RevStoningpot wrote:Okay your just nit picking and not even talking about the creation of the universe. "they" as i have mentioned are the mainstream scientists. Just like the douchebags in galleleo's day that wouldn't accept that the world is round. Science makes leaps in advancement generationaly. And we are still waiting for the einstine generation to stop running the show. But i'm not saying they are covering up veiws that don't agree with theirs. But when a young scientist shows up with views that challange long standing theories, the old scientists scoff at them, and the funders say" well if the old guys think it's bunk,I'm not gonna waste the money on it. This is how the scientific community works and has worked for all the years that human beings have been scientificaly minded. But seriously I don't care about that. I want to talk origins of the universe.
I don't just want people to post links to this and that science paper. I want to talk in plain english not matheneese. I hate scientific papers cuz they expect every one to know what they are talking about when they say !*t2#@*3r$7=6g346c/3 if they can't say what the fuck is going down in english i don't give a fuck. Here's an example e=mc2, thies means absolutely nothing untill some one tells you what it means. e is energy, okay, m is matter, still making sense, c is the speed of light, hold the fucking phone? Shouldn't it be s or l? Okay once you know what the symbols mean you have, energy equals mass speed of light squared (or times the speed of light). Now wait a minute I've heard people say this aloud and they say "energy equals mass TIMES speed of light squared. Who the fuck ever wrote "times" in there? Why not plus, or nothing at all like it's writen. Never the less it still begs for further explaination. To understand what it means you need to here it in plain english. An object at rest has energy that is equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. I think that's right, i remember once some one said it means "if you get a mass to go the speed of light squared times it's mass it will turn into energy." I don't know how accurate that is just something i once heard said. But yet I'm still confused. What is a single unit of energy? How is energy measured? How do you multiply mass by speed? If i'm 200 lbs. going at 60 mph I'm also going at 1 mile/minute. 200x60 is a lot different than 200x1. And here i'm not trying to disprove anything i'm actually rather confused on how you multiply something by something that can be given as any variable.
In closing on this statement my point is simply that yes i don't understand all the mathenees and if people can't explain stuff in plain english i don;t give a shit about what they have to say. Although I must admit some of them are pretty confusing with their metaphors when they do try an english explaination.
Oh and my reasoning about light. Scientists can't make up their mind if it's a particle or a wave. If it's a wave then it is nothing more than energy. But my thought is that a photon is the smallest unit of energy. In the current universe light is 100% energy it can't be slowed or stopped but it can become trapped in orbits and condenced light begins to form particles and so one. And so maybe what would be observed as a photon could be a tight ball of light where as when it's seen as a wave it is not being held in any form of body and just flowing freely. Controversly the negative light would be 0% energy. And I would suggest that this "photon" is such a simple building block that it only has those 2 states. If not "light" I feel my views are still valid, just substitute light with what ever it turns out is the smallest bit of what have you.
But is not the idea that the universe converted across the whole spread of the universe at once making more sense than, everything was in an "infinitly small" point that expanded faster than the speed of light (oops i mean faster than c)
also seriously what makes a computer quantum? I've not heard of this.
alright, I'm going to break this down. I am in no way a registered scientist, but I'm seeing a lot of things that seem to suggest you don't understand how science papers, or the scientific method in general, work. let's break it down.
" "they" as i have mentioned are the mainstream scientists. Just like the douchebags in galleleo's day that wouldn't accept that the world is round."
The scientific community knew the earth was round since the ancient greeks. it was the catholic church that thought otherwise. Galileo was in Italy, the fucking center of the Catholic Church, so the reason he was kicked in the scientific balls is because he was in the heat of fanaticism.
"Science makes leaps in advancement generationaly. And we are still waiting for the einstine generation to stop running the show."
Actually, advancement is more a exponential change. and if you say the einstein generation is still here, he wasn't as bad as Newton. Newton has been "the guy" ever since 1660's to the 1920's. And it's because he's pretty much right, Einstein just clarified the equation so we understand that physics is kind of weird in very fast speeds and small particles. And we still use Newton's equations today. I learned them in my college physics course, and it's because they're right. and einstein will stop "running the show" when the next einstien finds out how the fuck physics works.
"But when a young scientist shows up with views that challange long standing theories, the old scientists scoff at them, and the funders say" well if the old guys think it's bunk,I'm not gonna waste the money on it. This is how the scientific community works and has worked for all the years that human beings have been scientificaly minded. But seriously I don't care about that. I want to talk origins of the universe."
that's mainly because most old-standing theories have a lot of evidence supporting them. and that's not entirely how the system works. The major problem is more that scietific communities are so strapped of cash (least here in the states) that they need to work on papers for funding, so scientific knowledge isn't the highest priority, it's money.
"I want to talk in plain english not matheneese"
The universe doesn't speak english, it speaks in math. that said, I don't like scientific journals for the same reason. English (and any language) can be misinterpreted, so speaking in math means we can speak universally. That said, it also means it's completely confusing, since there isn't any context.
"Here's an example e=mc2, thies means absolutely nothing untill some one tells you what it means. e is energy, okay, m is matter, still making sense, c is the speed of light, hold the fucking phone? Shouldn't it be s or l? Okay once you know what the symbols mean you have, energy equals mass speed of light squared (or times the speed of light). Now wait a minute I've heard people say this aloud and they say "energy equals mass TIMES speed of light squared. Who the fuck ever wrote "times" in there? Why not plus, or nothing at all like it's writen. Never the less it still begs for further explaination. To understand what it means you need to here it in plain english. An object at rest has energy that is equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. I think that's right, i remember once some one said it means "if you get a mass to go the speed of light squared times it's mass it will turn into energy.""
well, yeah, that's how equations work. I would need to tell you what the math means before you understand what it represents. "c" means "constant". I can tell you this, I've seen worse letter-representations. like "k" for a constant. and you don't have it right. The equation is that the energy in an object is it's mass (in kg) time the speed of light squared. We say times because they are being multiplied. I don't know if you've learned this, but in equations, values next to each other, without anything between them, are multiplied. the times is there, you just didn't realize they didn't need to put it there. "e=mc2" is equal to "e=m x c2". velocity has nothing to do with it. If you converted the mass into energy, that energy is that equation. so, a tiny bit of mass gives a LOT of energy.
" I don't know how accurate that is just something i once heard said. But yet I'm still confused. What is a single unit of energy? How is energy measured? How do you multiply mass by speed? If i'm 200 lbs. going at 60 mph I'm also going at 1 mile/minute. 200x60 is a lot different than 200x1. And here i'm not trying to disprove anything i'm actually rather confused on how you multiply something by something that can be given as any variable. "
Alright, in physics, we don't use imperial units, we use metric. mainly because a lot of things are inter-changeable. once again, velocity doesn't have anything to do with it. the energy in your system (you) is the same as it is with you going 60 miles per hour. now, your KINETIC energy will be vastly different. now, I already explained that equation last bit, so I'll explain momentum. let's say we had two different systems, you moving at 60 meters per second (we'll go damn fast, and in metric) and me sitting still. you'll weigh 200kg. you plow into me, and I move at a speed of 20m/s, and I weigh 150kg. The energy of the system has not gone up or down, it has merely changed form. In the case of me, my potential energy changed into kinetic. So, let's get to the basics. How fast are you going after you hit me? let's go over momentum. The system's momentum will NOT change. We multiply each mass by its speed (so, for you, you have 200*60 kg*m/s, and I have 0 kg*m/s (I wasn't moving)). the total is 12000. then, we see my speed, and we can find your's, since your weight does not change. I'm 150kg, and I was going 20m/s, so my total will be 3000. well, that's odd, shouldn't it be 12000? well, it would be if you weren't still moving. how fast are you going then? well, we have the rest of the number, it's 9000. so, we have your weight, which we'll use to divide 9000. we get 45. but what unit? well, 9000 was in kg*m/s, and we divided it by kg. so, it would be in m/s. you are travelling at 45m/s. make sense?
"In closing on this statement my point is simply that yes i don't understand all the mathenees and if people can't explain stuff in plain english i don;t give a shit about what they have to say. Although I must admit some of them are pretty confusing with their metaphors when they do try an english explaination. "
That's because we can't give an accurate explanation using english. Yes, that sucks, but it's the truth. Scientist extrapolate reason behind data. In scientific journal, you hear less "carbon dioxide is causing global warming" and more "carbon dioxide causes radiated heat to bounce back into the planet's atmosphere, causing the temperature to increase". scientists don't have an agenda. their only "agenda" is to find out how things work. they speak in numbers, and then, when they have a good sized sample, they see what those facts mean. what is a fact? it would be data. any sort of observation that can be documented. things fall, areas that are full of dirt and grime seem to cause disease, and the fossil record seems to suggest there were different forms of life. a law presents a certain universal truth. things fall based on a rate related to the mass of the planet, and its distance from the planet. (I'd give examples on germ theory and evolution, but I'm to lazy to check for their laws) when we have enough data to extrapolate a reasoning behind the data, we come up with a theory. a theory explains WHY something happens. In the case of gravity, it used to be that objects with mass attract other objects with mass. . In the case of germs, they cause disease by infecting people, and our response to the disease is our immune system acting all fucked up. In the case of evolution, generations of life is changed by mutations, which is considered "good" if the mutation prove to be beneficial. does this make sense?
