Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
79
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was looking down to my little memory scandisk, thinking about how it works on a principle called electron tunneling. An semi-observable phenomena that we can't really "See" but we can see it's after effects. This got me thinking...
How much do you really know about your "Science"? Here are a few questions for all of you insatiable trolls to ponder
1. Inertia is a property of matter
Well... this may be the case but why is it there? We don't really have a clue what mechanisms create the force that we call Inertia do we? No one can tell me, or you, what EXACTLY is happening that causes this to be so. We can only see that it is happening.
2. Charge propagates through space
This part is kind of funny, because when you really think about it... what is conveying the charge? If a vacuum is nothing what is that force responsible for the propagation of charge? It is not an electron, because the electrons themselves have empty space in between them right? If we are then to say that an even smaller particle-wave form is responsible for this, then we end up right back where we started.
What could be convey the charge between those smaller theoretical particles then?
3. Come to think of it... what is charge?
Ummm... they attract! Why though and where does it come from? Why are there only two and how do particles retain this charge? Can anyone tell you how this happens? No. They can only tell you that it IS happening.
Just a couple of examples to ponder. I do not claim to confirm or deny the existence of a "higher power" of ANY kind (so don't take this for that kind of post) But when I read Steven Hawking (saying) in black and white "What role do we need for god" it made me think about how little that man really knows about the universe. All we deal with as a species are the after effects of what we observe, we still don't know very much about where it comes from, or how it continues.
So be it god. Or magic made by Steven Hawking...
You don't actually know as much as you think that you do, do you? |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Actually they can tell you how a charge works
A charge is dependent on how many electrons are present in an atom, more electrons = a more negative charge, less a more positive charge.
Funny story about why it's backwards... Benjamin Franklin was trying his best to figure out how electricity worked and he figured it was invisible liquid that shifted (perfectly reasonable assumption given the understandings of how stuff worked at the time). He was using a piece of wax and a wool cloth. He figured this invisible liquid was going from the wax into the cloth as a liquid would do. Actually the charge was moving fro the cloth to the wax! That's why it's backwards |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
79
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
I don't think you read clearly enough
If there is nothing in between the electrons Only vacuum What conveys the charge in between them?
It CANNOT be another electron unless you assume that they are touching, and they are not touching. Charge is yet conveyed in between them. So how?
|
Sir Substance
Tactical Knightmare
84
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
All three of the properties you have highlighted are currently being investigated, along with gravity, magnetism and a few others. Some people think that all these apparently desperate concepts may be emergent properties of a deeper underlying theory.
Ultimately though, I think you need to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
If that's the right video (I'm in a lecture I cant listen to it to check), it will explain to you the difficulty of "why" questions.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Something to do with magnets |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
79
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sir Substance wrote:All three of the properties you have highlighted are currently being investigated, along with gravity, magnetism and a few others. Some people think that all these apparently desperate concepts may be emergent properties of a deeper underlying theory. Ultimately though, I think you need to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULMIf that's the right video (I'm in a lecture I cant listen to it to check), it will explain to you the difficulty of "why" questions.
I don't think "why" is difficult at all, it is the beginning to all things. Also, that guy didn't actually say anything but "I don't really know", he did however do a VERY good job of covering that fact up with his words however.
& and that is a quality of human Psychology. Thx for the link though, I will watch the others. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
245
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 02:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Well here is a more basic question...
What exactly is a proton? And why are Protons + electrons about the same number as neutrons? [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/bebnf8.jpg[/img] |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 04:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Miracles everywhere in this *****.
I've got one for you. Religion (and I'm not trying to turn this into a religion vs science thread, so please don't.) has always kind of held one small piece of territory. The beginning of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
As best science can describe, acids basically came together by accident and created basic replicating single celled 'creatures', but no one has any idea how yet. The jargon doesn't do this concept justice. There are laws of physics everyone here seems to have a basic understanding of as well as any person can, but there are even simpler laws of chemistry. Chemical reactions, unless you add energy, always result in simpler and more stable things. Evolution and natural selection play on numbers, but even as we try to talk about the beginning all science quickly skips ahead to 'life everywhere'.
