<![CDATA[Atheist Forums - Physical Sciences]]> https://atheistforums.org/ Sun, 17 May 2026 04:31:13 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Paradox?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66469.html Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:39:36 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66469.html
Unruh Effect:
Administrator Notice
Link removed, please refer to the rules, 30/30 in particular.

Due to the Unruh effect a constantly accelerating observer would find himself in a heat bath of ever increasing temperature.

An inertial observer would see the accelerating observer but would detect no heat bath.

Hypothetically, the accelerating observer would eventually be fried by the increasing heat.

(A hypothetical because the human race has no way to accelerate an observer to such a high speed)

So would the inertial observer, who only sees the accelerating observer (and detects no heat bath), see a dead or alive accelerating observer?]]>
Unruh Effect:
Administrator Notice
Link removed, please refer to the rules, 30/30 in particular.

Due to the Unruh effect a constantly accelerating observer would find himself in a heat bath of ever increasing temperature.

An inertial observer would see the accelerating observer but would detect no heat bath.

Hypothetically, the accelerating observer would eventually be fried by the increasing heat.

(A hypothetical because the human race has no way to accelerate an observer to such a high speed)

So would the inertial observer, who only sees the accelerating observer (and detects no heat bath), see a dead or alive accelerating observer?]]> <![CDATA[Cosmic Ocean]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66452.html Sat, 07 Jun 2025 15:26:31 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66452.html Record breaking water reservoir found at the heart of the universe, containing 140 trillion times Earth’s water!

Elcabildo]]> Record breaking water reservoir found at the heart of the universe, containing 140 trillion times Earth’s water!

Elcabildo]]> <![CDATA[Black Holes Don’t Exist!]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66435.html Fri, 23 May 2025 00:12:03 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66435.html Administrator Notice
Massive wall of text deleted. You have no more freebies - please familiarize yourself with the Rules.
Moderator Notice
Please refrain from copy and pasting large walls of text you have posted elsewhere
]]> Administrator Notice
Massive wall of text deleted. You have no more freebies - please familiarize yourself with the Rules.
Moderator Notice
Please refrain from copy and pasting large walls of text you have posted elsewhere
]]> <![CDATA[The Multiverse Hypothesis Explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66409.html Wed, 16 Apr 2025 21:09:22 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66409.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6OoaNPSZeM

Its about a 10 minute video. Although they give the usual disclaimer about multiverse theory may be considered a mental construct as opposed to a scientific hypothesis, its clear they take this idea very seriously. The video discusses the four main multiverse theories. They all have one thing in common, all the universes laws of physics that vary so that one was bound to have the conditions that support life. There is no question part of what multiverse theory seeks to do is explain the fine-tuning of the universe.]]> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6OoaNPSZeM

Its about a 10 minute video. Although they give the usual disclaimer about multiverse theory may be considered a mental construct as opposed to a scientific hypothesis, its clear they take this idea very seriously. The video discusses the four main multiverse theories. They all have one thing in common, all the universes laws of physics that vary so that one was bound to have the conditions that support life. There is no question part of what multiverse theory seeks to do is explain the fine-tuning of the universe.]]> <![CDATA[Action and the Light takes all paths concept.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66385.html Fri, 04 Apr 2025 03:59:32 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66385.html
1. particles of light and possibly all others, 'consider' all the paths (wtf does a particle considering its path mean?).
2. most get canceled out by each-other like competing waves?
3. We observe the one with the "least action". But then they put the planet Mercury in the video and claimed it was active the same way. So all particles are acting this way?
4. So the particles in my body are "considering" on a path to the fried banana stand but when I don't get a fried banana those paths were canceled out some how? Meaning all the while there was a chance, possibly infinite chances of me getting a fried banana but I didn't because my brother is confusing me?
5. How, if at all, do I make the particles in my body more likely to chose, when considering paths, the one to the friend banana stand?

This might be a tall order. But WTF does any of this mean or have to do with anything? Or should I just go back to my milk and cookies and let the brainiacs lose sleep, and possibly fried bananas, over this one?]]>
1. particles of light and possibly all others, 'consider' all the paths (wtf does a particle considering its path mean?).
2. most get canceled out by each-other like competing waves?
3. We observe the one with the "least action". But then they put the planet Mercury in the video and claimed it was active the same way. So all particles are acting this way?
4. So the particles in my body are "considering" on a path to the fried banana stand but when I don't get a fried banana those paths were canceled out some how? Meaning all the while there was a chance, possibly infinite chances of me getting a fried banana but I didn't because my brother is confusing me?
5. How, if at all, do I make the particles in my body more likely to chose, when considering paths, the one to the friend banana stand?

This might be a tall order. But WTF does any of this mean or have to do with anything? Or should I just go back to my milk and cookies and let the brainiacs lose sleep, and possibly fried bananas, over this one?]]> <![CDATA[Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep ocean]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66044.html Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:20:47 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66044.html Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep ocean

Scientists have discovered “dark oxygen” being produced in the deep ocean, apparently by lumps of metal on the seafloor.
About half the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean. But, before this discovery, it was understood that it was made by marine plants photosynthesising - something that requires sunlight.
Here, at depths of 5km, where no sunlight can penetrate, the oxygen appears to be produced by naturally occurring metallic “nodules” which split seawater - H2O - into hydrogen and oxygen.
Several mining companies have plans to collect these nodules, which marine scientists fear could disrupt the newly discovered process - and damage any marine life that depends on the oxygen they make.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c728ven2v9eo]]> Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep ocean

Scientists have discovered “dark oxygen” being produced in the deep ocean, apparently by lumps of metal on the seafloor.
About half the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean. But, before this discovery, it was understood that it was made by marine plants photosynthesising - something that requires sunlight.
Here, at depths of 5km, where no sunlight can penetrate, the oxygen appears to be produced by naturally occurring metallic “nodules” which split seawater - H2O - into hydrogen and oxygen.
Several mining companies have plans to collect these nodules, which marine scientists fear could disrupt the newly discovered process - and damage any marine life that depends on the oxygen they make.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c728ven2v9eo]]> <![CDATA[Fern with the largest genome in the world]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65982.html Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:33:01 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65982.html It seems to add to the power of the "onion test" that basically argues that if someone wants to claim that most or all of the human genome is functional and necessary, they need to explain the same in these other genomes of what seem more simple organisms. If they can't do that, for these larger genomes, why assume that all the human genome or other animal's genomes must be largely necessary, and the product of good coding.]]> It seems to add to the power of the "onion test" that basically argues that if someone wants to claim that most or all of the human genome is functional and necessary, they need to explain the same in these other genomes of what seem more simple organisms. If they can't do that, for these larger genomes, why assume that all the human genome or other animal's genomes must be largely necessary, and the product of good coding.]]> <![CDATA[Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65765.html Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:39:21 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65765.html Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos

Scientists at the University of Central Lancashire have discovered a gigantic, ring-shaped structure in space.
It is 1.3bn light-years in diameter and appears to be roughly 15 times the size of the Moon in the night sky as seen from Earth.
Named the Big Ring by the astronomers, it is made up of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
They say that it is so big it challenges our understanding of the universe.

Such large structures should not exist according to one of the guiding principles of astronomy, called the cosmological principle. This states that all matter is spread smoothly across the Universe.
Although stars, planets and galaxies are huge clumps of matter in our eyes, in the context of the size of the universe they are insignificant - and the theory is that much bigger patches of matter should not form.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67950749]]> Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos

Scientists at the University of Central Lancashire have discovered a gigantic, ring-shaped structure in space.
It is 1.3bn light-years in diameter and appears to be roughly 15 times the size of the Moon in the night sky as seen from Earth.
Named the Big Ring by the astronomers, it is made up of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
They say that it is so big it challenges our understanding of the universe.

Such large structures should not exist according to one of the guiding principles of astronomy, called the cosmological principle. This states that all matter is spread smoothly across the Universe.
Although stars, planets and galaxies are huge clumps of matter in our eyes, in the context of the size of the universe they are insignificant - and the theory is that much bigger patches of matter should not form.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67950749]]> <![CDATA[When the ice melts]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65705.html Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:48:03 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65705.html Quote:What will Earth look like if all its land ice melts? Here's your answer.

[Image: less-than-p-greater-than-a-map-of-the-un...d=19512332]
Other maps at the link:
Upworthy]]> Quote:What will Earth look like if all its land ice melts? Here's your answer.

[Image: less-than-p-greater-than-a-map-of-the-un...d=19512332]
Other maps at the link:
Upworthy]]> <![CDATA[Scientific facts that freak me out.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65595.html Wed, 08 Nov 2023 15:33:19 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65595.html
1. Color is in light, not objects. I accept it, but when I first learned this it freaked me out. 

2. If you could go as fast as the speed of light from your point of view you would be standing still. 

3. Time moves slower the closer you are to earth's surface and faster the further away. There is a calculable difference say being at the top of the Burj Khalifa building vs being at the shore of Miami beach. 

4. But I just learned this last night for the first time watching a short clip of Neil deGrasse Tyson's star talk. The bottom of your tire, even when your vehicle is in motion, is moving at 0mph. The top of your tire is moving up to 2x the speed of the vehicle itself. 

5. You could fit almost 5 billion of our suns in to the sphere of the largest known star(so far) UY Scuti. 

What scientific facts freak you out in a good way?]]>
1. Color is in light, not objects. I accept it, but when I first learned this it freaked me out. 

2. If you could go as fast as the speed of light from your point of view you would be standing still. 

3. Time moves slower the closer you are to earth's surface and faster the further away. There is a calculable difference say being at the top of the Burj Khalifa building vs being at the shore of Miami beach. 

4. But I just learned this last night for the first time watching a short clip of Neil deGrasse Tyson's star talk. The bottom of your tire, even when your vehicle is in motion, is moving at 0mph. The top of your tire is moving up to 2x the speed of the vehicle itself. 

5. You could fit almost 5 billion of our suns in to the sphere of the largest known star(so far) UY Scuti. 

What scientific facts freak you out in a good way?]]> <![CDATA[The Maunder Minimum]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65559.html Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:35:52 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65559.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum



]]>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum



]]> <![CDATA[The canary in the icefield]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65417.html Thu, 07 Sep 2023 02:16:37 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65417.html https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/feat...e-icefield

"Scientists have tracked the fate of the Peyto Glacier in the Rocky Mountains for decades as a global reference point. It’s disappearing faster than expected — a warning sign for communities downstream."

(I'm a believer.  Last week I went up to Mt. Hood where I expected to see the glacier at Timberline Lodge, the "Magic Mile", elevation 6000 feet, the one I first hiked when I was ten years old and it wannit there, it had retracted to 9,000 feet)]]> https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/feat...e-icefield

"Scientists have tracked the fate of the Peyto Glacier in the Rocky Mountains for decades as a global reference point. It’s disappearing faster than expected — a warning sign for communities downstream."

(I'm a believer.  Last week I went up to Mt. Hood where I expected to see the glacier at Timberline Lodge, the "Magic Mile", elevation 6000 feet, the one I first hiked when I was ten years old and it wannit there, it had retracted to 9,000 feet)]]> <![CDATA[Dark matter vs. MOND]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65279.html Sat, 12 Aug 2023 14:16:18 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65279.html
But the best evidence for dark matter comes from the first 370,000 years of time when large regions of space rung like a very large, very low frequency bell. Waves of normal matter were damped by photons carrying energy away, but the waves of dark matter were not damped, because they do not interact with photons.  And these two kinds of waves interfered with each other gravitationally.  This tale is told by the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

So when you see an article claiming that dark matter does not exist, and the data can be explained by some alteration to the theory of gravitation (sometimes called MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics), and the article only talks about explaining the oldest data, not the best data, you can ignore it.

If their claim takes the metric tensor of General Relativity and adds additional structure in the form of vectors or scalars, that's just another field, which is to say more particles, and they're right back to dark matter again.

[Image: 0060.jpg]]]>
But the best evidence for dark matter comes from the first 370,000 years of time when large regions of space rung like a very large, very low frequency bell. Waves of normal matter were damped by photons carrying energy away, but the waves of dark matter were not damped, because they do not interact with photons.  And these two kinds of waves interfered with each other gravitationally.  This tale is told by the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

So when you see an article claiming that dark matter does not exist, and the data can be explained by some alteration to the theory of gravitation (sometimes called MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics), and the article only talks about explaining the oldest data, not the best data, you can ignore it.

If their claim takes the metric tensor of General Relativity and adds additional structure in the form of vectors or scalars, that's just another field, which is to say more particles, and they're right back to dark matter again.

[Image: 0060.jpg]]]> <![CDATA[Commence Operation Vac-U-Suck]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65276.html Sat, 12 Aug 2023 00:20:27 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65276.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...uum-biden/

The Biden administration is betting big on giant carbon-sucking vacuums as a climate solution, announcing that it will help jump-start two mammoth projects in Texas and Louisiana that will be a global testing ground for the new technology...]]>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...uum-biden/

The Biden administration is betting big on giant carbon-sucking vacuums as a climate solution, announcing that it will help jump-start two mammoth projects in Texas and Louisiana that will be a global testing ground for the new technology...]]> <![CDATA[Earth's Gravity Hole]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65237.html Fri, 28 Jul 2023 18:33:11 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65237.html They were talking about it on NPR's Science Friday. 
Very cool.  Cool

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonemelvi...10d271252e]]> They were talking about it on NPR's Science Friday. 
Very cool.  Cool

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonemelvi...10d271252e]]> <![CDATA[Question for Astronophiles]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65179.html Sun, 16 Jul 2023 07:28:09 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65179.html
See what I'm saying? NASA scientists can say that the pillars of creation are more than simply a digital rendering made from assumptions of mathematical models. And these models are associated with all sciences in which we rely on because we can move faster with them than without them. This is why America went to the moon right? To prove that the math said that it was at least plausible and only missing a positive thrusting device that we could board one body at a time. But fundamentally, the science has mostly only proven to be necessary as far as we need it to accomplish something we couldn't without it

You know what I'm saying? If I have faith in the NASA scientist that the pillars of creation are definitely an amazing and awe inspiring aspect to what the universe is and how it makes itself grow, then I would have a certified faith in the other wonders of science that I don't fully be without fully understanding how impossible our life would be without it. But that caps out at plane travel being the top use of the science that we couldn't live without and what good is that really when you think about it? Then the next would be general automobile society where if you don't have one then you still probably live off of a public version of it because you need to save the time and energy for the space youre moving, however, there is a lot more general understanding why a human could find plenty of usable need with having an automobile at their use. Also, there are trains which seem to have the most upside of being the best long term investment of time to need of saving spacetime for more qualitative space and time use.

So I'm saying that I have a tremendous amount of faith in the sorts of people who released a digital rendering of something they coined "the pillars of creation" because I have seen what sorts of things only could have been created with the sorts of minds that can see a massive objects in plain sight while the rest of us are still wondering why it hurts to stare at the sun]]>
See what I'm saying? NASA scientists can say that the pillars of creation are more than simply a digital rendering made from assumptions of mathematical models. And these models are associated with all sciences in which we rely on because we can move faster with them than without them. This is why America went to the moon right? To prove that the math said that it was at least plausible and only missing a positive thrusting device that we could board one body at a time. But fundamentally, the science has mostly only proven to be necessary as far as we need it to accomplish something we couldn't without it

You know what I'm saying? If I have faith in the NASA scientist that the pillars of creation are definitely an amazing and awe inspiring aspect to what the universe is and how it makes itself grow, then I would have a certified faith in the other wonders of science that I don't fully be without fully understanding how impossible our life would be without it. But that caps out at plane travel being the top use of the science that we couldn't live without and what good is that really when you think about it? Then the next would be general automobile society where if you don't have one then you still probably live off of a public version of it because you need to save the time and energy for the space youre moving, however, there is a lot more general understanding why a human could find plenty of usable need with having an automobile at their use. Also, there are trains which seem to have the most upside of being the best long term investment of time to need of saving spacetime for more qualitative space and time use.

So I'm saying that I have a tremendous amount of faith in the sorts of people who released a digital rendering of something they coined "the pillars of creation" because I have seen what sorts of things only could have been created with the sorts of minds that can see a massive objects in plain sight while the rest of us are still wondering why it hurts to stare at the sun]]> <![CDATA[Do we have a Science section / Forum ?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65171.html Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:26:56 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65171.html
So on NPR today, a "dust" researcher discussed her research. 
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/118781575...d-asteroid

It's so cool we are made of star dust.  Cool]]>
So on NPR today, a "dust" researcher discussed her research. 
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/118781575...d-asteroid

It's so cool we are made of star dust.  Cool]]> <![CDATA[Question about General rel and quanta phys]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-65086.html Fri, 16 Jun 2023 04:56:54 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-65086.html
I have a question for the lovers of physics. So General relativity equations and math are highly predictable because of the probability of massive objects like stars, planets, and black holes being where they'll always be like clockwork. In human terms the numbers seem huge because we think in terms of the sun being 96 million miles from us. And physicists know that the celestial objects are so probable because it would take a massive object appearing out of nowhere before you could knock a star or a planet off its orbit. And that is beyond the laws of physics and we know that because no physicist can write a peer reviewed paper where that is feasible in scientific terms.

My question is if what i'm about to say is true about quantum physics being similar yet "spooky" to general relativity. Is it spooky because these quantum particles are proportionally just as far away from each other as the earth and sun, yet in quantum physics, these quantum particles really could have proportionally large body objects that could really appear in the gravitational space in between?

Because I think this is why a lot people have those idiotic theories where they believe that the sty on my left buttcheek has a whole universe of its own where I was born to speak Finnish instead of merican]]>
I have a question for the lovers of physics. So General relativity equations and math are highly predictable because of the probability of massive objects like stars, planets, and black holes being where they'll always be like clockwork. In human terms the numbers seem huge because we think in terms of the sun being 96 million miles from us. And physicists know that the celestial objects are so probable because it would take a massive object appearing out of nowhere before you could knock a star or a planet off its orbit. And that is beyond the laws of physics and we know that because no physicist can write a peer reviewed paper where that is feasible in scientific terms.

My question is if what i'm about to say is true about quantum physics being similar yet "spooky" to general relativity. Is it spooky because these quantum particles are proportionally just as far away from each other as the earth and sun, yet in quantum physics, these quantum particles really could have proportionally large body objects that could really appear in the gravitational space in between?

Because I think this is why a lot people have those idiotic theories where they believe that the sty on my left buttcheek has a whole universe of its own where I was born to speak Finnish instead of merican]]> <![CDATA[Is there a law for this?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-64937.html Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:59:23 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-64937.html
There has to be a nerdy term for this? Huh]]>
There has to be a nerdy term for this? Huh]]> <![CDATA[Airplane & the conveyer belt]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-64936.html Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:31:03 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-64936.html
But what bothers me is why is this question even a thing, let alone so popular because in this situation the airplane is standing still. So even if you don't know the physics behind it, it is obvious that the airplane needs to move on the ground to take off, therefore this conveyer belt does absolutely nothing to the airplane except that it turns its wheels fast.

[Image: upU5PLza_o.jpeg]]]>
But what bothers me is why is this question even a thing, let alone so popular because in this situation the airplane is standing still. So even if you don't know the physics behind it, it is obvious that the airplane needs to move on the ground to take off, therefore this conveyer belt does absolutely nothing to the airplane except that it turns its wheels fast.

[Image: upU5PLza_o.jpeg]]]>