gregjohn wrote:
> Then I was willing to go with her in seeing what witty philosophical observation
> she'd make out of her reasonable observation that most of matter (volumetrically
> speaking) is nothing. 

Apparently, the math only works out if you assume photons and electrons 
really are mathematical points.  Which I thought was funky.

And while most ordinary matter is full of only electrons and photons which 
are apparently mathematical points, the number of neutrons, protrons, and 
other -trons with volume is far larger than she thinks. For example, almost 
all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much more non-empty 
matter out there than she thinks.

She's basically doing what all such charlatans do, which is to simply state 
lies as truth and then build on that.

I watched one guy on TV saying that bananas are poison, and oranges are 
poison, but they're healthy if you mix them together. I have no idea what he 
was selling, but he said it with such confidence it has become a running 
joke here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> For example, almost
> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.


Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that. However, I
remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making philosophical
reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
space.  I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist-- Sagan??-- doing
the same.

Post a reply to this message

On 19-1-2010 12:43, gregjohn wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> For example, almost
>> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
>> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.
> 
> 
> Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
> factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that. However, I
> remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making philosophical
> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
> space.  I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist-- Sagan??-- doing
> the same.
> 
That is correct. I was unable to watch the entire video. With respect to 
  putting all mass in one place. At a certain compression you get the 
famous black hole. The size of the Schwartzschild radius increases 
linearly with mass i.e. faster than the cubic root of the mass.
IIRC if you would put the enire mass of the universe into a blackhole it 
would have a radius of half the universe or so. Or at least something 
slightly bigger than a bowling ball.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
> space.  

I think that once you start getting philosophical and asking what "open 
space" is, this starts to become nonsensical.

Sure, if you measure the space taken up by the nucleus compared to the space 
taken up by the whole atom, there's a lot of "open space" there. But that 
"open space" is full of electrons and photons, which is why it doesn't all 
collapse. If it were really "open" then it would all crunch down together 
under its own attraction. The fact that it's actually full of electrons is 
what's holding the atoms apart.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
> 

This reminds me about the Scotsman the Englishman and the Irishman who 
walked into a bar.



It was an iron bar. <boom boom>

Only not so funny.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2010 7:39 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-1-2010 12:43, gregjohn wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> For example, almost
>>> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
>>> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.
>>
>>
>> Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
>> factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that.
>> However, I
>> remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making
>> philosophical
>> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is
>> mostly open
>> space. I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist--
>> Sagan??-- doing
>> the same.
>>
> That is correct. I was unable to watch the entire video. With respect to
> putting all mass in one place. At a certain compression you get the
> famous black hole. The size of the Schwartzschild radius increases
> linearly with mass i.e. faster than the cubic root of the mass.
> IIRC if you would put the enire mass of the universe into a blackhole it
> would have a radius of half the universe or so. Or at least something
> slightly bigger than a bowling ball.
Well, actually, one theory, and its one that Hawkins apparently 
supports, from my understanding, is that there isn't such a thing as a 
singularity. What you get is a mass that superheats, and has so much 
gravity that its own light can't escape. Thus, the universe would 
compress to what ever size is possible in such a black star, given the 
maximum level of compression you *can* compress matter, before it can't 
pack any tighter, but just gets increasingly hotter. This is bound to be 
rather larger than a bowling ball.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2010 11:36 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
>> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> I've heard more accurate science on Star Trek.
>
Kidding? I have heard more accurate science in the movie Space Balls.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon.  All thanks to homeopathy.
> ;P

  Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
"ftw"...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon.  All thanks to homeopathy.
>> ;P
> 
>   Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
> "ftw"...
> 

Good idea :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon.  All thanks to homeopathy.
>> ;P
> 
>   Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
> "ftw"...

see?  homeopathy really does have some magical property that does good 
to people. :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message