Imagine the FIRST of these things. A chemical reaction where things got more complicated. Matter that didn't fall dark and cold as fast as it could, and something that replicated without reason.
I can see physics and science in the whole world from the big bang to buttering my rolls for dinner and I do not subscribe to any organized religion, but that one spot still makes me think of God sticking his finger in the muck and naming it Adam. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 05:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
What is this thread? I don't even
VKhaun Vex wrote:Miracles everywhere in this *****. I've got one for you. Religion (and I'm not trying to turn this into a religion vs science thread, so please don't.) has always kind of held one small piece of territory. The beginning of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisAs best science can describe, acids basically came together by accident and created basic replicating single celled 'creatures', but no one has any idea how yet. The jargon doesn't do this concept justice. There are laws of physics everyone here seems to have a basic understanding of as well as any person can, but there are even simpler laws of chemistry. Chemical reactions, unless you add energy, always result in simpler and more stable things. Evolution and natural selection play on numbers, but even as we try to talk about the beginning all science quickly skips ahead to 'life everywhere'. Imagine the FIRST of these things. A chemical reaction where things got more complicated. Matter that didn't fall dark and cold as fast as it could, and something that replicated without reason. I can see physics and science in the whole world from the big bang to buttering my rolls for dinner and I do not subscribe to any organized religion, but that one spot still makes me think of God sticking his finger in the muck and naming it Adam.
The truth is obvious.
Extra-dimensional beings traveled back in time to create life on many planets (including their own) ala self fulfilling prophecy.
If you doubt this, consider for a moment that these creatures actually (literally) ate paradoxes for breakfast.
While we are on the subject, their dinners were usually comprised of fried worms (the worms that made the wormholes) seasoned with universal constant.
There is much speculation in regards to what they ate for lunch but research currently points to them possibly feasting on broiled Schrodinger cat on a bed of anitmatter baked cedar plank. This was followed by a brief but rejuvenating power nap.
Ancient future aliens. |
Alara IonStorm
Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 05:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
1. Inertia is a property of matter
Bill Bill Bill Bill
Bill Nye the Science Guy!
|
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
36
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 12:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Personally I believe that I know so very little that it is not even funny. That being said, I like trying to sound like i know what I am talking about
The following definately triggers thought for me as the field I work within deals heavily with the biomechanics of the human body. Then again all of your questions directly affect human locomotion
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I
1. Inertia is a property of matter
Well... this may be the case but why is it there? We don't really have a clue what mechanisms create the force that we call Inertia do we? No one can tell me, or you, what EXACTLY is happening that causes this to be so. We can only see that it is happening.
We ultimately just need to remember that science is truly an ongoing experiement that every new scientist dives into trying to cause their own individual ripples. No one will ever truly know all of the why's BUt that is pretty much where all the fun lies
Slade
|
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
330
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 13:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I don't think you read clearly enough If there is nothing in between the electrons Only vacuum What conveys the charge in between them? It CANNOT be another electron unless you assume that they are touching, and they are not touching. Charge is yet conveyed in between them. So how?
You do know that electrons are waves smeared out across a wide region of space as well as point-like particles, right?
And that electromagnetism is a force with an associated force-carrier?
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
330
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 13:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Headerman wrote:Well here is a more basic question...
What exactly is a proton? And why are Protons + electrons about the same number as neutrons?
A proton is a fermionic hadron composed of two up quarks and a down quark held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
81
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 17:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:I don't think you read clearly enough If there is nothing in between the electrons Only vacuum What conveys the charge in between them? It CANNOT be another electron unless you assume that they are touching, and they are not touching. Charge is yet conveyed in between them. So how? You do know that electrons are waves smeared out across a wide region of space as well as point-like particles, right? And that electromagnetism is a force with an associated force-carrier?
