# Thread: The Sun is expanding, or are we moving closer?

1. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
Attachment 1883

And i do understand you mean this...
What is that supposed to mean?

My sphere and how you explained gravity would be equal east, west etc,therefore forfieting motion.

I have looked today for the spin and shape of the earth with centrifugal force added and without success to find a decent diagram of the axis etc. so I drew a pic is it like my pic or is the hump in the north?Attachment 0spin.jpg

2. More meaningless drivel.

3. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Sorry Dw, what dribble are you reffering too?

the pic? I am asking a question as can not find a good diagram, and considering aerodynamics and force, added simple velocity direction of force on spin.is

I this how we spin, is the hump where i picture it?

Or do you mean the equal pic, which was explaining i knew what you mean by polarities of poles and east etc ,gravity been the same.

4. This:
Originally Posted by theorist
My sphere and how you explained gravity would be equal east, west etc,therefore forfieting motion.
And this:
considering aerodynamics
WTF does "aerodynamics" have to do with it?

AND the
pic, which was explaining i knew what you mean by polarities of poles and east etc ,gravity been the same

5. Originally Posted by theorist
My sphere and how you explained gravity would be equal east, west etc,therefore forfieting motion.
You were talking abut magnetism, not gravity.

I have looked today for the spin and shape of the earth with centrifugal force added and without success to find a decent diagram of the axis etc.
I have no idea what your picture is supposed to show. The earth is an oblate spheroid:
250px-OblateSpheroid.PNG

Like this:
earthshape_200304171.jpg

6. Yes magnetism strange thank you.
ill
Yes oblate, similar to the centrifugal test, where metal rings are spun on a shaft as a sphere shape, and they compress to make an oblate shape.

On several pics though I have seen what is described as an hump, which was a hill or a mountain as such, that made a hump in the earths shape, is this not so?

A bulge...

7. Well, there are things called "mountains"...

8.

9. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
This:
Originally Posted by theorist
My sphere and how you explained gravity would be equal east, west etc,therefore forfieting motion.
And this:
considering aerodynamics
WTF does "aerodynamics" have to do with it?

AND the
pic, which was explaining i knew what you mean by polarities of poles and east etc ,gravity been the same
Earths design, space dynamics .....

10. 1) The Earth wasn't "designed".
2) "Space dynamics" is a made up term. SPACE IS NOT A MEDIUM!

11. Originally Posted by theorist
A link to a google search is not very useful. That search returns about 5 million results. I assume you don;t want me to check all of them...

12. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
1) The Earth wasn't "designed".
2) "Space dynamics" is a made up term. SPACE IS NOT A MEDIUM!

No the earth wasn't designed, but earth as a design,space does not need a medium this is the part you can not understand. The sun and the earth and most other planets that spin, have to create a medium of their own.

So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position, it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent,but the dent was created by its own spin....the same with the earth to hold the moon...

13. sorry strange should of took you to like a pear shape

14. So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position, it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent,but the dent was created by its own spin....the same with the earth to hold the moon...
THIS IS AN ANALOGY, you stupid troll.

15. Originally Posted by theorist
No the earth wasn't designed, but earth as a design
Er... do you speak English? At all?
I have this nasty suspicion (mainly due to your failure to answer a question a number of times) that, unfortunately and unforgivably, English IS your native language.
Your grasp on that is (at least) as tenuous as your grasp on anything else.

The sun and the earth and most other planets that spin, have to create a medium of their own.
No. They. Don't.

So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position
Drivel.

it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent
Wrong.

but the dent was created by its own spin
Wrong. The "dent" is created by mass. Not spin. Not penguins. Not hamsters. Nor carrots, magnetism, the colour blue, wishful thinking, Monday mornings or anything else. MASS. On its own.

the same with the earth to hold the moon...
No.

16. Originally Posted by AlexG
So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position, it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent,but the dent was created by its own spin....the same with the earth to hold the moon...
THIS IS AN ANALOGY, you stupid troll.
you mean a comparison, a comparison to what?

17. Originally Posted by theorist
So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position, it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent,but the dent was created by its own spin....the same with the earth to hold the moon...
It is an ANALOGY. It doesn't actually work like that. THERE IS NO DENT IN SPACE.

teaching_physics.jpg

18. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
No the earth wasn't designed, but earth as a design
Er... do you speak English? At all?
I have this nasty suspicion (mainly due to your failure to answer a question a number of times) that, unfortunately and unforgivably, English IS your native language.
Your grasp on that is (at least) as tenuous as your grasp on anything else.

