FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
absolute zero
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 228 [3408 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 226, 227, 228 Next
Author Message
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: What's the relationship between density and bulk? Reply with quote

o<eth>in wrote:
Quote:
Hmm. Let's see. Density has units mass/length^3. Bulk has units
length^3. In order to get a quantity with units mass only, do I
divide
or multiply? Be careful here, Don. If you can't get this right, I'm
not
going to bother explaining anything else to you.

If he gets this wrong, I really will have to make that long avoided
decision
to put poor old Don into my killfile. I would hate to do that, but if
he
gets this one wrong, I really have no choice left. I hope he makes
the right
choice here!

FWIW, in another thread, Don has acknowledge that the answer is
"multiply".

PD
Back to top
Ray Vingnutte
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian Reply with quote

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:36:39 -0500
nightbat <nightbat@home.ffni.com> wrote:

Quote:
nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

The odds of ufo's are dropping too ;-)

http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index_template.asp?file=2782

nightbat

Why so negative Officer Ray and 2004 is history? The net Darla
aliens have confirmed as soon as 1st Official Contact Day arrives the
present world government Officials will be checkmated. Can you blame
world leaders like his honor Tony Blair or any other government
leaders for not being possibly forthright about the UFO question, for
it could easily undermine their authority and order. The subject has
monumental implications if finally affirmed to the positive.



I didn't mean it to come across as negative, a drop from 500 to 100-1 is
not bad. Made me wonder if the bookies know something Wink, yes it was
for last year, wonder if they will drop even lower for this year.

Quote:
See: Honorable Tony Blair Gov. site
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=UK+Prime+Minister&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dd8e881798939bc68%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3DUK%2BPrime%2BMinister%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.number-10.gov.uk%252Foutput%252FPage1.asp%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.number-10.gov.uk%2Foutput%2FPage1.asp

The Commander Pros has select notified us of his Earth planetary
landing so what more proof do you need? Sky Captain nightbat is
awaiting secret Indiana zone pickup to confirm star ship craft race's
arrival as first volunteer Earth human chosen to point head
intergalactic critical jump mission. These are potentially most
exciting times gentlefolk's, for never have so few been so privy to
net reported cosmos history in the making. Yes, humble Earth nightbat
has taken the daring step to protect our and galactic protective
Committee chosen Darla from the perils of intergalactic travel
mission. Ok, ok I've got a soft touch for the better half even alien
and don't like to see them get placed in arms way. I would have most
liked my star ship science Officers elect to go with me but the
Commander Pros reports only one is permitted to take the risk. I do
this for the potential advancement of science, benefit to all mankind,
including reported net advanced alien race who has respectfully
granted this opportunity to prove what we're made of.

I think you have done a great job and if anyone should go it should be
you. I don't think I could get into the US anyway as I have a minor
traffic violation( bald tyre) from several years ago, that probably
classes me as an undesirable. If I gave my reason for entering the US as
'Well I'm going to meet up with some guy called Nightbat and we are
going off in a space craft' I would likely find myself at Quantanamo
with electrodes connected to my private parts.


Quote:

Ha, ha, ha, if however the Commander Pros is lying about historic
planned nightbat pickup, as most respectful assistant Officer Charles
indicates, then that automatically makes us the better race. For one
amongst the many has proven most honest and worthy then all the not so
forthcoming alien race combined. Should the Commander keep his word
and pickup the Sky Captain nightbat, I will hopefully confirm with
their permission their distinguished presence, and say my fair
good-byes to all including long winded SD Rodrian as I go out and
undertake the daring mission to help protect and serve all. Just hope
if and when the Commander Pros gives the ETA for incoming northern
Indiana zone Sil cleared mini star cruiser flight pick-up that the
three secret and ready to fire 5 minutes apart high burst signal
rockets dry chemical fuses still work. Or then again, the Commander
can choose to continue to costume party boat out at sea and have used
this as a net test of our willingness to honestly communicate in faith
towards real 1st Official Contact Day.

Well lets hope it happens and it goes well for you, I hope you come back
and report in good time so we don't miss your report.

Officer Vingnutte over and out.

Message ends.

Quote:

Star race appointed Sky Captain and Senior Elect Liaison Officer out


the nightbat
Back to top
Steve Ralph
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: What's the relationship between density and bulk? Reply with quote

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1107351140.833233.100370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Ha-ha; aren't they related in that for a particular body of matter,
their product is the quantity of the matter contained in that body?

Were you replying to me, or just rambling?


You seem to be saying that you can create matter simply by adding some
volume
to some density.

sR
Back to top
Don1
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Why weight varies and mass not Reply with quote

Jeremy Watts wrote:

Quote:
And if the body is non-homogenous?? What happens then Don? Little
in
reality is as simple and linear as you'd like them to be Don...

Do you mean that the calculus applies to bodies with lumps in them?

That I gotta see(;^!
Back to top
Don1
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: This business about scales Reply with quote

PD wrote:
snip<
Quote:
The SI unit for force is a newton (N), not kgf.
Cite a URL that lists otherwise, Don.

PD

I don't know of a single one.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: This business about scales Reply with quote

Don1 wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
snip
The SI unit for force is a newton (N), not kgf.
Cite a URL that lists otherwise, Don.

PD

I don't know of a single one.

Well, then, I'll provide you with one with correct information.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/
and for the units that are most pertinent to you, try
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
I hope this helps clarify your thinking.

PD
Back to top
Steve Ralph
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Kinematic motion vs dynamic motion Reply with quote

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1107342815.069795.263650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Steve Ralph wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1107261072.675463.150720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steve Ralph wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1106957106.347518.5900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Studying the history of physics is more interesting and gives
the

story

Theory

SR

So what's the difference?

Example: Lord of the Rings is not a theory.

sr

So Lord of the Rings is not a theory; Then what is it? A motorclycle
club?

Don

Lets try again.


Lord of the Rings is not a theory. It is a story.

sr
Back to top
Double-A
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 342

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian Reply with quote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:
[snip]
Quote:

I think you have done a great job and if anyone should go it should
be
you. I don't think I could get into the US anyway as I have a minor
traffic violation( bald tyre) from several years ago, that probably
classes me as an undesirable. If I gave my reason for entering the US
as
'Well I'm going to meet up with some guy called Nightbat and we are
going off in a space craft' I would likely find myself at Quantanamo
with electrodes connected to my private parts.



Yes, the standards have been greatly raised for those wishing to enter
the US since the "War on Terror" has been underway. You have to have
your papers in order, your story straight, and by no means no traffic
crimes on your record! On the other hand, thousands of people walk,
drive, or swim into the US everyday unchecked across the border from
Mexico in unwatched areas, and our politicions have not the political
will to stop them.

Around here, the police are more interested in citing you for not
wearing your seat belt than anything else. I used to run my tires
right down to the cords, or until I could see the wires from the steel
beltd sticking out of them. Then I'd figure they still had a few miles
left in them. Cops never bothered me. They were too busy busting
jaywalkers or populating the local donut shops!

Double-A
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

robert j. kolker wrote:
Quote:
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:52:31 -0900, david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote:


Bob wrote:


the point is, science doesnt work that way.

The point is, God-less science is in deep denial...


your opinion.

science works. nothing like it in history, including religion, has
the
ability to do what science does.

you may not like it. but that is not justification for regressing
1000
years to a time when magic was science.


Two millenia of Christianity and it never produced a single flush
toilet.

Bob Kolker

Actually, I think this is a fairly limited view of what Christianity
has produced. It's somewhat like trying to measure national
"productivity". There is an intangible that gets mixed in there, with
real results.

Social evangelism (such as international pressure for the adoption of
democratic politics, free market economies, and humanitarian aid
policy) are coupled with spiritual evangelism. Note that societies with
isolationist or at least non-evangelistic religions also tend to be
politically and socially isolationist.

Science operates in its own mode, but there is definitely more interest
among scientists, I would venture to say, to be working on cures for
disease than to be be working on armor-piercing shells. The ways of
science are governed by the scientific method, but the purpose of
science is governed by something completely different.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

david wrote:
Quote:
robert j. kolker wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:

So, who is it who wantonly killed off just over 200,000 human
beings
in the tsunami disaster?
And did he do it just out of boredom?

You forgot to capitalize "he". Most of the people who died were
Moslems.
Maybe Allah hates Moslems.

Bob Kolker

God-less lovers of money hate Muslims.

The tsunami was created by God-less scientists in the employ of
God-less
lovers of money fomenting death/war/hate/disease worldwide for
profit.


And THAT is unwarranted. You assume that if everyone on the planet were
a Christian believer, that suffering and pain and disaster would end.
Christ made no such promise -- indeed, he promised exactly the
opposite. To presume that, just by making the choice of Christian
discipleship, we could ourselves create heaven on earth, is in my mind
sacreligious.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

david wrote:
Quote:
Franz Heymann wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F1E375.3040602@ak.net...

Bob wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:02:03 -0900, david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote:

Bob wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:26:26 -0900, david <dgordon@ak.net
wrote:

Terrence L. wrote:

the god guesses became obsolete. To assume that we human
beings,
so minute
in the infinite expanse of the universe we know can claim to
understand the
origins of it all is utterly presumptuous at best and
narcisisstically ignorant at worst.

Where has science unraveled the mysteries of any natural
phenomena?

the mind boggles at the statement. that's what science
DOES...unravels
the mysteries behind the causes of natural events.

What caused life to begin?
How did life begin?

why do creationists pretend that these questions, the answers for
which is unknown, can be answered by 'god did it'? ever notice
that
creationism never has an answer for what is known today? it's
always
the unknown where creationism has an answer.

Can you give an example where a creation of/by God does not supply
an
answer for what is known today by science through the scientific
method?

Since the purpose of physics is to try to understand what exists in
nature, your question is a strawman, a red herring, a heap of horse
dung.

What of astrophysics postulating the reality of invisible things? Is
astrophysics not a science?

How so? Science observes and explains what God has created in a
scientific analysis way that attempts to explain away[minimize] God
in the scientific

You have had your mileage begging the question.
The physics I did, did not need to assume the existence of any god.
Neither the three of Christianity, not the two of Islam, not the
thoudsands of the Hindu religion.

God-less methodology and processed dogmalogic built on
previous science.

Why don't you crack a good introductory book on physics instead of
indulging in a never ending stream of sophistry?

I've studied physics at length. I've found that God-less physics is a

lesson in the blind leading the blind down the slow path to hell.

Please clarify what you mean by Godless physics. Do you mean physics is
by nature Godless? Or do you mean Godless physics as opposed to Godfull
physics, both being possible?

Quote:

In other words, science IS the exploration of God.

Prove the existence of that mythical monster before uttering any
more
horse manure.

Look around you. Touch something made of something. Where did the raw

materials come from that made the object being touched touchable?

Science is in denial
of this simple fact...

No. It simply says that the existence of a god or gods is a
hypothesis with precisely zero evidence in its favour.
Prove me wrong if you dare.

The proof you seek is all around you, yet you refuse to see. Why is
that? Are you defending ignorance because you are paid to defend
ignorance or are you simply paid to remain in denial?

What are the particles [muons/leptons/quarks/etc] made of?

They are, to the best of our present knowledge al point objects
which
are not "made of" anything else.

Another scientific guess...? For an empirical discipline, science and

physics sure takes alot of guesses and leaps of faith at a lot of
'things'...

Does this make science a faith based endeavor?

Can science even split a muon/lepton/quark? What holds said 'things'
together? What is the reason for their existence? What created said
leptons/muons/quarks?

Will science
ever be able to split a sub-atomic particle into its component
'parts'...?

It depends on what you call sub-atomic particles. I know a zoo of
a
hundred or more of them which have been shown to be composites of a
very small number of objects which are, to the best of our present
knowledge, elementary. But the nice thing about physics is that
there
are always pleasant surprises around the corner.

subatomic particle; n : a particle that is less complex than an atom;

regarded as constituents of all matter [syn: elementary particle,
fundamental particle]

subatomic particle; n: Any of various units of matter below the size
of
an atom, including the elementary particles and hadrons.

If not, why not? If so, how?

Don't persist in being a twit. If yoy actually really cared, you
would learn some physics.

Franz

Then tell me the physics of what I fail to understand according to
what
you have learned from physics.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

robert j. kolker wrote:
Quote:
Richard Dell wrote:
which there is some hope of success, not "why am I here?" which is
like chasing
rainbows.

That reads two ways. Why am I here = By what cause did I come about
or
why am I here = for what purpose do I exist.

The first question could be answered, the second cannot.

Bob Kolker




Respectfully disagree. Agree that they can't be answered by the same
approach.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

robert j. kolker wrote:
Quote:
david wrote:
The laser.


How, is the laser a natural creation?

Photons exist in nature. Getting them to step in time to the music
uses
natural laws. Every single human invention is consistent with the
laws
of nature. Humans cannot do the impossible.

Bob Kolker

Precisely. The point is a fair one. The point of science is not to
create natural laws but to uncover them, not to design them but to
explore their nature and implications. All we can lay claim to is some
rather artful tinkering with what it is we've learned. Our purpose is
to be properly aimed in our tinkering.

PD
Back to top
Jeremy Watts
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Why weight varies and mass not Reply with quote

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1107356521.780353.171380@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Jeremy Watts wrote:

And if the body is non-homogenous?? What happens then Don? Little
in
reality is as simple and linear as you'd like them to be Don...

Do you mean that the calculus applies to bodies with lumps in them?
That I gotta see(;^!

yes don, the mass of anything non-homogenous can be found using calculus
provided you know how the density changes throughout the body....

>
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 4 prohumanist continued Reply with quote

david wrote:
Quote:
Daniel T. wrote:
In article <41F09942.8080501@ak.net>, david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote:


Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote ...

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...

"david" wrote, among other things ...

Can science create an oxygen molecule out of nothing?
God can.

A myth can't create anything. All you have
are claims. Claims-claims-claims, and
nothing to show for it -but- claims.

Then present a valid counter argument that disempowers my claims.
You
claim to want open discussion but you don't answer questions posed.

First present a claim that has power.

I claim that God created the universe and all life within it. God has

the power that science lacks.
Science claims that God did not create anything because God does not
exist, and that the universe created itself naturalistic'ly and that
life just 'happened' by random chance...

And this is where you are deeply, deeply wrong. Science makes no claim
about the existence of God. To go from scientists who disavow God to
stating that science disavows God is a presumptuous and egregious
error.

The question is really about exploring at the edge. Some believers
honestly think that it is impertinent to explore at the edge, that
being the domain of God and not of man -- as if God does not want to
share. Some scientists honestly think that, because everything up to
this point is explainable, then eventually all will be explainable
without recourse to God -- as if they've already mapped the unknown.
Both are presumptuous and, worse, steer away from a cooperative
relationship which may be what is meant to be.

I don't know where you got the idea that science denies God. Moreover,
I don't know where you got the idea that God wrote down everything he
had to say to us between 4000 and 2000 years ago and has had nothing to
say to us or nothing new to show us since.

PD

Quote:

A question then. How did the universe create itself?

And a related question: who/what created the universe and all within
it?
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 228 [3408 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 226, 227, 228 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:16 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Regression equation using absolute errors draccarlawpet Math 3 Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:39 pm
No new posts Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO N... guskz@hotmail.com Relativity 14 Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 pm
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim Relativity 1 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:57 am
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim Particle 0 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:57 am
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim New Theories 0 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:56 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0562s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0258s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]