& how does it do that precisely Mr. genius? What is the force carrier? How is it carried? What mechanisms govern a "force wave smeared over yada yada"
Just more hoopla
Because you can't even tell me how matter has inertia, outside of "It does just because" (TM) You are observing an effect and as a result you mistakenly think that you understand the cause. You are of course mistaken, and probably a little diluted tbh. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
81
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 17:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Headerman wrote:Well here is a more basic question...
What exactly is a proton? And why are Protons + electrons about the same number as neutrons? A proton is a fermionic hadron composed of two up quarks and a down quark held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons.
What holds the Gluons together? What is the strong force? (not what does it do) but what is it exactly? What are the quarks made out of and why do they have different "colors" Why are there only a certain number of quarks? How do they retain charge? What is charge?
Go on... tell us |
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 18:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Oh my oh my. Tried to stay out of it because most of the responses are just getting trolled. But for the fun of it, letGÇÖs take a peek at some of these. WARNING: TL;DR ahead. I had fun writing it, is not proofread heavily. Read at your own risk.
1.Inertia is a property of matter
Asking why inertia exists is in itself a trap because it immediately questions the nature of the universe. Since there is not an agreed upon conclusion (or even hit of a conclusion outside religion) this question is really just attempting to trap. Think about where the idea of inertia came from. All of Newtonian physics was not derived from an underlying theory, it was forged to explain consistent, repeatable observations of nature.
All of NewtonGÇÖs Laws were NOT ideas, they were peculiarities. The fact they they were predictable was the interesting part. Newton himself thought that these laws were the manner in which God was speaking to us. To question why they existed would be to try to understand God, which by definition is impossible. If you go the scientific route, the answer is GÇ£we donGÇÖt know yet but there is nothing which has led us to believe that we cannot know.GÇ¥
But that was only the first part of that question, letGÇÖs break down the rest. GÇ£what mechanisms create the force that we call InertiaGÇ¥ Inertia is not a force. If what you mean is what GÇ£createsGÇ¥ inertia, they again you get into the why. Why do object have mass, where does this come from, etc.. This is worth a library of material, hit the books.
Your third sentence is bunk, but the last one underlines a linguistic ploy to yank peoples chains (or show your own bias). GÇ£We can only see that it is happening.GÇ¥ Yes, this is correct. But it deserves more thought than this sentence suggests. This GÇ£we can only see itGÇ¥ right here is what took science from alchemists and mystery to GÇ£OMFG thatGÇÖs geniusGÇ¥! And while I feel like describing the importance of this discovery, I assume this will be wasted to the internets, so moving on.
2.Charge propagates through space
Ahhh, this is a fun one. After the second sentence you either hit sloppy writing or just bad science. Even after we understood how light propagated, it was thought to move through a material called the aether. Look it up, its amusing that people really believed in it and even had MEASURED values on it. But, you ask what makes charge propagate through space. The amazing thing is that it is self-propagating without the loss of energy.
A charge produces and electric field. An electric field, as it turns out, produces a magnetic field, which amazingly also produces an electric field. These self-propagating fields are what we call light. A charge is not the thing that is moving (a charge can move -> electon orbits) but what you seem to be talking about is light. If you mean why does a charge move in vacuum, the answer is it wouldnGÇÖt. If a charge was placed at rest in a real vacuum (lol) then, it would just sit there.
As far as what IS a charge. Well that is easy to say but difficult to swallow. A charge is a PROPERTY of a physical object. This property has well know, predictable, consistent qualities when it interacts with other properties.
|
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 18:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Follow up:
I will do you a favor and point out something that is really going to get your nuts in a bind from thinking about this stuff critically in the way you are. The use of the word GÇ£isGÇ¥ can commonly be found in the English language, especially scientific literature. IMO it is unfortunate that this word exists (I use it frequently, but it IS a bad habit). Is denotes definite, object existence or fact. The sky GÇ£isGÇ¥ blue, an electron GÇ£isGÇ¥ both a particle and a wave, etc. We really ought to be more careful when we talk about all of the scientific facts when considering their true meaning. Your first question, what IS happening that gives objects inertia? Focus on the way you are using that word and then think about how the idea of inertia was formed. It was an observation.
Think of dropping a bowling ball from the roof, from rest, 10,000 times and measuring how long it took (from your observation) it to fall and how fast it was moving during the fall. After 10,000 tries you see that every trial is nearly identical. You have 10 friends and they do the same measurement and get exactly the same conclusions. The normal tendency for people is to agree that this conclusion is not coming from them, but is an objective property. You forget that the measurements were subjective and take the properties to be independent of you.
This is what most scientists do when thinking about this stuff. The commonality of the word is only makes this worse. What you and they are trying to get at is the truth BEHIND the observation. If my guess is correct, this is what is causing a lot of your trouble with these ideas. What is inertia? What IS a property of matter? They are widely agreed upon collections of observations that no matter who has tested them, has always come up with the same conclusion as those tested the properties before.
Ramble off lol o/
|
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 18:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Miracles everywhere in this *****. I've got one for you. Religion (and I'm not trying to turn this into a religion vs science thread, so please don't.) has always kind of held one small piece of territory. The beginning of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisAs best science can describe, acids basically came together by accident and created basic replicating single celled 'creatures', but no one has any idea how yet. The jargon doesn't do this concept justice. There are laws of physics everyone here seems to have a basic understanding of as well as any person can, but there are even simpler laws of chemistry. Chemical reactions, unless you add energy, always result in simpler and more stable things. Evolution and natural selection play on numbers, but even as we try to talk about the beginning all science quickly skips ahead to 'life everywhere'. Imagine the FIRST of these things. A chemical reaction where things got more complicated. Matter that didn't fall dark and cold as fast as it could, and something that replicated without reason. I can see physics and science in the whole world from the big bang to buttering my rolls for dinner and I do not subscribe to any organized religion, but that one spot still makes me think of God sticking his finger in the muck and naming it Adam.
Oh wait, I have to reply to this one too. lolololol. Too much good stuff here.
These lines of arguments always amuse me. The level of arrogance we have about our existence is hilarious. Think about how long the universe has been around. Even if you don't believe scientific arguments hard core, its tough to deny how old the universe has to be. Take that length of time, then think about how LARGE the universe is. Then, on top of all of that, think about how long it take us to get information from EVERYWHERE else. Things within our own galaxy take years to get to us (speed of light, light only travels so fast).
Take all of that together, and think of all of the things that can, could have, and might happen. All of the possibilities stretched out over billions and billions of years. Then think of how limited out window has been to actually observe anything. We have only even been on this planet for a few thousand years. If you use your imagination even slightly, it is not hard at all to believe that all the right elements came together at a certain time for life to be primed on this planet in the relatively short amount of time it has been here.
Whether you go God or Science, you should be amazed that your here at all.
|
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
81
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 18:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Karl Planck, although I do respect your addition (as well as you correcting my grammar)
Simple truth is... you didn't answer a single thing.
I am not trapping anyone, and I surmise that the reason why inertia exists has something to do with an as of yet unknown quality of spacetime. But it is easier to reduce a serious of entirely reasonable questions to "your trapping people, now go hit the books" instead of accepted the simple fact that you can only "see outcomes".
You don't really know... No one does.
Some people can't seem to handle that... no more then a religious person can handle a discussion about "how god does not exists". It puts them on guard and then on the attack, just as my post seems to have done to you. So... again... you didn't actually address any one's points, all you did was troll yourself.
Quote: "infinite regress."
