Author Topic: No science child board?  (Read 5285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pinkfluff

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
No science child board?
« on: January 30, 2011, 10:16:36 pm »
We have Philosophy, Gender Stuides, and Art here under Education but not one for things of a scientific nature? I see there's "Science and Medical News" up there, but that's not really the same thing. I don't know how much it'd be of interest to this community, but for me I love discussing the nature of the universe with anyone even a little knowledgable about it.

Offline Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 32,012
  • Reputation: +251/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2011, 06:53:36 pm »
Well, I'm stuck at "if the universe is expanding" then what is it expanding in? An empty "what" big enough to hold an expanding universe?
Veteran, US Army

CaitJ

Re: No science child board?
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2011, 07:03:37 pm »
Well, I'm stuck at "if the universe is expanding" then what is it expanding in? An empty "what" big enough to hold an expanding universe?

That's what's known as 'Three Dimensional Thinking'.
Space and time don't exist where the universe isn't present, so there isn't a 'what'. Basically, as the Universe expands, the 'what' is created.
At least, that's the simplest way of explaining things without having to go into the Standard Model and general relativity.

Offline VeryGnawty

  • Keeper of the Greater Arcana
  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Reputation: +47/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Solar Charged
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2011, 07:39:43 pm »
An empty "what" big enough to hold an expanding universe?

They are saying now that there may be a parallel universe, or even a multiverse.

All this science stuff gives me a headache.
"The cake is a lie."

Offline Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 32,012
  • Reputation: +251/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2011, 08:51:45 pm »
I was doing OK until you said that, now I have a headache too! Goodnight!
Veteran, US Army

Offline amm12388

  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • 'Ello
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2011, 10:55:50 pm »
This is an old topic, but I have to say -- I'm an astronomer and I'd love to chat about the universe and etc. etc....where is our science board?!

Offline Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 32,012
  • Reputation: +251/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2011, 06:38:52 am »
This is the science board now, Amm12388! When I saw your avatar pic of Sol I knew we were in luck! So who wants to talk about dark matter? Hugs, Tracey
Veteran, US Army

Offline BlonT

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Intersex
  • Some care deeply , others don`t give a sh T
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2011, 06:43:29 am »
Astronomer ooo that the guy,s that look with BIG scoops to the *stars*
/nasty mode on :  yes i see one peek at me /nasty mode off

Looking at stars that could be gone long ago ,give me always a humble feeling thinking on that.

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2011, 01:41:03 pm »
I sometimes teach astronomy ... if the question about expanding universe is serious, I could give a more or less serious answer. 

If not quite so serious, I'll just observe that the question of 'what is the universe expanding in to' is pretty close to 'what is north of the north pole?'  :angel:

Offline Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 32,012
  • Reputation: +251/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2011, 05:45:28 pm »
I just feel that going by the Big Bang theory, there is a finite amount of material expanding. The leading edge of that expansion is somewhere right now, what's it running into? I have the dark matter riddle solved, I'll reveal it in a later post. Hugs, Tracey
Veteran, US Army

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2011, 08:06:57 am »
I just feel that going by the Big Bang theory, there is a finite amount of material expanding. The leading edge of that expansion is somewhere right now, what's it running into? I have the dark matter riddle solved, I'll reveal it in a later post. Hugs, Tracey

Dark matter is obviously the socks our dryers eat.

For the universe, you've got a common wrong image in mind.  You're thinking of, say, we're in a large room observing things.  Inside that room, we set off a firecracker (the big bang) and we watch the material expand in to that room.  The crucial thing wrong here, even if hard to explain, is that you assumed there was space, and that space is separate from the universe.  Once you get in to General Relativity, space is very much an active player in the universe -- and is inseparable from it.  The universe is the matter/energy/_and_ space.

For the peculiar business of there being no 'outside' to look from, conduct this experiment.  Take a strip of paper and a piece of tape.  Before closing the strip, flip over the end.  Then tape it closed.  Now take a pencil and start tracing down the length of the paper.  Keep going until you get back to where you started.  You started on the inside, so everything you could reach is also inside.  But you've covered 'both' sides of the paper.  While the details are different for the universe, this seems to be how it is constructed -- there's no 'outside'.

Unrelated thing to do with that strip (a Moebius loop) is to take a pair of scissors and cut it lengthwise down the line you just drew.  I won't spoil the story for you.

A good book to read on the Big Bang is Stephen Weinberg's _The first three minutes_.  It doesn't have much on the general relativity side of things, but gives a good description of how we know that there was a Big Bang.  If your math is comfortable with tensors, then B. F. Schutz's Introduction to General Relativity is a good one to get started on the weirdness of space being an active player in the universe.

Offline Jennifer

  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Reputation: +12/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2011, 09:09:49 am »
Great thread Pinkfluff,

Speaking of the nature of the universe, did you hear that scientists at CERN believe they have discovered evidence of the long sought after Top Quark, aka The Higgs Boson?

Jennifer   

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2011, 09:13:10 am »
Higgs is a very different creature than the top quark.  Not least, Higgs is not a quark, so it can exist freely in space, unlike the top, or any other quark.

It's big news if the find is confirmed.  One report I've seen (about 12th hand) has it at 125 GeV, which is lighter than I thought the lower bound was previously established to be (something like 150-180). 

Fingers crossed.  Or not.  It'd be much more interesting if the Higgs weren't found anywhere near where it was expected.

Offline Jennifer

  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Reputation: +12/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2011, 01:43:18 pm »
Higgs is a very different creature than the top quark.  Not least, Higgs is not a quark, so it can exist freely in space, unlike the top, or any other quark.

It's big news if the find is confirmed.  One report I've seen (about 12th hand) has it at 125 GeV, which is lighter than I thought the lower bound was previously established to be (something like 150-180). 

Fingers crossed.  Or not.  It'd be much more interesting if the Higgs weren't found anywhere near where it was expected.
Thank you for correcting me. :)  The Top Quark was of course experimentally observed at Fermilab in 1995 and the Higgs Boson is the last fundamental particle predicted by The Standard Model that has yet to be observed. Do you think Sheldon and Leonard are excited? ;D

Jennifer

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2011, 01:51:51 pm »
I'll guess that Leonard is a little down because it wasn't his experiment that caught it.

Sheldon is ho-humming it because it is merely an experimental result and doesn't say anything theoretically interesting.  :). Different matter if it said something about quantum loop gravity that he could use against Leslie Winkle.

Offline spacial

  • MTF wannabe
  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,238
  • Reputation: +104/-0
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2013, 03:59:59 am »
This is, of course, a really old topic.

But it seems to me the problem with science and science discussions is that unless we can arm ourselves with at least a degree in the subject, we invariably end up with someone putting us down by saying we don't know what we're talking about.

In the 19th century, science was a socially popular and acceptable topic. Granted, many silly misunderstandings emerged, but the world carried on turning and providing we all follow a hands off principal, no harm was ever done or could have been.

Sadly, the tendency to put people down has itself led to some truely astonishing general misunderstandings and even rubbish.

My own first field of science, electronics, there seems to be a general view that electrical current can move is either direction. It can't. But asserting the obvious invariably ends up with a shouting match.

Nice for boys I suppose.

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2013, 07:48:02 am »
I hope you're not seeing me as putting people down here.  Certainly not my intent.  Trying to share what I know.

From other venues, I've observed that it doesn't matter how many degrees you have, or publications on the topic, there are people who will put you down, even if they've never studied the topic and you've made major contributions to our understanding of it.

Electronics is odd.  The convention is that current flows from positive to negative.  This was one of Ben Franklin's few wrong guesses about electricity.  Electrons flow negative to positive.  On the other hand, you can equally view the flow (at least mathematically) as being of 'holes' moving from positive to negative.  ... then there's the 'j operator'.

Offline spacial

  • MTF wannabe
  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,238
  • Reputation: +104/-0
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2013, 08:55:17 am »
I hope you're not seeing me as putting people down here.  Certainly not my intent.  Trying to share what I know.

From other venues, I've observed that it doesn't matter how many degrees you have, or publications on the topic, there are people who will put you down, even if they've never studied the topic and you've made major contributions to our understanding of it.

Electronics is odd.  The convention is that current flows from positive to negative.  This was one of Ben Franklin's few wrong guesses about electricity.  Electrons flow negative to positive.  On the other hand, you can equally view the flow (at least mathematically) as being of 'holes' moving from positive to negative.  ... then there's the 'j operator'.

Let me say the stories of Ben Franklin aside, the potential of electron is negative, but current flow isn't the same thing at all.

But resisting the temptation to explain the relatively simple concepts and difference, the issue is just another that makes science unnecessarily problematic.

Here you are making three points, each of questionable accuracy and more importantly purpose. (Though admittedly, very commonly made and repeated by most school boys).

A casual, non-competitive observer might immediately see a possible point of dispute, disagreement and argument. None of which a non-competitive is generally interested in.

It's just so sad that such a simple topic such as electronics can be clouded in a fog of essentially nationalistic nonsense.

Science is suppose to eliminate ignorance.

Offline cisdad

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2013, 09:14:07 am »
Since this is one of my pet subjects, let me say the stories of Ben Franklin aside, the potential of electron is negative, but current flow isn't the same thing at all.

But resisting the temptation to explain the relatively simple concepts and difference, the issue is just another that makes science unnecessarily problematic.

Here you are making three points, each of questionable accuracy and more importantly purpose. (Though admittedly, very commonly made and repeated by most school boys).

A casual, non-competitive observer might immediately see a possible point of dispute, disagreement and argument. None of which a non-competitive is generally interested in.

It's just so sad that such a simple topic such as electronics can be clouded in a fog of essentially nationalistic nonsense.

Science is suppose to eliminate ignorance.


Science only eliminates ignorance if you share the better answers.  (!) 

Your comment about schoolboys, and stories on Ben Franklin are themselves putdowns.  Especially as you fail to provide the truth of the matters.  Where you get nationalistic matters from is even farther afield.

Then you are even farther from the rails talking about my purpose.  You know what I said.  You're not a mind reader to know my purpose. 

Offline spacial

  • MTF wannabe
  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,238
  • Reputation: +104/-0
Re: No science child board?
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2013, 10:10:49 am »
Science only eliminates ignorance if you share the better answers.  (!) 

Your comment about schoolboys, and stories on Ben Franklin are themselves putdowns.  Especially as you fail to provide the truth of the matters.  Where you get nationalistic matters from is even farther afield.

Then you are even farther from the rails talking about my purpose.  You know what I said.  You're not a mind reader to know my purpose.

I am sorry if it seemed negative. It was truely not my intent.

Ben Franklin was a remarkable man, in many ways, he didn't postulate about electrons or anything similar. His knowledge was far to early for that.

 Franklin died in 1790. A hundred years before the postulate of the electron.

Moreover, the diagrammatic representation of current flow and the universal symbols for all electronic components, correctly shows the theoretical flow as being from positive to negative. Many of these diagrams were not even designed until the late 1930s.

Suggesting Ben Franklin made a mistake is kinda previous under the circumstances.

Tags: