Bartcop | BuzzFlash | Huffington-Post | blah3.com | Eschaton | Today in Iraq
The first election winner in history to declare the results are a fraud!
  Chat | Problems posting? | FAQ | Crooks & Liars | Digby | The-Sideshow | Forum Bloggers



Support the Forum








Click for www.electoral-vote.com




BCForum Bloggers
By Blogrolling.com















Subject: "I have said this before but you can always say it again" First topic | Last topic
Printer-friendly copy | Email this topic to a friend
Top Bartcop Forum Science & Technology Topic #5612
Show all folders

secondharmonicTue Apr-22-14 05:36 AM
Member since Apr 30th 2002
15977 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"I have said this before but you can always say it again"


          

When they chage the wording on these 'polls of Americans attitudes toward science' they get different results. If they say: 'astronomers think that ... or biologists think that ...' the percentage goes up.
So what if they don't respond directly -- the universe started in a big bang, or scientists think that the universe started in a big bang.
Technically speaking -- the locution 'scientists think that ...' is FACTUAL, the declarative statement OTOH is not actually fact, it is scientific opinion, and truly nothing is settled like Law is in science -- for there is no compact, no constitution, no judicial tradition and no lawgiver comes between us and nature.

And there have been statements like : "an electron is smaller than an atom" e.g. -- statements which are simply not true. The Compton wavelength or de Broglie wavelength of a free electron is larger than any atom.
OTOH, the outermost radius of a given atom's bound electrons is exactly the same as the radius of the atom (say Pauling radius or van der Waals radius); and then again the inner electrons' radii of a given atom is much smaller than that of the atom itself. So, which is it?
And if you encounter an electron, you cannot say which kind it is! That is an exceedingly important point about electrons, it is in fact the basis of chemical bonding -- their indistinguishability, which leads to the 'exchange interaction', which leads to the resonance/covalent bond description.



  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

DavidLindMon Apr-28-14 08:08 PM
Member since May 15th 2002
6169 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"So, with the electron, is it the first will be last and the last shall..."
In response to Reply #0


          

be first, all at once? The electron sounds like a slippery bastard. I bet no one has held one with a pair of tweezers.

Do you think that outer orbit electrons swap orbits with with the inners on a regular instantaneous basis?

Einstein disliked quantum physics and would have hated String Theory. Which, I don't think you are describing. Einstein was wrong about the Big Bang , so what did he know?

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
secondharmonicSat May-03-14 06:39 AM
Member since Apr 30th 2002
15977 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Well he wanted a steady-state universe"
In response to Reply #1


          

so he introduced (which is perfectly reasonable) a *cosmological constant* ; after Lemaitre and Friedmann developed the Big Bang idea and Hubble showed that the universe is expanding, Einstein called the c.c. his greatest mistake. But it turns out a small positive cosmological constant seems to actually be true, and is the source of most of the energy in the universe -- and may well be responsible for
cyclic cosmology', so that a single big bang and cold dispersion to infinity could actually be false.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

Top Bartcop Forum Science & Technology Topic #5612First topic | Last topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1
Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com