RE: If you were a Science Teacher....

RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

julietsierra -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 8:39:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Until some smart ass asks a graduate level question like "Is 4 times Infinity the same as Infinity?", and then they're.... OH NO! Off the lesson-plan! Not! You just say "tell you what, you figure that out and see what you get." right back on the lesson plan. juliet

samboct -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 9:31:47 AM)
"So add in the fact that the very hot very energetic material was in motion at reasonably large fractions of C and you have a situation where it is possible that two distinct particles could have been seperated by the cosmological horizon even though neither particle ever had a velocity greater than C." You're mixing up your frames of reference. A particle having a velocity at some fraction c? Relative to what? If there's a primordial hot ball of stuff, then any individual particle can't be moving at a fraction of c. Plus, a particle post bang has got a problem since it didn't exist as an atom prior to the bang. Again- if you've got a hot ball of stuff that's got a dimension measured as some distance- say 100,000 km for the sake of argument- and then a second later, you've got galaxies hundreds of light years apart, simple physics is that there's a velocity that can be calculated v = dl/dt. (dl is delta length) "In this context inflation is usually used to refer to the expansion of the universe. While this gives the appearance of movement it isn't actually movement it is simply the fact that the distance between two objects has increased." Gee, in any definition I've read, distance changing over time is motion. "As to momentum of the particles in the early universe that was preserved although by this point so many other factors have acted on all the particles that little if anything of this momentum remains detectable today." Conservation of momentum has no time dependence. Ken- some people may wanna know what you're smoking, and where can they buy some. Sam

seeksfemslave -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 9:50:18 AM)
DomKen does a Redturn. Replying earlier to me he said he had no knowledge that challenges existed to the orthodox interpretation of the Red Shift. ie it is proportional to velocity and hence distance. When such challenges are presented to him he changes tack, the Redturn, and casts doubt on the accuracy of the challenge. The measurements referenced in the link I provided took place in 2002 and confirmed what was known in 1973. with additional problematic results of the red shifts of two objects in the arm that connects the two galaxies. adding: The text quoted in DomKen's reply simply uses fancy Dan language to deny that the the two galaxies are connected. They cant be because they have different Red Shifts. [lol] irony [/lol] 2002 science thinks they are connected. The red shift challenge got serious when Quasars came to light. They are highly red shifted and so must be far away.[lol] irony [/lol] This presented problems with how their intrinsic energy was generated but I expect imaginative theoreticians have "solved" that little difficulty. lol With regard to teaching kids , who cares 95% of them are not interested anyway, lol

seeksfemslave -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 10:43:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen He is debunking my claim that challenges to Red Shift orthodoxy were hushed up. The above article has a publication date of 1986 which is surpassing odd since the Velikovskian website referenced above claimed it had been "hushed up" or ignored for 30 years. Could it be that the pseudoscience quacks lied? quote: from the link provided by me One of the more famous of those "many objects" ( casting doubt on what the Red shift means) is the galaxy imaged above, NGC 7603. Its fame is due to Fred Hoyle selecting it to illustrate his 1973 Russell Lecture before the American Astronomical Society. He referred to its connection with a higher-redshift companion as prototypical of observations that required an advance in physics beyond currently accepted theories. For the first time in the history of the prestigious Russell Lectures, the Astrophysical Journal didn't publish the address.

DomKen -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 11:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "So add in the fact that the very hot very energetic material was in motion at reasonably large fractions of C and you have a situation where it is possible that two distinct particles could have been seperated by the cosmological horizon even though neither particle ever had a velocity greater than C." You're mixing up your frames of reference. A particle having a velocity at some fraction c? Relative to what? If there's a primordial hot ball of stuff, then any individual particle can't be moving at a fraction of c. Plus, a particle post bang has got a problem since it didn't exist as an atom prior to the bang. in relation to the other particle as I made clear. The "primordial ball" I presume is your name for whatever existed prior to the start of expansion and on that issue science has no data and can make no claims. After expansion began the universe was very hot and very small but it did have volume, which has continued getting larger to this day, and the subatomic particles certainly were in motion as far back as we can discuss. quote: Again- if you've got a hot ball of stuff that's got a dimension measured as some distance- say 100,000 km for the sake of argument- and then a second later, you've got galaxies hundreds of light years apart, simple physics is that there's a velocity that can be calculated v = dl/dt. (dl is delta length) Not in this case. We once again have to return to the balloon analogy. Blow up the balloon and the points on the balloon have gotten farther apart without those points actually having enough velocity, relative to each other, to account for the change in distance. The dimensions of space, height, width and depth, are analogous to the surface of the balloon in this case. quote: "In this context inflation is usually used to refer to the expansion of the universe. While this gives the appearance of movement it isn't actually movement it is simply the fact that the distance between two objects has increased." Gee, in any definition I've read, distance changing over time is motion. I'm not asking you to like the expanding universe model I'm just trying to explain it. The fact that it turns some basic assumptions about how things work upside is unpleasant but doesn't detract from the fact that at present the model accounts for the overwhelming majority of observations with no glaring inconsistency yet found. quote: "As to momentum of the particles in the early universe that was preserved although by this point so many other factors have acted on all the particles that little if anything of this momentum remains detectable today." Conservation of momentum has no time dependence. Yes but after 14 odd billion years of gravitic attraction, collisions and resultant changes in energy state it would be enormously difficult to figure out what vector(s) of a particles motion was due to conserved momentum from the earliest moments of the universe.

DomKen -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The measurements referenced in the link I provided took place in 2002 and confirmed what was known in 1973. with additional problematic results of the red shifts of two objects in the arm that connects the two galaxies. adding: The text quoted in DomKen's reply simply uses fancy Dan language to deny that the the two galaxies are connected. They cant be because they have different Red Shifts. [lol] irony [/lol] 2002 science thinks they are connected. You claim this article exists. However you give no link to the article or abstract and no publication name is including in your reference. Provide me with the needed data to actually investigate the article. I will once again point out that the website you use as source claims silence from mainstream science on these objects since Hoyle's lecture in 1973. The date of publication of the article I gave you is 1986. Which puts the lie to the claims made in that web page and requires any rational person to examine any other claim made by these people much more carefully. Complain all you want that a lecture didn't get printed in a journal but I still have that 1986 article showing your source to be liars.

Zensee -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:19:11 PM)
http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Unseen-Naked-Photography/dp/071484280X The above link is to abook which explores images of our universe in orders of increasing physical magnitude (each one ten times greater than the last). It kind of helps with understanding the scale of the universe but more importantly it shows the repetition of "patterns" from the micro to the macro. It's also a stunningly lovely book. Z.

bipolarber -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:29:44 PM)
Well, my science teacher got the point home to us when I was a kid by first having us build a true scale model of the solar system. You do this in a very fun way by using a cheap $1.00 store stopwatch, and a set of stick pins of varying sizes. (Provided your class isn't too damn big.) The scale of the universe is imparted by using the one constant: light. Light travels from the sun at a constant rate. So, you walk away from a lamp for 30 seconds. Boom, you place the first pin. This is Mercury. Then you walk another 17 seconds. Again, you place a pin. This is venus. You walk another 10 seconds and you place Earth. (total 1 minute = 1 Au [astronomical unit] or the equivelent of 93,000,000 miles. 1Au = 8 light minutes approximately) Okay, so now they have some inkling of the distances of planets within the inner solar system. You could now spend the following time, placing pins at the following diatances from your lamp: (period permitting) 1.5 minutes (from the lamp) =Mars 5.25 minutes = Jupiter 9.9 minutes = Saturn 19 minutes = Uranus 30 minutes = Neptune 39 total minutes from the lamp = Pluto (sorry, but it's still a planet in my book. Fuck those asshole European astronomers. It's round, it circles the sun, and has three moons that we know of. To me, that's a damn planet!) 45 minutes = Xena (also a planet, as far as I'm concerned) Now, provided you got this far, you'll need to explain that the walk to the nearest star would mean having to do a little number crunching. Take the total number of minutes in a year, multiply by 4.3. (Proxima Centuri being 4.3 light years away,) and then divide by 8 to get the appoximate Au's to arrive there. Or, how many minutes you would have to walk, in order to get the true scale distance. (Answer: you would have to walk aproximately 4700 minutes to get there.) That's to the nearest star, travelling as the photon flies. From here you can start properly blowing their minds with some ides of how far it is to the center of our galaxy, or to Andromeda, etc., etc.. This technique does a couple of things: One, it really rams home that light is the fastest thing in spacetime. Two, that it takes even light a long time to get across our own solar system. Three, that, despite what Star Trek does, you can't really reach another star system in the time it takes to break for commercial. Four: it gets them out from behind their desks, and walking in the fresh air for a period. You will, of course, have to be prepped with a lecture about each planet as you approach it, be ready for questions about the speed of light, relativity, etc., etc... All that stuff that they will try to trip you up with, to prove that they watch the Discovery channel too, and thus impress the girls in the class with their buldging brains. Best to slap that kind of uppity BS down as quick as you can.

Rule -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:34:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Blow up the balloon and the points on the balloon have gotten farther apart without those points actually having enough velocity, relative to each other, to account for the change in distance. Only if those points are attached to the outside of the balloon - i.e. are not a part of the universe. However, if one uses ink to colour the balloon with points, the relative distances between dots compared to the diametres of the dots do not change whatever the size of the balloon. The balloon analogy is a blatant fraud and any cosmologist who says otherwise either lies or is not as bright as he supposes himself to be. It is cosmologically impossible for the universe to expand or to contract.

mnottertail -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Until some smart ass asks a graduate level question like "Is 4 times Infinity the same as Infinity?", and then they're.... OH NO! Off the lesson-plan! Not! You just say "tell you what, you figure that out and see what you get." right back on the lesson plan. juliet Or you can say that according to George Cantor infinity x infinity is the same thing as infinity......but then he was fucking nuts, and got that sort of way questioning these things in mathematics that you are never likely to run accross, so tell me mr graduate student, if you are still having problems understanding the Hecke Ring Algebras presented in the solution to fermats last theorum, why are you fucking with this sort of thing????? Horace Mann

Rule -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Which puts the lie to the claims made in that web page and requires any rational person to examine any other claim made by these people much more carefully. All claims ought to be scrutinized again and again in any case. Nothing new there.

MissSCD -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 12:39:44 PM)
*I would explain the universe that it began with Curious Lord and ended with Ron. lol* *Regards, MissSCD*

julietsierra -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 1:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Until some smart ass asks a graduate level question like "Is 4 times Infinity the same as Infinity?", and then they're.... OH NO! Off the lesson-plan! Not! You just say "tell you what, you figure that out and see what you get." right back on the lesson plan. juliet Or you can say that according to George Cantor infinity x infinity is the same thing as infinity......but then he was fucking nuts, and got that sort of way questioning these things in mathematics that you are never likely to run accross, so tell me mr graduate student, if you are still having problems understanding the Hecke Ring Algebras presented in the solution to fermats last theorum, why are you fucking with this sort of thing????? Horace Mann Then again, I teach high school, so I could always say "that's the question you'll be exploring in college, so let's get this stuff down so you'll be prepared." And then, of course, I'd tell him that if he still needed to know this, that his assignment would be to find the answer in addition to completing anything we didn't get done because he was pulling us off the assignment we were working on would be his. And I'd remind the class that there's no homework this week other than to complete what we're doing in class. I'd also have told the class up front that part of their grade would be the scale model of whatever planet their group was assigned and if they didn't have it, they couldn't participate in the part where they got to get out of the school for a bit, and that that too would affect their grade. I'm nasty like that. juliet

seeksfemslave -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 1:45:29 PM)
After applying big verbal sticks and a small carrot Julietsierra said quote: I'm nasty like that. juliet Reminds me of some teachers I met at primary school lol My guess is the student most likely to succed is the one who spends most time ogling your boobs or trying to look up your skirt.he he he he he he he Sorry Miss

DomKen -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 1:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Blow up the balloon and the points on the balloon have gotten farther apart without those points actually having enough velocity, relative to each other, to account for the change in distance. Only if those points are attached to the outside of the balloon - i.e. are not a part of the universe. However, if one uses ink to colour the balloon with points, the relative distances between dots compared to the diametres of the dots do not change whatever the size of the balloon. The balloon analogy is a blatant fraud and any cosmologist who says otherwise either lies or is not as bright as he supposes himself to be. It is cosmologically impossible for the universe to expand or to contract. Uhmmm... bullshit? The analogy breaks down if you start getting all worked up over the expansion of the ink dots. However the expanding universe theory does not make an analogous claim. As far as we know all the subatomic particles are the same size(s) they've always been. Anyway we finally have really good evidence ruling out all the other explanations previously put forward. Back in 2000 astronomers measured the temperature of an intergalactic cloud and showed that the expanding universe model explained the observation while competing models did not. See here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012222

Rule -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 3:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The analogy breaks down if you start getting all worked up over the expansion of the ink dots. However the expanding universe theory does not make an analogous claim. That is because them supposedly bright cosmologists that advocate that dimwit hypothesis were and are non compos mentis. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen As far as we know all the subatomic particles are the same size(s) they've always been. Now if you had argued that they used to be smaller, we would have had to conclude that the universe indeed has been expanding... Thanks for proving me right. Let me explain in a simple concept. Suppose that we have something elastic at rest - say an empty balloon. This elastic at rest has a host of physical properties. Now we stretch this balloon (either by pulling at two ends or by inflating) to increase the distance between two points on its surface. What has happened to its physical properties? They have changed! When the very fabric of the universe is stretched, the fundamental constants of physics per force will change also. Consequently it will be impossible for subatomic particles not to show a corresponding change. Since you argue that those subatomic particles have not changed, the inescapable conclusion must be that the universe has neither expanded nor contracted. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway we finally have really good evidence ruling out all the other explanations previously put forward. Back in 2000 astronomers measured the temperature of an intergalactic cloud and showed that the expanding universe model explained the observation while competing models did not. See here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012222 It is good that you added the link. Thank you. The summary was useless scientific gobbledygook, so I activated the pdf to see the entire article and read the first page. They are saying that their result is that at certain redshift - i.e. distance and age - the cosmic background radiation was as expected hotter that it is in our neighbourhood. However, this does not support nor prove the dimwit expanding universe hypothesis. It is a result that is valid only within that daft expanding universe paradigm. When we discard that fairy tale, all we have is that at an unknown distance and at an unknown age - as the redshift no longer by definition correlates with distance - is some cosmic cloud that has a certain cosmic background radiation black body spectrum; which proves nothing as distance and age are not known. So you see: them cosmologists are con men and anyone who believes them has been swindled.

FullCircle -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 3:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 ...how would you try to explain to a class just how big in human terms that the Universe is? I mean as good as you could and trying to put it on a scale that humans could understand. It's easy to answer this question by playing the role of a school yard bully.... The universe is a big as your mothers pussy just after her landlord has been to visit.[8\|]

FullCircle -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 4:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 ...how would you try to explain to a class just how big in human terms that the Universe is? I mean as good as you could and trying to put it on a scale that humans could understand. Apparently the universe is 156 Billion light-years wide or 93 billion light-years wide I’m assuming some American wrote this so one billion = a thousand million So the universe is now either 156x1000x1,000,000 light-years wide 156,000,000,000 or 93,000,000,000 light-years wide in other words. A light year is 9,460,730,472,580.8 km or 9,460,730,472,580,800m Sooooo The universe is either 1,475,873,953,722,604,800,000,000,000m wide or 879,847,933,950,014,400,000,000,000m wide Now your dad is 6ft; roughly 1.8m high Therefore the universe is at least 488,804,407,750,008,000,000,000,000 times taller than your dad I’m sure I’ve added something up wrong son but I don’t care because I don’t even know how to say that number. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

farglebargle -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 4:18:50 PM)
quote: Then again, I teach high school, so I could always say "that's the question you'll be exploring in college, so let's get this stuff down so you'll be prepared." Except the Students ARE exploring it right then and there.

bipolarber -> RE: If you were a Science Teacher.... (12/31/2007 5:01:50 PM)
To the poster who said that the universe's expansion should be slowing down: Well, yeah, you'd think it would be, huh? But it's not. It's accellerating. Oh, and it's a fallacy to think of the universe's expansion in terms of an inflating balloon. It's the space itself that is expanding, not just the distances between galaxies. You are a little larger than you were a moment ago... weird, huh?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875