Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The errors in your statements will be seen by those with sufficient intelligence.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Take a piece of white paper.

Take a black marker.

In the middle of the piece of paper draw a circle and color it in.

Draw an arrow pointing to the circle, and at the end of the arrow which is not pointing to the circle write "The totality of quantity that exists cannot be infinite; this circle represents the fact that the totality of quantity that exists must be finite.

I would say, beyond the black circle (the rest of the paper) is nothing, but that it is still real area.

I do not see any reason why it would be theoretically impossible, for a part of the quantity which exists, to break off or shoot off into the area of nothingness, beyond the circle.

Ok what is the universe expanding into there is only two possibilities unfortunately will never be able to answer the questuon. However if we assume the universe is infinite. Then id say nothing if the universe is infinitely large , it can't be expanding into anything.. what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched". Bit the size of the universe is unchanged since its already infinitely large.. However if it is finite then we can claim there is something outside of our universe. But even then space can fold in on itself so no guarantee were expanding into anything we may simply be one spot in something even larger. Either way speculation on this is useless since there is no possible way for us to know. Because we would never have a way to observe it from outside our universe and even if we did we may not comprehend it.

Now back to space when physics talks about space they talk about freedom of movement. Space allows object to move. No space between two object limits there movement. As to me passes the degrees of freedom increases. The universe is moving from an ordered state to a disordered state. This is the law of thermodynamics in action. This creates more freedom of movement this we call space. Stop thinking of space as an object think of it as possibilities. Possibilities increase as to me increases. This expansion is nothing more than our universe trying to distribute energy in order to balance things out. To do this it needs to increase possibilities everything packed into a tight ball doesn't have freedom of movement add space between our objects and then things can move.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

Time is only movement.

Looks like all this is way above your head.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Ok what is the universe expanding into there is only two possibilities unfortunately will never be able to answer the questuon. However if we assume the universe is infinite. Then id say nothing if the universe is infinitely large , it can't be expanding into anything.. what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched". Bit the size of the universe is unchanged since its already infinitely large..."

The universe (the energy that cannot be created or destroyed) is temporally infinite (the word for that is; eternal). The size or area of the universe can grow; but at any given moment its size is finite. The concept of infinite as 'impossibly large' is impossible to be a realistic physical circumstance. At any given moment in time there cannot be a infinite (as in relation to numbers, as the quantity, infinity, on the number line, cannot be defined, due to its impossibly attainable largeness) quantity of object, that would be the universe.

This still gets away from my train of thought. You have began discussing things that dont appear to address the initial issues I was bringing up.

Now back to space when physics talks about space they talk about freedom of movement. Space allows object to move. No space between two object limits there movement.

'Space' doesnt allow objects to move; objects allow objects to move via their positioning relative to one another; space is not doing anything; objects are what exist; objects are what move and interact.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

Time is only movement.

Looks like all this is way above your head.

Looks like you can tell me one thing time is besides only movement, to justify your response to me stating 'time is only movement'. If you cant do so it looks like your comment is completely unsubstantiated and meaningless; merely a projected ad hominem due to the lack of sufficient intelligence to respond with substantial content.

Time is only movement.

If you disagree. Express your reasons for disagreeing.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

Time is only movement.

Looks like all this is way above your head.

Looks like you can tell me one thing time is besides only movement, to justify your response to me stating 'time is only movement'. If you cant do so it looks like your comment is completely unsubstantiated and meaningless; merely a projected ad hominem due to the lack of sufficient intelligence to respond with substantial content.

Time is only movement.

If you disagree. Express your reasons for disagreeing.

So, you can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh? Seems like all your complaints about Nochzwei's post also apply to your own post here:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The errors in your statements will be seen by those with sufficient intelligence.

Now we see how you like a taste of your own...I was going to call it a debating tactic, but it's not much of a debate is it? So I'm not sure what to call it...is it debate avoidance?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What I said was not an attack, it was a true statement. I spent several pots explaining why what you were repeating was incorrect, and instead of once again making another post explaining why the same things you are repeating are incorrect, I stated that a person of sufficient intelligence will be able to read what you wrote and witness what is incorrect about it; which is a true statement.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What I said was not an attack, it was a true statement.

Maybe Nochzwei thinks his statement is true also. That doesn't mean he shouldn't explain his issues with your post. I made some different statements ion the post you referenced such as how the distance and thus the space between Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will reduce to nothing over the next several billion years as they collide, so you couldn't have addressed that in prior posts as you claim. I am not aware of any errors in this or other statements in my post, so I think you need to step back and look at your reply and Nochzwei's reply objectively....they are about the same. At least be honest with yourself about that.

*****ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*****

The tit for tat stops now.

We would like to remind you that we expect civility and decorum in all forums, topics, and discussions. Continuing to post in a manner not in accordance with the T&C's can and will result in post removals and/or posting bans. Please continue your discussions with an eye on the topic and not your fellow members. Please also remember to stay on topic and cease any and all attempts to derail the thread/discussion before you. If you feel like this is too difficult for you, then we suggest you walk away and find another topic to discuss.

Thank you.

You Are Responsible For Your Own posts.

We Expect Civility & Decorum In All Topics.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Courtesy Is Mandatory

*** Do Not Reply To This Post ***

If I may reiterate my last question, what particular part of String Theory dictates that only a Graviton or Tachyon may be a closed string particle? Or is it that only a Graviton or Tachyon can be a spin 2 particle?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
what is a good reference that would tell me the shapes of the various atomic nuclei including perhaps isotopes when applicable?

They may not have one shape:

The squashed heart of a sulphur isotope fluctuates between different states.

Contrary to some expectations in the world of nuclear physics, researchers have found that a radioactive nucleus of sulphur oscillates between two different shapes, sometimes appearing like a sphere and other times like an American football.

a reply to: pfishy
The graviton was proposed in the 1930s as the spin 2 quantum of the gravitational field, long before 1974 when people got the idea of strings and looked at the graviton and thought the idea of strings and the graviton were compatible. Therefore I don't think it's accurate to say string theory dictates the spin-2 property of gravitons since the hypothesized gravitons and that spin-2 property predate string theory, or should we call it string hypothesis, by decades.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But am I correct in the statement that ST dictates that a closed string particle can only be one of the two previously mentioned theoretical particles?

a reply to: pfishy
I'm no expert in string theory. However your question implies there's one string theory and there are six types of string theory listed in this table:

superstringtheory.com...

As you can see five of the six theories have only closed strings, so therefore all strings are closed in those theories, I mean hypotheses, right? Also those five string theories don't have tachyons, and the one that does have a tachyon and some open strings seems to be dubious.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, I do understand that tachyons are mostly regarded as non-existant. But I was just curious due to earlier comments in this thread. As always, thanks for the info and the link.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is your opinion about the hutchison effect..?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
They may not have one shape:

The squashed heart of a sulphur isotope fluctuates between different states.

Contrary to some expectations in the world of nuclear physics, researchers have found that a radioactive nucleus of sulphur oscillates between two different shapes, sometimes appearing like a sphere and other times like an American football.

thank you; that helps!

but i am sure there is a reference somewhere that has (maybe incomplete in light of shape oscilation) descriptions of the shape properties. i kind of need it. i'd settle for a solid reference on bismuth's nucleonic shape. i had one long ago but i cannot find it now. (talking about a mainstream respectable source.)

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is your opinion about the hutchison effect..?

Can you see the fishing line or whatever it is on the left side of this video that moves when the object levitates? If you can see that, you don't really need my opinion, you should be able to form your own.

Hutchison Debunked: A Con Artist!!!. Wire Attached!


a reply to: stormbringer1701
Sorry I don't know of one but if you find it, please post the link here as I'd be interested to review that also.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What a fool to publish a video recording with a wire in view like that.. When hoaxing something "valuable" like this and making such a mistake is really stupid. A little too stupid if you'd ask me.



Thanks for your answer Arbitrageur

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
They may not have one shape:

The squashed heart of a sulphur isotope fluctuates between different states.

Contrary to some expectations in the world of nuclear physics, researchers have found that a radioactive nucleus of sulphur oscillates between two different shapes, sometimes appearing like a sphere and other times like an American football.

thank you; that helps!

but i am sure there is a reference somewhere that has (maybe incomplete in light of shape oscilation) descriptions of the shape properties. i kind of need it. i'd settle for a solid reference on bismuth's nucleonic shape. i had one long ago but i cannot find it now. (talking about a mainstream respectable source.)

Don't believe there is anything for shapes since we know they change. But what are you attempting you can get charts with quantum numbers and that is used to define interactions. Is that what your looking for?

a reply to: zatara
You're welcome and I agree that wasn't too smart. I think the smart people who are good at fooling people with illusions are getting paid big bucks to do that in Las Vegas shows, so you probably won't see the wires in their levitation illusions, though of course they have wires too, they are just better at hiding them.