5
   

in science what is stationary

 
 
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 04:05 pm
Is anything in science stationary. How about the observer.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,574 • Replies: 43

 
Lordyaswas
 
  5  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 04:07 pm
@martinies,
I've read that from cover to cover today, and it doesn't mention this subject.

Shall I try The Telegraph?
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 04:29 pm
@martinies,
That is material that people write on.
knaivete
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 03:18 am
@Ragman,

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 03:47 am
@Lordyaswas,
Laughing That's it. I'm following your ass on A2K. Once I figure out how to do it.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 03:54 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

Is anything in science stationary. How about the observer.


The universe is expanding. Everything is moving away from everything else. The further apart two things are, the faster they're moving away from each other.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 05:28 am
Sorry, that was sloppy of me. You're right. That aside, unless you arbitrarily choose an inertial frame, everything is moving.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 06:25 am
@FBM,
Ah, now that is where you are wrong, I think.

It is my theory that, in the absolute centre of the miniscule point where the almighty explosion occurred, there is the tiny dot which was originally positioned at the bottom of the exclamation mark at the end of
BIG BANG! standing absolutely still and waiting for the day when everything eventually implodes back to nothingness, so that the next BIG BANG! may occur.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 06:36 am
@Lordyaswas,
Well, data currently look like we have an open universe that's going to keep expanding to the point of heat death, instead of a closed and cyclical one. But you know how these things change. Let's just wait it out and see for ourselves.

On, and that infinitesimal center point would have been done in by the anisotrophy of the expansion. Sorry about that, buddy.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 06:42 am
@FBM,
Damn!

Back to the drawing board. An entire ten minutes research wasted.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 07:17 am
@Lordyaswas,
Ten minutes, eh? Well, it could've been worse. I can't for the life of me imagine how, but some things must be taken on faith, I understand.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 12:59 pm
Back in the 1970s, there was a brand of matches called "England's Glory" which had jokes, mottos, quotations, etc printed on the back of the box. During a period when they were putting jokes there I remember thinking this one was a bit saucy:

Male shop customer: "Do you keep stationery?"
Girl shop assistant: "Yes, until the end, and then I go really wild!"

Others I remember:

A mother passing her little daughter's bedroom, hears her saying her prayers: "...and please, God, send some clothes for those poor ladies in Daddy's magazines."

Mother, to little daughter: "Did Daddy take you to the zoo, like he promised?"
Daughter: "Yes, and he was very pleased because one of the animals romped home at ten to one!"


0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 01:03 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
The further apart two things are, the faster they're moving away from each other.


According to this professor, that's only true if you adopt a theory of motion which assumes that simultaneity is relative, as opposed to absolute.

Quote:
The current situation, where there is a lack of compelling experimental evidence that distinguishes between SR [special relativity] and AST [i.e., absolute simultaneity theory], allows one to countenance the possibility and implications of a valid AST...

Dark energy is proposed to drive the accelerated universe expansion, but its composition and mechanism of action are unknown....

This study shows that a valid AST would have significant implications for cosmology, including...a linear, non-accelerating rate of universe expansion during the most recent era.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550


martinies
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2015 03:11 am
@layman,
So there is no stationary thing.
0 Replies
 
knaivete
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2015 05:02 am
@Lordyaswas,
Quote:
I've read that from cover to cover today, and it doesn't mention this subject.Shall I try The Telegraph?


And in late breaking minuscule anisotropy errata, t'would appear News of the World being stationery is completely unfounded, it's been murdoched.



martinies
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2015 03:09 am
@knaivete,
So there is no stationary thing.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2015 05:25 am
@martinies,
It doesn't look like there is in the current Standard Model, no.
martinies
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2015 08:21 am
@FBM,
Maybe one day we will find that thing that dosnt moving and then by logic has never moved.
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2015 08:22 am
@FBM,
Maybe one day we will find that thing that dosnt moving and then by logic has never moved. Thanks
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2015 08:36 am
@martinies,
I kinda doubt it, but why are you interested in such a thing? It looks like a bit of fiction, honestly. What significance does it have for you?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » in science what is stationary
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 10:08:43