The sun and the earth and most other planets that spin, have to create a medium of their own.
No. They. Don't.

So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position
Drivel.

it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent
Wrong.

but the dent was created by its own spin
Wrong. The "dent" is created by mass. Not spin. Not penguins. Not hamsters. Nor carrots, magnetism, the colour blue, wishful thinking, Monday mornings or anything else. MASS. On its own.

the same with the earth to hold the moon...
No.

a dent can not be created without a medium in space....

19. Originally Posted by theorist
sorry strange should of took you to like a pear shape
Definitely not pear shaped. Unless that is a nashi pear...

20. If this isn't a troll, it's too stupid to breath on it's own.

21. Originally Posted by theorist
a dent can not be created without a medium in space....
THERE IS NO DENT. IT IS A FUCKING ANALOGY. (and not a very good one, apparently)

22. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
a dent can not be created without a medium in space....
THERE IS NO DENT. IT IS A FUCKING ANALOGY. (and not a very good one, apparently)
The troll's got you posting in all caps now.

23. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
So when Einstein had seen the sun putting a dent in the fabric of space and we roll around the dent at accelerated rate to hold position, it was not space that had a dent, it is the Sun itself making that dent look like a dent,but the dent was created by its own spin....the same with the earth to hold the moon...
It is an ANALOGY. It doesn't actually work like that. THERE IS NO DENT IN SPACE.

teaching_physics.jpg

there is a dent but not a dent as we know a dent, oh man this hard to explain, I will try to draw a better understanding....and show you...

24. Originally Posted by theorist
there is a dent but not a dent as we know a dent, oh man this hard to explain, I will try to draw a better understanding....and show you...
It is hard to explain. It requires several years of advanced math. I don't understand it. I am reasonably confident that you don't either.
Pseudo-Riemannian manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25. Originally Posted by AlexG
The troll's got you posting in all caps now.
Don't worry. It's not because he is winding me up. It is just quite nice to have an excuse to do it now and again.

26. Originally Posted by theorist
a dent can not be created without a medium in space....
You're 100% correct.
You caught me out.
The "medium" of space does, in fact, exist.

Think of it like a penguin. But without the wings, feet, beak, head or body. And no internal organs or colour. Or brain.
It's sort of like that but vaguely orangutan-ish with a slight hint of peppermint and castor oil.
And 117 toes.

27.

28.

29. Oh good.
You've switched from posting meaningless sentences to posting meaningless diagrams.
You have no idea how happy that makes me.

30. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Oh good.
You've switched from posting meaningless sentences to posting meaningless diagrams.
You have no idea how happy that makes me.
The first picture, shows an overhead view, from above the north of the sun, or top of the sun as I shall say.
This is an overview of the dent with the orbiting planets.

The second picture is in side the dent from the north face of the sun, the top. Again showing the orbiting planets.

The third picture is aerodynamics in space, or space dynamics of a moving object.

This is the force that the spin will generate, by centrifugal and centripedal force. Shaping magnetism as in the northern hemosphere and south can be seen rings of atmosphere .

Spinning with a tilt will always have downwards force of force to a certain point. That force sitting on an outgoing force with a wider angle of elevation would happilly let the object sphere to rotate around the outgoing force, as would be created within the north or top of spin.

There is no north or south it is top and bottom, the suns north is on its side and not on the top, so the top of the sun we sit on its force.

31. Gravity

Is not

Caused by spin

Full stop

32. Originally Posted by theorist
This is an overview of the dent with the orbiting planets.
Allow me to quote Strange: THERE IS NO DENT. IT IS A FUCKING ANALOGY.

The third picture is aerodynamics in space, or space dynamics of a moving object.
Allow me to quote me: "Space dynamics" is a made up term. SPACE IS NOT A MEDIUM! (And there is no aerodynamics involved).

This is the force that the spin will generate, by centrifugal and centripedal force. Shaping magnetism as in the northern hemosphere and south can be seen rings of atmosphere .
Allow to me point out (again) that that spin does not generate a force. You have been told this before.

Spinning with a tilt will always have downwards force of force to a certain point. That force sitting on an outgoing force with a wider angle of elevation would happilly let the object sphere to rotate around the outgoing force, as would be created within the north or top of spin.
There is no north or south it is top and bottom, the suns north is on its side and not on the top, so the top of the sun we sit on its force.
Utter and complete bullshit.

Stick to meaningless pictures. At least the colours provide some distraction.

33. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
This is an overview of the dent with the orbiting planets.
Allow me to quote Strange: THERE IS NO DENT. IT IS A FUCKING ANALOGY.

The third picture is aerodynamics in space, or space dynamics of a moving object.
Allow me to quote me: "Space dynamics" is a made up term. SPACE IS NOT A MEDIUM! (And there is no aerodynamics involved).

This is the force that the spin will generate, by centrifugal and centripedal force. Shaping magnetism as in the northern hemosphere and south can be seen rings of atmosphere .
Allow to me point out (again) that that spin does not generate a force. You have been told this before.

Spinning with a tilt will always have downwards force of force to a certain point. That force sitting on an outgoing force with a wider angle of elevation would happilly let the object sphere to rotate around the outgoing force, as would be created within the north or top of spin.
There is no north or south it is top and bottom, the suns north is on its side and not on the top, so the top of the sun we sit on its force.
Utter and complete bullshit.

Stick to meaningless pictures. At least the colours provide some distraction.
Want to test it, easy test?

34. Guys, what exactly is the point of all this?

It is obvious that theorist is wilfully ignorant and prefers to just make stuff up rather than wanting to learn any science.

35. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Guys, what exactly is the point of all this?

It is obvious that theorist is wilfully ignorant and prefers to just make stuff up rather than wanting to learn any science.
No this is a logical explanation of gravity,

if the sun was to rotate quicker or give out more energy output, the incline in the gradient would decrease altering our tilt slightly, but also gaining slightly more distance from the sun or towards the sun, not sure on that one yet...

36. theorist, you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

We already have a working theory of gravity based on the mass of the objects involved, and we use it to put spacecraft into orbits around other bodies, like the Moon, or Mars.

Just shut up with your inane whittering. Gravity is not based on spin. Full stop.

Why not listen to wisdom, rather than speak nonsense?

37. Originally Posted by theorist
Want to test it, easy test?
Go on.
I'm intrigued as to the full extent of your ignorance.

38. Don't encourage him. He needs psychiatric help.

39. Moderator Warning: Theorist, your posts lack any scientific quality whatsoever. Most (all) of your respondents genuinely wish to help you understand, but you have ignored every key piece of advice as to how to achieve that understanding. In future the following will not be acceptable:
1. Repeating the same nonsense after a proper explanation has been provided.
2. Jumping in with a concatenation of jumbled thoughts and phrases with a semantic value of zero.
3. Offering alternative explanations for phenomena that are well explained, and where you offer no justification for your explanation.
4. Denying accepted theory because you cannot understand or just think it is wrong.

If you ignore this warning you will be suspended. Do not respond to this note in the thread: pm me or a mod/admin, or report the post if you have an issue with the warning.

I ask other members to alert me if any of these requirements are breached.

40. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
theorist, you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

We already have a working theory of gravity based on the mass of the objects involved, and we use it to put spacecraft into orbits around other bodies, like the Moon, or Mars.

Just shut up with your inane whittering. Gravity is not based on spin. Full stop.

Why not listen to wisdom, rather than speak nonsense?
test it, get yourself a cone shape , but with a larger angle of tilt, put it so the point of the cone is on the floor, but in some sort of machine for spinning it, spin it fast, then take a smaller cone or giroscope type thing and spin that in the cone the same direction of spin,

41. Which would demonstrate... exactly NOTHING with regard to your contention.
Give up.
Go to school.
Learn something (anything).

42. "Never wrestle with a pig: you’ll both get dirty and the pig will love it."

43. Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
theorist, you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

We already have a working theory of gravity based on the mass of the objects involved, and we use it to put spacecraft into orbits around other bodies, like the Moon, or Mars.

Just shut up with your inane whittering. Gravity is not based on spin. Full stop.

Why not listen to wisdom, rather than speak nonsense?
test it, get yourself a cone shape , but with a larger angle of tilt, put it so the point of the cone is on the floor, but in some sort of machine for spinning it, spin it fast, then take a smaller cone or giroscope type thing and spin that in the cone the same direction of spin,
what for?

44. theorist, what part of "We already have a working theory of gravity based on the mass of the objects involved, and we use it to put spacecraft into orbits around other bodies"

do you not understand?

Your experiment would only cause the smaller object to "orbit" inside the inverted cone if the experiment was carried out in a place that already has a gravitational field, which is why pointing the cone downwards (towards the centre of gravity) would cause the friction between the smaller object and the inside of the cone and cause the motion you are referring to when you spin the large cone. In zero gravity, the object inside the cone would just float away from the cone. Your test proves nothing about the nature of gravity.

This is a proper explanation (of sorts). Ask questions about it if you like, but if you repeat your earlier nonsense I will report you again.

45. oh, he's re-defining gravity now?

LOL

46. They do say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

It seems there are two(*) sorts of people in the world:

1. When you find out you have a gap in your knowledge, you go and study and learn.

2. When you find out you have a gap in your knowledge, you make something up.

3. When you find out you have a gap in your knowledge, you say "meh" and go do something else.

Sadly, theorist and all the other assorted cranks and crackpots we get on sites like this follow strategy 2. It is probably easier, but it is utterly pointless.

(*) For suitable values of "two"

47. Originally Posted by Strange
They do say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Maybe we should have another saying: "Having no knowledge is f*cking lethal".

48. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
theorist, what part of "We already have a working theory of gravity based on the mass of the objects involved, and we use it to put spacecraft into orbits around other bodies"

do you not understand?

Your experiment would only cause the smaller object to "orbit" inside the inverted cone if the experiment was carried out in a place that already has a gravitational field, which is why pointing the cone downwards (towards the centre of gravity) would cause the friction between the smaller object and the inside of the cone and cause the motion you are referring to when you spin the large cone. In zero gravity, the object inside the cone would just float away from the cone. Your test proves nothing about the nature of gravity.

This is a proper explanation (of sorts). Ask questions about it if you like, but if you repeat your earlier nonsense I will report you again.
I thank you for your explanation of why the cone test would not work, and yes correct logic compared to space.

OK, just one question then I will forget about gravity for a while,

What causes gravity? what makes it, I do not understand....

49. mass and density.

50. Originally Posted by curious mind
mass
He's been told that a number of times.

51. Originally Posted by curious mind
mass and density.
Mass and density, why would that make gravity? a mountain for example has mass and density, so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?

52. you are when you jump off one

53. Originally Posted by theorist
so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?
Oh good grief.
Apart from the fact that we are (and you're too lazy to Google it) how about using logic?

1) You have been informed, many times, that mass is the cause of gravity.
2) Mountains have mass.
THEREFORE:
3) Mountains cause gravity.

Now, to head off any further ridiculous questions: how much mass is there in a mountain compared to the mass of the Earth?
Since it takes the entire mass of the Earth to hold you down (yet you can still jump into the air), how much effect do you think a mountain would have on a human?

54. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?
Oh good grief.
Apart from the fact that we are (and you're too lazy to Google it) how about using logic?

1) You have been informed, many times, that mass is the cause of gravity.
2) Mountains have mass.
THEREFORE:
3) Mountains cause gravity.

Now, to head off any further ridiculous questions: how much mass is there in a mountain compared to the mass of the Earth?
Since it takes the entire mass of the Earth to hold you down (yet you can still jump into the air), how much effect do you think a mountain would have on a human?
Thank you for explanation of how gravity works, so why, what in mass attracts us?

55. Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by curious mind
mass and density.
Mass and density, why would that make gravity? a mountain for example has mass and density, so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?
Ban the troll.

56. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by curious mind
mass and density.
Mass and density, why would that make gravity? a mountain for example has mass and density, so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?
Ban the troll.
How many times must one explain that he is not a troll, I am asking question's I do not understand!. Am I been rude in any sense or using exclusive wording that do not exist in the dictionary.

Am I taking any offense to the constant hounding! the answer is no, I know that is just human nature.

57. Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you for explanation of how gravity works, so why, what in mass attracts us?
Simple answer: gravity. Gravity is caused by mass and attracts mass.

Electric charge causes the electric force which attracts (or repels) electric charge.

Magnetism cause the magnetic force which attracts (or repels) magnetism.

Mass causes gravity which attracts mass.

There is a more complete answer but you won't understand it. (And there is no point giving you a simplified version because you will misunderstand it.)

58. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you for explanation of how gravity works, so why, what in mass attracts us?
Simple answer: gravity. Gravity is caused by mass and attracts mass.

Electric charge causes the electric force which attracts (or repels) electric charge.

Magnetism cause the magnetic force which attracts (or repels) magnetism.

Mass causes gravity which attracts mass.

There is a more complete answer but you won't understand it. (And there is no point giving you a simplified version because you will misunderstand it.)
Thank you Strange, please try me with a complete answer, I feel my question on why mass attracts mass is still unanswered, mass causes gravity but why, where doe's the gravity come from?. What makes gravity? and please do not just say mass.

59. Originally Posted by theorist
what in mass attracts us?
Apart from the "dent" explanation (which you appear to have trouble understanding as an analogy) we don't yet know 1.
Science is an ongoing process, there's many things we don't know yet.
(But that is NOT an excuse or licence for uninformed speculation).

1 The Higgs may have some answers for us.

60. dude, my educational history only contains of 2 years elementary and 2 years of highschool, you must be have just entered kindergarten with asking those questions.

61. Originally Posted by theorist
How are you with hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations?
Einstein Field Equations -- from Wolfram MathWorld

I feel my question on why mass attracts mass is still unanswered, mass causes gravity but why, where doe's the gravity come from?. What makes gravity?
Mass.

and please do not just say mass.
Why not? Do you have the same objection to saying that charges cause electric force? Or that magnets cause magnetic force?

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' and 'How?' questions...) - YouTube

Rename gravity to "massive force" if that helps.

62. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
what in mass attracts us?
Apart from the "dent" explanation (which you appear to have trouble understanding as an analogy) we don't yet know 1.
Science is an ongoing process, there's many things we don't know yet.
(But that is NOT an excuse or licence for uninformed speculation).

1 The Higgs may have some answers for us.
Thank you, for the honest answer that we do not know, and yes I apologize for my excitement.

The standard model of elementary particles, The Higg,s been the last on the list, how many of the 17 elementary particles can we physically see through technology, meaning microscopes e.t.c, and not a computerized simulation?,.

and why would the Boson give us the answers?

63. Physically see?
None.
And the Higgs isn't THE boson, it's one of a number.
Try here.

64. Theorist, you are just going to have to accept that there are some things you will never fully understand.

I know I will never really understand General Relativity, even if I have a vague understanding of some of the ideas. I know I will never understand the Higgs mechanism, or even the principle behind it.

At some point you have to stop asking for more and just accept the explanations that you do understand.

(BTW I don't think the Higgs mechanism will tell us anything more about gravity even if tells us how things have mass. But of course I could be wrong ... )

65. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Physically see?
None.
And the Higgs isn't THE boson, it's one of a number.
Try here.
Thank you Dy, that is the link and the page that I looked at when you mentioned higg's.

And this is the elementary particles list I was referring too.

Elementary particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

66. Originally Posted by Strange
Theorist, you are just going to have to accept that there are some things you will never fully understand.

I know I will never really understand General Relativity, even if I have a vague understanding of some of the ideas. I know I will never understand the Higgs mechanism, or even the principle behind it.

At some point you have to stop asking for more and just accept the explanations that you do understand.

(BTW I don't think the Higgs mechanism will tell us anything more about gravity even if tells us how things have mass. But of course I could be wrong ... )
Thank you for the links, the youtube link is a classic, and as for the maths link,hmmm, I think I will pass on that one. I now understand some of my questions have no answers, and my assumptions are no more than speculative.

However, we accept particles although we can not see them, is that not assumptions, what is the difference?

67. Originally Posted by theorist
And this is the elementary particles list I was referring too.

Elementary particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In which case you should have known better than to refer to the Higgs as "the" boson.

68. Originally Posted by theorist
However, we accept particles although we can not see them, is that not assumptions, what is the difference?
Because we can see their effects.
Because the maths shows us that they "should" exist.
Because experiments designed to test for them (due to the maths) show that there is something there that matches the mathematical predictions to a far greater degree than coincidence would allow.
Because "assuming" they exist gives us working explanations for most of what we can see.

69. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
And this is the elementary particles list I was referring too.

Elementary particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In which case you should have known better than to refer to the Higgs as "the" boson.
I do apologize,I looked at the Boson, then on that page clicked a link that lead to you link, the higg,s mechanical, I have just looked again I can see there are many bosons.

70. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
However, we accept particles although we can not see them, is that not assumptions, what is the difference?
Because we can see their effects.
Because the maths shows us that they "should" exist.
Because experiments designed to test for them (due to the maths) show that there is something there that matches the mathematical predictions to a far greater degree than coincidence would allow.
Because "assuming" they exist gives us working explanations for most of what we can see.
OK, because we can see their effects, that sounds quite logical to me. So what effects do we see that makes this logical from the point of view of an atom, the atom bomb would that be an example?

71. Originally Posted by theorist
OK, because we can see their effects, that sounds quite logical to me. So what effects do we see that makes this logical from the point of view of an atom, the atom bomb would that be an example?
Good try, but the "atom bomb" doesn't rely on the atom - it's nuclear energies that make it work.
Electricity - electrons.
Light - photons.
Others through various methods, for example the electron neutrino came about due to Pauli's explanation to account for missing energy and momentum in beta decay.
Try getting a few books on the history of physics (or biographies of physicists), a lot do explain how and why certain particles were postulated, and how they were verified.

72. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by theorist
OK, because we can see their effects, that sounds quite logical to me. So what effects do we see that makes this logical from the point of view of an atom, the atom bomb would that be an example?
Good try, but the "atom bomb" doesn't rely on the atom - it's nuclear energies that make it work.
Electricity - electrons.
Light - photons.
Others through various methods, for example the electron neutrino came about due to Pauli's explanation to account for missing energy and momentum in beta decay.
Try getting a few books on the history of physics (or biographies of physicists), a lot do explain how and why certain particles were postulated, and how they were verified.
Thank you , I see why now, and the effects, but also I see to not ask why to deep.

I am not really a book person, but I have started to watch the basics etc on youtube with some interesting learning such as plastic magnets, how to make a magnet with some copper wire , a battery and a nail, why plasma bottling is important with magnetism and the benefits plasma would bring to space travel.

I thank you all, mainly because through your help, I can understand the videos and what they are referring to and the why's etc. So now I understand more I can watch science videos as it is no longer an alien language to me.

I will start a topic in the future, science maths, that will be hard to explain I do not get it, is it alien language lol.

73. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by theorist
Originally Posted by curious mind
mass and density.
Mass and density, why would that make gravity? a mountain for example has mass and density, so why are we not attracted to mountains or are we?
Ban the troll.
AlexG, with one or two rare exceptions your principal contributions to the forum appear to be along the lines of your post here. There is more than one kind of troll. Would you consider giving it a go at actually contributing something of substance rather than just heckling, apposite and sometimes entertaining though many of your heckles are?

74. math is my problem also, but i'm slowly catching up, seeing my (tedious, long taking) way of counting, matching already existing formulars i never heard of. i have a mountain ahead still...

75. Originally Posted by curious mind
but i'm slowly catching up
With what?

i have a mountain ahead still...
If it's any help when you get to the "top" you find out someone's moved it and you're actually nowhere near the peak!

76. Originally Posted by theorist
However, we accept particles although we can not see them, is that not assumptions, what is the difference?
Maybe instead of learning science as a series of random facts, you should spend some time learning about what science is: a process for gathering information and, most importantly, testing ideas.

It is, perhaps, more important to know how we know the things we know, than to know those things (if you know what I mean).

For example, when you study science you learn how and why ideas have developed over the centuries. You also get to do many of the fundamental experiments that helped confirm these ideas (I remember being thrilled to see the tracks of alpha particles in a cloud chamber when I was at college). This develops experimental technique but also shows that you don't have to just accept something because it is written in a book. You can, and should, test it.

77. Originally Posted by Strange
This develops experimental technique but also shows that you don't have to just accept something because it is written in a book. You can, and should, test it.
This is the fundamental problem of those who dismiss science. They think science is learning about things from a book and that most scientists are therefore misled simpletons who accept what they read without question. This utter nonsense needs to be vigorously each time it is asserted. I accept the findings of Galileo because I have repeated many of his experiments and seen the moons of Jupiter. I accept the reported charge on the electron because I have measured it myself. I buy into the concept of oceanic crust obduction because I have mapped an ophiolite complex.

78. Originally Posted by Strange
It is, perhaps, more important to know how we know the things we know, than to know those things
Excellent statement.

79. More people wear sunglasses now than they used to. Not sure if this is because the sun is brighter or people are just trying to be "cool."

80. How come the Sun is expanding? Now? Am am just a fan and an amateur, but I read a ton of BS in the OP's posts.
P.S: Oh, wait, he is suspended for trolling, which he was actually doing all the time

Page 3 of 3 First 123
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement