I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 8
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Explain to an ignoramus from a physical standpoint why a car battery gets heavier after charging? And I'll forgive you for all the nonsense you've already written.
Funny question)
1. Just for laughs:
The extra electrons have accumulated a lot since the charge, and their mass has reached a significant amount)))))
2. More seriously:
During charging the density of the electrolyte increases, respectively the mass of the electrolyte increases at the same volume...Why? Chemists should be asked....
Who told you that? Have you ever hooked up a battery to a weightless tester?
Funny question)
1. For fun:
A lot of extra electrons have accumulated since the charge and their mass has reached a significant amount)))))
2. More seriously:
During charging the density of the electrolyte increases, respectively the mass of the electrolyte increases at the same volume...Why? Chemists should be asked....
Who told you that? Have you ever hooked up a battery to a weightless tester?
Now I am haunted by a question: what is a "worldview"? I know about the universe. Please enlighten me.
Retribution - I know... by merit, for example. A building is a construction, a structure, but a recompense is some kind of recompense for creation
Yeah. Doesn't make any sense.
Actually the reward is the reaction of the brain (in the form of depression) to the attempt to pass off the desirable (invented, subjective) as the real (objective).
;)It's actually a good topic Mosquito has raised, kudos... :)
And it's not about how good the "new theories" of the "new physics" are. They are also with necessity Models and therefore can be improved.
It is in the undeniable (for me) observation that physicists and other "scientists" are people and "like all people" want to look smart, want to eat, want sex and other pleasures, and often want it much more than they want "scientific objective Truth", so they lie. They lie individually and in collusion with other "scientists". Not always of course - only when... when the "context indicator" hints that to lie is "energetically more profitable" than to admit the "facts".
// "Facts" in inverted commas, for it is not simple and requires definitions, which in turnare always context-dependent.
Continuing to state my misunderstandings.
Misunderstanding #2. I once asked: where is the centre of the universe and where is the end of the universe? It was explained to me that everything in our Universe is the centre because at any point in the Universe there will be expansion, i.e. the galaxies will be receding from that point. There is no end to the universe. It was explained to me this way. Imagine that we live in 2-dimensional space, which is the surface of a sphere in 3-dimensional space that we, as 2-dimensional beings, know nothing about. And the balloon is increasing in size (expansion of the universe) as if someone is inflating it:
I get it. But new questions have arisen. If we started the journey from a point, we would eventually come to the original point. What about light? Light in this 2-dimensional space can only propagate along the surface. It too can eventually arrive at its point of emission. So if we had a very powerful telescope, no matter what direction we looked, we would have seen ourselves several billion years ago. Then an even more interesting question arises. What makes us sure that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? If light and other electromagnetic radiation in our Universe travel on a closed 3-dimensional "surface", then it is possible that we observe them after they have made several rotations on our Universe "ball". Then it is quite possible that many of the galaxies observed by the Hubble telescope are our Milky Way, but several billion years ago (i.e. looking at ourselves but in the past). It is then possible that the Universe is much younger than we assume and has many fewer galaxies than we see.
Continuing to state my misunderstandings.
Misunderstanding #2. I once asked: where is the centre of the universe and where is the end of the universe? It was explained to me that everything in our Universe is the centre because at any point in the Universe there will be expansion, i.e. the galaxies will be receding from that point. There is no end to the universe. It was explained to me this way. Imagine that we live in 2-dimensional space, which is the surface of a sphere in 3-dimensional space that we, as 2-dimensional beings, know nothing about. And the balloon is increasing in size (expansion of the universe) as if someone is inflating it:
I get it. But new questions have arisen. If we started the journey from a point, we would eventually come to the original point. What about light? Light in this 2-dimensional space can only propagate along the surface. It too can eventually arrive at its point of emission. So if we had a very powerful telescope, no matter what direction we looked, we would have seen ourselves several billion years ago. Then an even more interesting question arises. What makes us sure that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? If light and other electromagnetic radiation in our Universe travels on a closed 3-dimensional "surface", then it is possible that we observe them after they have made several rotations on our Universe "ball". Then it is quite possible that many of the galaxies observed by the Hubble telescope are our Milky Way, but several billion years ago (i.e. looking at ourselves but in the past). Then it is possible that the universe is much younger than we assume and has far fewer galaxies than we see.
you want to solve the space-time problems of an expanding universe in terms of a science lesson.
The universe is not expanding, space-time is "stretching".
For a space that stretches something externally, the concept of closure makes no sense at all.
Continuing to state my misunderstandings.
Misunderstanding #2. I once asked: where is the centre of the universe and where is the end of the universe? It was explained to me that everything in our Universe is the centre because at any point in the Universe there will be expansion, i.e. the galaxies scattering away from that point. There is no end to the universe. It was explained to me this way. Imagine that we live in 2-dimensional space, which is the surface of a sphere in 3-dimensional space that we, as 2-dimensional beings, know nothing about. And the balloon is increasing in size (expansion of the universe) as if someone is inflating it:
I get it. But new questions have arisen. If we started the journey from a point, we would eventually come to the original point. What about light? Light in this 2-dimensional space can only propagate along the surface. It too can eventually arrive at its point of emission. So if we had a very powerful telescope, no matter what direction we looked, we would have seen ourselves several billion years ago. Then an even more interesting question arises. What makes us sure that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? If light and other electromagnetic radiation in our Universe travel on a closed 3-dimensional "surface", then it is possible that we observe them after they have made several rotations on our Universe "ball". Then it is quite possible that many of the galaxies observed by the Hubble telescope are our Milky Way, but several billion years ago (i.e. looking at ourselves but in the past). It is then possible that the Universe is much younger than we assume and has many fewer galaxies than we see.
It's actually a good topic Mosquito has raised, kudos... :)
And it's not about how good the "new theories" of the "new physics" are. They are also with necessity Models and therefore can be improved.
It is in the undeniable (for me) observation that physicists and other "scientists" are people and "like all people" want to look smart, want to eat, want sex and other pleasures, and often want it much more than they want "scientific objective Truth", so they lie. They lie individually and in collusion with other "scientists". Not always of course - only when... when the "context indicator" hints that to lie is "energetically more profitable" than to admit the "facts".
// "Facts" in inverted commas, for it is not simple and requires definitions, which in turnare always context-dependent.
Continuing to state my misunderstandings.
Misunderstanding #2. I once asked: where is the centre of the universe and where is the end of the universe? It was explained to me that everything in our Universe is the centre because at any point in the Universe there will be expansion, i.e. the galaxies scattering away from that point. There is no end to the universe. It was explained to me this way. Imagine that we live in 2-dimensional space, which is the surface of a sphere in 3-dimensional space that we, as 2-dimensional beings, know nothing about. And the balloon is increasing in size (expansion of the universe) as if someone is inflating it:
I get it. But new questions have arisen. If we started the journey from a point, we would eventually come to the original point. What about light? Light in this 2-dimensional space can only propagate along the surface. It too can eventually arrive at its point of emission. So if we had a very powerful telescope, no matter what direction we looked, we would have seen ourselves several billion years ago. Then an even more interesting question arises. What makes us sure that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? If light and other electro-magnetic radiation in our Universe travels on a closed 3-dimensional "surface", then it is possible that we observe them after they have made several rotations on our Universe "ball". Then it is quite possible that many of the galaxies observed by the Hubble telescope are our Milky Way, but several billion years ago (i.e. looking at ourselves but in the past). Then it is possible that the universe is much younger than we assume and has far fewer galaxies than we see.
I don't get it.
You start with a three-shotgun, then switch to a double and at the end you declare that you are out of ammunition.
Is the crocodile basking in the rays of all dimensions?
They say there are wormholes, but that will confuse you even more.
Let's put a full stop to the argument by confusing everyone with the question what happened before the big bang of the universe ? )))
And also how objectively different is the world of a complete man, a man born blind and deaf in the same point?