dryson":5ia639d8 said:
Maybe later I can find the willpower to answer the 1 good question you had in your post but right now ....
- Status
Maybe later I can find the willpower to answer the 1 good question you had in your post but right now ....
dryson":1ikn89jk said:
We do, or rather could, if we cared to look at the proper objects at the right times. I gave you this link before. Try to read it if you really want an answer.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html
And if you want to understand the 1919 observation then here's another simple explanation.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/fair_tests_04
Oh, ok. I wouldn't have considered stellar distances to be "objects around us". I thought he was talking smaller scale, like down to the corner or from here to my parking space or from my eyeball to the monitor. :lol:
Now back on topic.
Let's look at the light photon creating the various atoms we know about.
We know that objects cannot magnetically bond with a sun. The reason being is that the sun is to energetic or hot to put it in layman's terms. Objects that are 'colder' are more magnetically bound to other atoms within the structure of the object. The 'colder' an object is means that the atoms particles are less active and easily attract to one another. When in the presence of the sun the energy created by the sun causes the atoms to speed up becoming less magnetically attractive towards each other which causes atomic dispersion.
As particles from the sun radiate out away from the sun they begin to lose their ability to remain non-magnetically attracted towards each other. This is because each particle is not being kept in a constant state of temperature where the temperature keeps the particles at a velocity that does not allow for magentic attraction. Once the particles have been ejected from the sun they begin to go through an immediate process. Depending upon the grouping of the particles when they have been ejected from the sun will determine what particle is created. As the particles loses more and more heat it will attract more and more particles. The more particles that are attracted means that the element being created will be heavier and more likely to slow down in it's travel away from the sun as more and more particles become attracted to the now developing mass of particles.
Unless an interaction occurs between the now massing particles and a particle that causes an energetic reaction between the other particles within the center of the mass the object would remain a solid object.
If a reaction at the center of the mass occured that started to create secondary reactions within the core of the emassed object then a confined energetic process similar to the sun would occur. When the core reaction begins to occur the solid structure of the object begins to react to the increased pressure. The pressure causes the various layers of the object to split apart. As the object splits apart the coldness of space is able to find it's way to the core thus causing the release of stored energy to be changed in it's state of a rapidly expanding release of energy to a more elogant release in the form of lava. As the lava feed makes it's way to the surface of the planet it heats up the surrounding area that causes the material to become less magnetically charged resulting in other combination's of elements to occur. Once the lava feed has reached the surface of the planet it begins to cool down and harden which is the result of the process within the lava feed itself becoming less active where the particles within the lava feed become more magnetically attracted to form a solid.
We know so little about particles and the Universe. To stay within the confines of an excepted idea from a time that is no longer present is trapping the very process of science into a bubble. Which of course religion what to occur so that what was methodologically said to be true based upon liberal thoughts can be said to be real.
So where do the particles that make up an element come from anyway? Were they present before the Big Bang or did a single photon pave the wave for the Big Bang?
Let's look at the light photon creating the various atoms we know about.
We know that objects cannot magnetically bond with a sun. The reason being is that the sun is to energetic or hot to put it in layman's terms. Objects that are 'colder' are more magnetically bound to other atoms within the structure of the object. The 'colder' an object is means that the atoms particles are less active and easily attract to one another. When in the presence of the sun the energy created by the sun causes the atoms to speed up becoming less magnetically attractive towards each other which causes atomic dispersion.
As particles from the sun radiate out away from the sun they begin to lose their ability to remain non-magnetically attracted towards each other. This is because each particle is not being kept in a constant state of temperature where the temperature keeps the particles at a velocity that does not allow for magentic attraction. Once the particles have been ejected from the sun they begin to go through an immediate process. Depending upon the grouping of the particles when they have been ejected from the sun will determine what particle is created. As the particles loses more and more heat it will attract more and more particles. The more particles that are attracted means that the element being created will be heavier and more likely to slow down in it's travel away from the sun as more and more particles become attracted to the now developing mass of particles.
Unless an interaction occurs between the now massing particles and a particle that causes an energetic reaction between the other particles within the center of the mass the object would remain a solid object.
If a reaction at the center of the mass occured that started to create secondary reactions within the core of the emassed object then a confined energetic process similar to the sun would occur. When the core reaction begins to occur the solid structure of the object begins to react to the increased pressure. The pressure causes the various layers of the object to split apart. As the object splits apart the coldness of space is able to find it's way to the core thus causing the release of stored energy to be changed in it's state of a rapidly expanding release of energy to a more elogant release in the form of lava. As the lava feed makes it's way to the surface of the planet it heats up the surrounding area that causes the material to become less magnetically charged resulting in other combination's of elements to occur. Once the lava feed has reached the surface of the planet it begins to cool down and harden which is the result of the process within the lava feed itself becoming less active where the particles within the lava feed become more magnetically attracted to form a solid.
We know so little about particles and the Universe. To stay within the confines of an excepted idea from a time that is no longer present is trapping the very process of science into a bubble. Which of course religion what to occur so that what was methodologically said to be true based upon liberal thoughts can be said to be real.
So where do the particles that make up an element come from anyway? Were they present before the Big Bang or did a single photon pave the wave for the Big Bang?
dryson":1fkihp8i said:
Who's this "we", Kemosabe? Got a mouse in your pocket. Because the garbage in your post is... well... garbage.
Observation's made in 1919? Is this the year 1919?
Get a pair of better glasses?
I took this course at DeVry. The teacher that was teaching the subject wore glasses and continued to promote how everyone should look through his glasses to see his world and how he preceived the world.
You are doing nothing more than trying to project a percetion of how you want people to see what you see based upon the glasses that you have to wear because of your eyes not being able to focus to create a clear image.
Glasses that are created to allow someone to be able to see based upon their sight needed corrected because of the biological factor involved of the mechanics behind how the eye takes in the light is not the same thing as "seeing through the looking glass to image that you have somehow twisted the reality around you to make yourself feel like you have some type of supernatural power.
Get a pair of better glasses?
I took this course at DeVry. The teacher that was teaching the subject wore glasses and continued to promote how everyone should look through his glasses to see his world and how he preceived the world.
You are doing nothing more than trying to project a percetion of how you want people to see what you see based upon the glasses that you have to wear because of your eyes not being able to focus to create a clear image.
Glasses that are created to allow someone to be able to see based upon their sight needed corrected because of the biological factor involved of the mechanics behind how the eye takes in the light is not the same thing as "seeing through the looking glass to image that you have somehow twisted the reality around you to make yourself feel like you have some type of supernatural power.
You must have some sort of learning disorder as you can only post insults that relate to your wanting to be some sort of literally constructed method of projecting your thoughts across a spectrum of illusion and degeneracy.
Come back when you have something interesting and intelligent to say other than trolling a website to gather information about a person to sell to some religious cult to twist around and use as a form of mental control over a person.
dryson":2ed7n5r8 said:
And yet you, or anyone else, could go out at the next solar eclipse and make the same observations. That's the thing about facts ... they persist.
dryson":2ed7n5r8 said:
Devry ... that explains a lot. BTW your teacher, if he actually said that, was wrong. You, looking through his glasses, won't see the world the way he does w/o them. I suspect though he was using a metaphor, which went right over your head.
dryson":2ed7n5r8 said:
But I do, I do have superpowers !!
Perhaps you could explain how your post relates, in any way, to the physics of refraction or gravitational lensing.
I think that post proves that you're actually dumber than a sack of hammers, Dryson. I had hoped you were just trolling - but alas, seems that you are as incapable of learning from your betters as you appear.
Devry indeed.
Devry indeed.
dryson":2je1zndq said:
Dispensing with the silly parts and retaining that which has (some) worth:
The answer to the above questions are ... we don't know what came before the Big Bang. I suspect we can never know. Where the hydrogen and helium and some lithium (IIRC) that we have now came from ... we think we know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
All the other elements (and obviously more helium) were created in stars or their dying remnants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
Hmmmmm ...... Hi Mee an Mac ..... What do you think of Inflation Theory ??
cool bananas ... greg
cool bananas ... greg
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 34
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram