[_ Old Earth _] ±

[jwu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

This thread isn't about evolution in first instance, it's about how planets form.

 

[John]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

But I know you want to get away from answering unanswered questions about evolution, so I'm sure you're eager to start a thread on this. But one thing I do know; you don't know more than Jesus does so you're only going to look like a fool in the end. Sorry. :roll:

This forum is called "Christianity & science" Not " Christianity & Evolution" . jwu has made many good points and posts etc , while me and him are not on the same playing field i do have some respect.

 

[jwu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

You haven't outlined any scenario in about what the earth would look like without dark matter and energy, so you missed the topic. F.

What is your background in physics, if you call me inept? An easy one: If superman flies at a speed of 0.98c, at which factor does the progress of time on earth change in his observation?

Another easy one: If i align a capacitor and a coil behind each other and apply an alternating current, what happens?

Just a reminder that these questions are still open. Someone who raves about dark energy surely is familiar with highschool level physics.

 

[Deep Thought]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

In Matthew 24, Jesus tells us that the stars will fall from the sky. I highly doubt that only the planets will stay up there. : So I see stars and planets as synonymous. And since no scientist has ever visited a star, they can't prove they're different from planets. I acknowledge that my belief is only a theory. But I'll stick with it since scientists haven't shown their infallibility the way Jesus has.

Congratulations, you've just earned another FSTDT nomination. If you keep going at the rate you pump out these types of statements, they might have to create a whole new category just for you.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[jwu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

Both wrong.


You said that superman' time dilation would be by a factor or 1, and you somehow determined T0 to be 1.02

T=T0/sqrt(1-(v/c)²)
T=1/sqrt(1-(0.98/1)²)
T=1/sqrt(1-0.9604)
T=1/sqrt(0.0396)
T=1/0.198997487
T=5.025..

So the perceived difference of the speed of time would be by a factor of 5.025. That's neither 1 nor 1.02.

...the denominator reaches the speed 0

[emphasis mine]
The denominator has no unit resembling that of a speed, e.g. "m/s".

Regarding the second question..."Electromagnetism" is trivial as a coil and a capacitor is involved, but it has little to do with what this particular circuit would do.


The described circuit is called a series RLC-circuit and it is used to filter specific frequencies out of the current. Hence my reference to alternating current. Depending on its frequency, and the properties of the coil and the resistor it would either leave it through without much resistance or put up a high resistance and block the current.

Circuits similar to this can be used to tune in to the signal of a specific radio station, or to build a primitive equalizer.

Edit: Answer to my latest question removed.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[Patashu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

Superman IS the observer of the event.

 

[jwu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

Oh I am correct, since time is relative & your question is only relative to one person (Superman) with no observer of the event.

It is obvious that the given speed of 0.98C defines the observer, as that is the speed at which superman moves in relation to the observer. No further information is required. Without an observer, no measure of the speed could be given.

If there is no further observer, then why did you try to apply a lorentz transformation which implies an observer? There are T and T0 in the equation after all...

Regarding your second question... "If i align a capacitor and a coil behind each other and apply an alternating current, what happens?" I am also correct, but you did not remember your question.

Actually i do remember the question, you just failed to answer it.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that "electromagnetic fields will be created" is not a sufficient answer. For that one would need neither a coil, nor alternating voltage, nor a capacitor - it applies to absolutely any circuit and as such explains absolutely nothing. It's the kind of answer that i'd expect from a student who has no clue whatsoever and just spouts wild guesses.

And the battery part is just plain wrong no matter how one tries to turn it. I'll give you a D- if you at least explain why exactly this setup is unsuitable for storing energy.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[jwu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

Since time is relative & I know that there's an observer, I used t=0 as an referrence point & 0.98c is the speed in which Superman is traveling (irrelevant, or) excluding any observer which is not fixed & can change his / her speed.

The question didn't contain any changes of speed.

[quote:2e16e]If superman flies at a speed of 0.98c, at which factor does the progress of time on earth change in his observation?

Now, the first section of your (above) quote clearly states that, Superman is the only object that will be traveling at a speed of 0.98c & the second section clearly states that "...at which factor (or, second) does the progress (or, passing) of time on earth change in his observation.

Question: where is that second observer that you (said was there &) assumed the calculation(s) would automatically include?

Question: Why did you ask for Superman's time dilation perspective knowing that relative to something, or someone else it will never be the same?[/quote:2e16e]Huh? I was asking for Superman's observation of the time dilation on earth from his point of view. He flies at a speed of 0.98 relative to earth. What could possibly be misunderstood about this?

You also could have given me earth's observation of superman's time dilation. The result would have been the same. No matter who observes what, the relative speed of 0.98c between observer and observant defines all that one needs to come to the conclusion - at which you failed utterly.

And no, i wasn't talking about two observers, nor did i imply them. There is only one, which you can place whereever you want as long as he moves at a speed of 0.98c in relation to the observant.

[quote:2e16e]If i align a capacitor and a coil behind each other and apply an alternating current, what happens?

Now, the first section of your (above) quote clearly states that, 1. a capacitor is taken, 2. coil behind each other & alternating current. But, from the question(s) stated I am still correct.[/quote:2e16e]
And you still gave a tautological answer which does not indicate any knowledge about physics. Was it not obvious that i was asking about the specific behaviour of this setup, and not some generic thing that happens whenever currents flow?

Another really easy one, IIRC i did this in 8th grade:
Given are newton' law of gravity, a distance of the earth to the moon of 400,000km and an orbital period of the moon of 29.5 days.
The gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3 * kg^-1 * s^-2
Assume a circular orbit of the moon around the earth, discount all other factors which are not mentioned here.
Based on this information, what is the mass of the earth and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[Jayls5]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

And the battery part is just plain wrong no matter how one tries to turn it. I'll give you a D- if you at least explain why exactly this setup is unsuitable for storing energy.

My guess is that we currently have inferior dielectrics in most capacitors. The amount of conducting spaces we can create in capacitors simply isn't conducive to storing a charge that would rival the energy storing power of chemical batteries. Of course, we are working on ways of making smaller dielectrics and conducting surfaces - often deemed "ultracapacitors." However, to my knowledge, I do not believe they have come remotely close to the energy storing power of lithium ion batteries, though they have a much faster charge rate. This charging ability makes them a practical application for regenerative braking technology in automobiles.

How'd I do? Better than Mr. science "C 4 C" ? :

(edit, I assumed you are talking about why capacitors are not that great at storing power and not the issue of AC current essentially passing through it without charging it... which should have been equally obvious to C 4 C)

Jayls5, logically & analytically I am fully aware that it's futile for me to assume any longer that you know (intellectually & scientifically, it's a common consensus) that within outer space, our universe, or dimension exist negative (-) gravity this is why objects (irrelevant to mass, weight, etc) do not fall down relative to objects in which is subjected to (+) gravity & that Dark Matter &, or Dark Energy is not responsible for the positive (+(±)-) negative which do exist, but is a quinque from of matter & energy in its own rite(s).

Tack no offence, but I do not expect you to be able to comprehened not even one (1%) percent of what I've said, due the obvious fact(s) that you've been (knowingly, unknowingly or) deceiving yourself (& possibly others).

Yes, I will take no offense to your "superior intellect" which I am unable to comprehend.

You're speculating about negative gravity which has very little scientific backing, if any. I have a simple solution that would take far less time than arguing all of your points. If it is a common consensus both "intellectually and scientifically" as you say, provide some references. You know, show me some scholarly journals that talk about the existence of antigravity and some real hard evidence about this dark matter that your argument depends on. I have a hunch that it's going to be speculative, but I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[Patashu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

You technically answered his questions, but your answers are respectively wrong and indetailed. Technically 'something would happen' is also a correct answer but MUCH more detail could be provided.

 

[Guest]

±

 

[John]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

NOTE: I do not need anyone to agree with me, for me to be 100% correct.

I love that quote

 

[Guest]

±

 

[Patashu]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

You technically answered his questions, but your answers are respectively wrong and indetailed. Technically 'something would happen' is also a correct answer but MUCH more detail could be provided.

Take no offence Patashu, but your sentence is incoherent & incorrect.

NOTE: I do not need anyone to agree with me, for me to be 100% correct.

He asked you questions that would require a rudimentary scientific understanding to answer in depth and with correct reasoning. You failed to do so. Why should we then assume you are qualified to speak on matters scientific? Did the specific arrangement of parts he gave you not tip you off that just maybe he was after a specific effect?

 

[Jayls5]

Re: Planet Formations, etc.

You're speculating about negative gravity which has very little scientific backing, if any. I have a simple solution that would take far less time than arguing all of your points. If it is a common consensus both "intellectually and scientifically" as you say, provide some references. You know, show me some scholarly journals that talk about the existence of antigravity and some real hard evidence about this dark matter that your argument depends on. I have a hunch that it's going to be speculative, but I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong.

Take no offence Jayls5, but the simply fact that you're not aware that It's a common consensus both "intellectually & scientifically" (primarily) amongst physicists, etc is more than enough proof (for me) that you're not a physicist, or a adeptly cognizant individual & the proof, or evidence you want is out there & all you have to do is three (3) things; 1. stop being extremely lazy, 2. go do your own research / homework & 3. educate youself & do not expect another (like myself) to do it for you.

I hope you realize how ridiculous and hypocritical you sound right now.

You claim there is a vast wealth of scientific data supporting your claim, and it is a common consensus. You then accuse me of being extremely lazy when I ask you to produce some of it.

I'm not a complete moron on the subject, and I have read books by Stephen Hawking and other theoretical physicists. The things you are asserting are speculative scientific endeavors made by many of these people. We see aspects of our universe that wouldn't be explained by the amount of mass we have detected with our current instruments, and we attribute this discrepancy to a possibility of "dark matter" that we essentially know nothing about. To my knowledge, there isn't much more to it. You claim your position is a common scientific consensus. I ask you to produce something if it is so common. You then call me lazy.

Nice job there. Hypocrite.

 

[Guest]

±