time" based loosly on the speed of sun orbit? or speed of milky way spin? or what?
so lets say for example if we had a way to make the earth orbit the sun slower, so 1 year equalled 1000 days,( forget about the whole gravity sucking us in thing). would we age faster?
if we could slow it down even more, so the milky way didnt spin, would time pass even faster again?
if so, if something in the universe did not move at all, what does that do to time?
i get that the concept of movement in space has to be relative to another object. if we could stop miky way from spinning, would that mayby be measured from a point of the movement of the other galaxys?

i better stop now cause my head hurts.

4

General Science / Re: Are the words "natural" and "supernatural" actually meaningless?

« on: 21/01/2019 00:49:21 »

the idea proposed by the OP is something that i sometimes ponder. the term 'natural'.
thousands of years ago a storm was considered supernatural. why?, because we didnt understand it.
but as science and what we can see has progressed and gotten smaller and smaller, science is essentially moving the goal posts on what is natural, with 'supernatural' getting  less room to move.
for someone to still call something 'supernatural' is this day and age could be replaced with "too small for us to see yet". is it possible in the future that we can see all where the term 'supernatural' is redundant?