Basically, this is the problem where, if A explains B, what explains A. If you then figure out that A-1 explains A, then what explains A-1, and so on forever. Children naturally come upon this problem when they confound their parents by endlessly asking their parents "why", to every new attempt at some explanation of something.
The way that scientists and mathematicians have learned to live with this issue, which has no apparent solution, is that they posit postulates and axioms as a starting point, so that at least they can proceed to do some useful exploration given the assumption that the axioms are true. Sometimes it turns out that the axioms may not be true or there may be alternate axioms which produce different useful stuff. An example is Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry. Another example is the assumption Einstein made that light travels at the same speed in all frames of reference which was counterintuitive at the time he wrote his paper on SR.
We can send space probes beyond our solar system via the aftereffects of physics that we can currently observe, just like we can create a scandisk, and yet we don't really know anything about how those same physics actually "exist". Go figure... |
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 19:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Some people can't seem to handle that... no more then a religious person can handle a discussion about "how god does not exists". It puts them on guard and then on the attack, just as my post seems to have done to you. So... again... you didn't actually address any one's points, all you did was troll yourself.
lol, it sure SEEMS like u be trollin, but I enjoy the topic so what the hell.
Eternum Praetorian wrote: ...it is easier to reduce a serious of entirely reasonable questions to "your trapping people, now go hit the books" instead of accepted the simple fact that you can only "see outcomes".
You don't really know... No one does.
Honest to god, your questions are not reasonable because they are so vague. You say I didn't answer you question about the movement of a charge (for example). I attempted to from what I understood the question was. You need to sharpen what it is exactly you are asking about, unless...
1) You made this to provoke thought 2) You be trollin 3) You don't care
GL! |
|
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
81
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 19:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
If you think that asking for an explanation regarding the most basic and fundamental building blocks of physics is trolling... you are very closed minded. |
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 20:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:If you think that asking for an explanation regarding the most basic and fundamental building blocks of physics is trolling... you are very closed minded.
Sigh. Listen man, although your inherent question may be "basic" but the way that you are forming your question is not SPECIFIC enough for you to get an answer that your looking for.
Eternum Praetorian wrote: We don't really have a clue what mechanisms create the force that we call Inertia do we? No one can tell me, or you, what EXACTLY is happening that causes this to be so.
Really man, read that carefully. What ARE you asking? Specifically? You said I am just correcting your grammar. No, to attempt to answer, whatever your question is, I literally need to understand what you are asking.
If you don't understand what I mean:
Eternum Praetorian wrote: We don't really have a clue what mechanisms create the force that we call Inertia do we?
Inertia isn't a force. Check. What mechanisms create inertia...what do you mean by mechanisms? That is not a word that makes much sense with a property of an object. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
82
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 01:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Classic word games Karl LOL.
"How does this work" is not a trapping or loaded question. If I asked mechanic "how does this engine work?" he could tell me. In fact, he could draw a diagram or point to a book with diagrams in it where every nut and bolt was accounted for.
Geeze some of you people and your "science" religion. You just don't handle stuff like this very well... |
Mercurye
Nubian Sundance
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 11:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
I don't even understand E=MC or anything 'simple', it simply doesnt interest me and I am more of a visual, colour orientated person who always struggled with maths and physics.
Then again, I probably have a better memory when it comes to star-, planet- and other celestial object's names and looks than most people here . Not like it matters ^^ |
Froz3nEcho Sarain
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
107
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 11:40:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mercurye wrote: I don't even understand E=MC or anything 'simple', it simply doesnt interest me and I am more of a visual, colour orientated person who always struggled with maths and physics.
Then again, I probably have a better memory when it comes to star-, planet- and other celestial object's names and looks than most people here . Not like it matters ^^
Stars in EvE doesn't count.
Anyways there is a reason why most of these things are belonging to the 'theoretical' part of science. ~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~ -á-á~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~ |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 23:38:00 -
[26] - Quote
I believe the answer to your question OP is that it is turtles all the way down.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |