| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 May 2007 10:21:47 PM |
| Object: |
Comments desired |
This is a post from another site, would anyone care to comment on the
accuracy of this post. I'm not the one that made these statement
quoted below.
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy. Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates. The higher the vibration the
less density an object has. For example, wood is far more dense than
water ergo the protons,neutrons and electrons vibrate much more slowly
that what they do in water. You can take this simple example and run
with it. You yourself are made of energy. I would suppose that after
death the portion that survives is far less dense than the body is.
What is energy? The best minds in the world don't really know and it
really doesn't matter. I don't need to know how the signals travel
through my phone or wall to give me light or a conversation. Bottm
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
15 May 2007 07:49:44 AM |
|
|
<zomoco1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1179199307.550332.215410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
This is a post from another site, would anyone care to comment on the
accuracy of this post. I'm not the one that made these statement
quoted below.
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy. Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates. The higher the vibration the
less density an object has. For example, wood is far more dense than
water ergo the protons,neutrons and electrons vibrate much more slowly
that what they do in water. You can take this simple example and run
with it. You yourself are made of energy. I would suppose that after
death the portion that survives is far less dense than the body is.
What is energy? The best minds in the world don't really know and it
really doesn't matter. I don't need to know how the signals travel
through my phone or wall to give me light or a conversation. Bottm
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
Largely it's all low quality fertilizer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
15 May 2007 10:10:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
This is a post from another site, would anyone care to comment on the
accuracy of this post. I'm not the one that made these statement
quoted below.
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy.
Except matter.
Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates.
Hooking up the ***** meter... and the needle awakens!
The higher the vibration the
less density an object has.
[snip crap]
Hey git - are ya gonna tell us that chloroform (d = 1.492 g/cm^3) is
less dense than deuterochloroform (d = 1.500 g/cm^3) for having higher
frequencies? 3019.8 vs. 2256.2 wavenumbers, 1218.8 vs. 912.2
wavenumbers, etc. Frequency drops from heavy atom deuterium isotope
effect. Idiot.
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/webspectra.cgi/rp1/I/rp2/I?nolinks=1
Hey git - are ya gonna tell us that deuterium oxide (d = 1.107 g/cm^3)
is less dense than water (d = 1.000 g/cm^3) for having lower
frequencies for the same reason - heavy atom isotope shift? Idiot.
Bottom
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
15 May 2007 11:18:38 AM |
|
|
On May 15, 9:10 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
zomo...@comcast.net wrote:
This is a post from another site, would anyone care to comment on the
accuracy of this post. I'm not the one that made these statement
quoted below.
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy.
Except matter.
Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates.
Hooking up the ***** meter... and the needle awakens!
The higher the vibration the
less density an object has.
[snip crap]
Hey git - are ya gonna tell us that chloroform (d = 1.492 g/cm^3) is
less dense than deuterochloroform (d = 1.500 g/cm^3) for having higher
frequencies? 3019.8 vs. 2256.2 wavenumbers, 1218.8 vs. 912.2
wavenumbers, etc. Frequency drops from heavy atom deuterium isotope
effect. Idiot.
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/webspectra.cgi/rp1/I/rp2/I?nolinks=1
Hey git - are ya gonna tell us that deuterium oxide (d = 1.107 g/cm^3)
is less dense than water (d = 1.000 g/cm^3) for having lower
frequencies for the same reason - heavy atom isotope shift? Idiot.
Bottom
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Idiot.
Uncle Al
Toxic Unsafe for children and most mammals
Ri.i..i...ght.
At that time Time started!
(magically)
When a Singularity (!!) exploded!!!
(using non-Time timers)
And scattered bits and pieces all over!!!
Which are precipitating out into remarkably
similar Galaxies!! With arms! That violate
our theory of Gravity!
Which theory of Gravity caused us to Believe in
the Singularity in the first place!!!!
Bad arms.
So, we intuited Dark Matter!!!!!
To explain the arms.
Their speed, at least. Not their
continued separateness.
Good fucking theory, Al.
NOT!!!
:-)
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Typinski" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
18 May 2007 06:45:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:10:44 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Is H_0 constant over time?
--
Dave Typinski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
18 May 2007 07:36:14 PM |
|
|
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:10:44 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Is H_0 constant over time?
No
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Typinski" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
19 May 2007 12:00:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:36:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:10:44 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Is H_0 constant over time?
No
Thank you.
So, for an assumed current value of H_0=71.4km/(sˇMpc), its reciprocal
indicates an age of ~13.7Gy given the additional assumptions that H_0
is constant across both time and space.
Yes, I know there are several ways to calculate the age of the
universe and that the current best figure is about 13.7Gy.
I'm interested in the Hubble constant. It's (assumed?) to be constant
across space, so perhaps the attribution "constant" fits despite a
change over time.
I've found explanations of why H_0 is decreasing (assumed
gravitational slowing of expansion); I've also found more recent
explanations of why it's increasing (an increase in the rate of
expansion attributed to dark energy).
Do we yet have any idea of what dH_0/dt might be? That is, are there
any observations that indicate an upper and/or lower bound? What are
they?
For that matter, is the first time derivative constant or is there
evidence that there is a nonzero second derivative?
--
Dave Typinski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
19 May 2007 11:54:24 PM |
|
|
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:36:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:10:44 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Is H_0 constant over time?
No
Thank you.
So, for an assumed current value of H_0=71.4km/(sˇMpc), its reciprocal
indicates an age of ~13.7Gy given the additional assumptions that H_0
is constant across both time and space.
Yes, I know there are several ways to calculate the age of the
universe and that the current best figure is about 13.7Gy.
I'm interested in the Hubble constant. It's (assumed?) to be constant
across space, so perhaps the attribution "constant" fits despite a
change over time.
I've found explanations of why H_0 is decreasing (assumed
gravitational slowing of expansion); I've also found more recent
explanations of why it's increasing (an increase in the rate of
expansion attributed to dark energy).
Do we yet have any idea of what dH_0/dt might be? That is, are there
any observations that indicate an upper and/or lower bound? What are
they?
For that matter, is the first time derivative constant or is there
evidence that there is a nonzero second derivative?
Patience---More data is coming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Typinski" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
20 May 2007 08:50:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 04:54:24 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:36:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Dave Typinski wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:10:44 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Nothing in this universe is older than (Hubble constant)(radius) or
13.7 billion years (+/-)1%.
Is H_0 constant over time?
No
Thank you.
So, for an assumed current value of H_0=71.4km/(sˇMpc), its reciprocal
indicates an age of ~13.7Gy given the additional assumptions that H_0
is constant across both time and space.
Yes, I know there are several ways to calculate the age of the
universe and that the current best figure is about 13.7Gy.
I'm interested in the Hubble constant. It's (assumed?) to be constant
across space, so perhaps the attribution "constant" fits despite a
change over time.
I've found explanations of why H_0 is decreasing (assumed
gravitational slowing of expansion); I've also found more recent
explanations of why it's increasing (an increase in the rate of
expansion attributed to dark energy).
Do we yet have any idea of what dH_0/dt might be? That is, are there
any observations that indicate an upper and/or lower bound? What are
they?
For that matter, is the first time derivative constant or is there
evidence that there is a nonzero second derivative?
Patience---More data is coming.
Rats. I hate it when I have to be patient. ;)
--
Dave Typinski
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
14 May 2007 10:27:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
This is a post from another site, would anyone care to comment on the
accuracy of this post. I'm not the one that made these statement
quoted below.
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy. Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates. The higher the vibration the
less density an object has. For example, wood is far more dense than
water ergo the protons,neutrons and electrons vibrate much more slowly
that what they do in water. You can take this simple example and run
with it. You yourself are made of energy. I would suppose that after
death the portion that survives is far less dense than the body is.
What is energy? The best minds in the world don't really know and it
really doesn't matter. I don't need to know how the signals travel
through my phone or wall to give me light or a conversation. Bottm
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
MOSTLY GARBAGE
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments desired |
14 May 2007 10:57:18 PM |
|
|
[quote]If you go with currently accepted theory then everything you
see is made of energy.
Define energy.
Tables,chairs, you your computers etc are
nothing more that tiney swirling particles of protons,neutrons and
electrons vibrating at various rates.
Loosely speaking, sure why not.
The higher the vibration the
less density an object has.
Wrong. Light comes in many different frequencies and all have density = 0,
or probably even undefined for photons..
For example, wood is far more dense than
water ergo the protons,neutrons and electrons vibrate much more slowly
that what they do in water. You can take this simple example and run
with it. You yourself are made of energy. I would suppose that after
death the portion that survives is far less dense than the body is.
Some wood sinks, hence is more dense than water. Petrified wood for sure is
more dense.
What is energy? The best minds in the world don't really know and it
really doesn't matter. I don't need to know how the signals travel
through my phone or wall to give me light or a conversation. Bottm
line is that there is something out there and there has been since
forever.[/quote]
"I dont need to know how" - hmmmmm - does that sound like a scientist
talking ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
