What proof do we have for the theory of relativity?
Q. Beyond mathematical proof which in itself is theoretical, is there any other type of proof to say Einstein was right or is it a theory proved only by other theories? Thanks, I've heard about this but am not convinced, how are muons identified, what are they made out of, what sort of things affect them? Can any of these questions be answered? for all we know muons might be some bizaare life form that replicates itself on the way down, falls through suddenly appearing black holes or are a combination of particles some travelling many times greater than the speed of light. To be absolutely certain of what's going on you'd have to know a great deal about these particles, are they sub atomic? if so, then we don't even know whether they are… [cont.]
Asked by purplepeace59 - Sat Oct 13 16:33:05 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Special theory 1. Quickly moving atomic particles have a longer half-lfe before they decay, indicating that time appears to be slowing down for them. 2. In an atomic clock, the beat of the Cesium atoms is slower when it is warmer. This is because they are moving faster when they are hot, so time slows down again. 3. Physically moving atomic clocks beat slower, for the same reason. 4. E=mc squared confirmed by nuclear reactions 5. As you try to accelerate a moving particle using an electric field, it doesn't go past the speed of light but its energy keeps increasing indicating its mass is going up. general theory 1 The orbit of Mercury precesses due to the curvature of space-time by the sun 2. Stars behind the sun can be seen… [cont.]
Answered by J - Tue Oct 16 19:27:44 2007
Q. Beyond mathematical proof which in itself is theoretical, is there any other type of proof to say Einstein was right or is it a theory proved only by other theories? Thanks, I've heard about this but am not convinced, how are muons identified, what are they made out of, what sort of things affect them? Can any of these questions be answered? for all we know muons might be some bizaare life form that replicates itself on the way down, falls through suddenly appearing black holes or are a combination of particles some travelling many times greater than the speed of light. To be absolutely certain of what's going on you'd have to know a great deal about these particles, are they sub atomic? if so, then we don't even know whether they are… [cont.]
Asked by purplepeace59 - Sat Oct 13 16:33:05 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Special theory 1. Quickly moving atomic particles have a longer half-lfe before they decay, indicating that time appears to be slowing down for them. 2. In an atomic clock, the beat of the Cesium atoms is slower when it is warmer. This is because they are moving faster when they are hot, so time slows down again. 3. Physically moving atomic clocks beat slower, for the same reason. 4. E=mc squared confirmed by nuclear reactions 5. As you try to accelerate a moving particle using an electric field, it doesn't go past the speed of light but its energy keeps increasing indicating its mass is going up. general theory 1 The orbit of Mercury precesses due to the curvature of space-time by the sun 2. Stars behind the sun can be seen… [cont.]
Answered by J - Tue Oct 16 19:27:44 2007
With regards to Olbers' Paradox, why is this theory proof of the big bang in any way?
Q. Could you not reason that the sky is not bright because stars are not the only things that materialize in the known universe, and that black matter exists, and life cycles of stars are not always at their brightest, and they do burn to lesser bright forms, and all of these could also the reason why the sky is dark?
Asked by Snowbird - Mon May 31 02:09:12 2010 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Scientists like to think they know as much as possible. A lot of what we know as "scientific fact" is theory. It used to be a fact that the earth was flat. Olbers' Paradox is the best proof we have that the universe is expanding from a point and the universe isn't infinite.
Answered by knowitall15 - Mon May 31 02:22:43 2010
Q. Could you not reason that the sky is not bright because stars are not the only things that materialize in the known universe, and that black matter exists, and life cycles of stars are not always at their brightest, and they do burn to lesser bright forms, and all of these could also the reason why the sky is dark?
Asked by Snowbird - Mon May 31 02:09:12 2010 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Scientists like to think they know as much as possible. A lot of what we know as "scientific fact" is theory. It used to be a fact that the earth was flat. Olbers' Paradox is the best proof we have that the universe is expanding from a point and the universe isn't infinite.
Answered by knowitall15 - Mon May 31 02:22:43 2010
Is there any experimental proof to support M-theory?
Q. I know there are mathematical formulas which may support M-theory but is there any technology that can produce any physical proof which may approve or disprove M-theory, or even prove certain aspects of it.
Asked by Patrick H - Sat Aug 22 09:42:52 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No. Strings are attractive because of the depth and richness of the mathematics. There is enough there to cover everything. BUT, that depth yields strange stuff, multiple dimensions, infinite number of universes, time travel, etc. That alone is not a fatal flaw, but it makes us wonder. (Time-Space dilation from General and Special Relativity and imaginary numbers from electrodynamics are also strange) I like the quote from: "If you can't prove it, then no one should believe it." But, I do anyway.
Answered by OldPilot - Sat Aug 22 10:11:45 2009
Q. I know there are mathematical formulas which may support M-theory but is there any technology that can produce any physical proof which may approve or disprove M-theory, or even prove certain aspects of it.
Asked by Patrick H - Sat Aug 22 09:42:52 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No. Strings are attractive because of the depth and richness of the mathematics. There is enough there to cover everything. BUT, that depth yields strange stuff, multiple dimensions, infinite number of universes, time travel, etc. That alone is not a fatal flaw, but it makes us wonder. (Time-Space dilation from General and Special Relativity and imaginary numbers from electrodynamics are also strange) I like the quote from: "If you can't prove it, then no one should believe it." But, I do anyway.
Answered by OldPilot - Sat Aug 22 10:11:45 2009
I need anyone who doesn't believe in "Love" to give me scientific proof behind their theory that love is FAKE?
Q. need anyone who doesn't believe in "Love" to give me scientific proof behind their theory that love is FAKE? Someone made a compelling arguement to me one time about how "love" is just a fabrication of the mind and he had scientific facts behind it something about oxytocin,dopamine, and seratonin anybody know what this is all about??? Thanks!
Asked by Nilfie - Wed Aug 5 21:38:17 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Sorry, sounds like you've already heard the scientific definition of love. Science can't do much more for you there.
Answered by eri - Wed Aug 5 22:59:15 2009
Q. need anyone who doesn't believe in "Love" to give me scientific proof behind their theory that love is FAKE? Someone made a compelling arguement to me one time about how "love" is just a fabrication of the mind and he had scientific facts behind it something about oxytocin,dopamine, and seratonin anybody know what this is all about??? Thanks!
Asked by Nilfie - Wed Aug 5 21:38:17 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Sorry, sounds like you've already heard the scientific definition of love. Science can't do much more for you there.
Answered by eri - Wed Aug 5 22:59:15 2009
If we can proof anything in theory,why do people need proof to believe that something is real? What is real?
Q. If people seriously believe in something why do they have to 'prove' it to someone else. i.e-god, particles, germs, aliens, guilty or not guilty, Parallel universes. Just REALLY curious.
Asked by j.great - Fri Sep 11 15:16:11 2009 - - 12 Answers - 0 Comments
A. ...truly, i have no problem when eating a chocolate haupia pie with mango sorbet sprinkled with cashew bits...
Answered by *RED* - Fri Sep 11 16:18:35 2009
Q. If people seriously believe in something why do they have to 'prove' it to someone else. i.e-god, particles, germs, aliens, guilty or not guilty, Parallel universes. Just REALLY curious.
Asked by j.great - Fri Sep 11 15:16:11 2009 - - 12 Answers - 0 Comments
A. ...truly, i have no problem when eating a chocolate haupia pie with mango sorbet sprinkled with cashew bits...
Answered by *RED* - Fri Sep 11 16:18:35 2009
Is there visual proof to the Theory of Relativity?
Q. My philosophy prof today was talking about how its proven that time and space is not really stable and in the same units of one like philosopher Emanuel kant suggested, but besides the point, my prof also told me that there was( or is ) visual proof that the light can be actually curved , just like space it self? is there visual proof that shows how can light be bend with gravitation?
Asked by mpirumov - Thu Dec 6 13:10:29 2007 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments
A. YES! The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed by Sir Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse, so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the city of Sobral, Ceara, Brazil and in the west coast of Africa. The result was considered spectacular news and made the front page of most major newspapers. It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world famous. The early accuracy, however, was poor. Dyson et al. quoted an optimistically low uncertainty in their measurement, which is argued by some to have been plagued by… [cont.]
Answered by rijim2001 - Thu Dec 6 13:31:06 2007
Q. My philosophy prof today was talking about how its proven that time and space is not really stable and in the same units of one like philosopher Emanuel kant suggested, but besides the point, my prof also told me that there was( or is ) visual proof that the light can be actually curved , just like space it self? is there visual proof that shows how can light be bend with gravitation?
Asked by mpirumov - Thu Dec 6 13:10:29 2007 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments
A. YES! The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed by Sir Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse, so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the city of Sobral, Ceara, Brazil and in the west coast of Africa. The result was considered spectacular news and made the front page of most major newspapers. It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world famous. The early accuracy, however, was poor. Dyson et al. quoted an optimistically low uncertainty in their measurement, which is argued by some to have been plagued by… [cont.]
Answered by rijim2001 - Thu Dec 6 13:31:06 2007
need help with an discrete math number theory proof?
Q. Given a/b and a/c. To prove a/(sb+tc),s,t are integers.
Asked by educationman - Sun Mar 8 00:54:40 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I understand your notation a/b to mean a divides b. a/b means there exists an integer m such that b = ma. Similarly, a/c means there exists an integer n such that c = na. So sb + tc = s(ma) + t(na) = (sm+tn)a i.e. a divides sb + tc.
Answered by PiRhoTeXNiX - Sun Mar 8 01:59:56 2009
Q. Given a/b and a/c. To prove a/(sb+tc),s,t are integers.
Asked by educationman - Sun Mar 8 00:54:40 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I understand your notation a/b to mean a divides b. a/b means there exists an integer m such that b = ma. Similarly, a/c means there exists an integer n such that c = na. So sb + tc = s(ma) + t(na) = (sm+tn)a i.e. a divides sb + tc.
Answered by PiRhoTeXNiX - Sun Mar 8 01:59:56 2009
***Fellow Muslims***- What proof is there that the theory of evoloution is incorrect?
Q. Atheists say that the theory of evoloution is correct and muslims have no proof that it is incorrect. My muslim friend also thinks that the theory of evoloution is incorrect. Astugfirullah! What proof is there that the theory of evoloution is incorrect? [Note] Have you always seen how I always write "***Fellow Muslims***-" before I write a question? What do you think when I write this, "***Fellow Muslims***-" ? :P
Asked by RIGHTLY GUIDED - Sun Jun 14 10:27:19 2009 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments
A. theory of evolution should never be taken synonymous with darwin !!
Answered by MUhammed K - Sun Jun 14 14:56:43 2009
Q. Atheists say that the theory of evoloution is correct and muslims have no proof that it is incorrect. My muslim friend also thinks that the theory of evoloution is incorrect. Astugfirullah! What proof is there that the theory of evoloution is incorrect? [Note] Have you always seen how I always write "***Fellow Muslims***-" before I write a question? What do you think when I write this, "***Fellow Muslims***-" ? :P
Asked by RIGHTLY GUIDED - Sun Jun 14 10:27:19 2009 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments
A. theory of evolution should never be taken synonymous with darwin !!
Answered by MUhammed K - Sun Jun 14 14:56:43 2009
What proof is there to support the theory of evolution?
Q. honestly, what exactly has the non-religious scientific community based their theory of existence on? like i know it started with Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species" and that he stated the Galapagos island finches as an example of evolution, but what exactly is this all based on; what sciemtific evidence. and please don't cite some fossil or whatever that they estimate is ten gazillion years old or whatever: carbon dating is so ridiculously flawed it's not even funny.
Asked by WithThisHeart... - Sat Oct 3 17:39:52 2009 - - 11 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (Firstly, I should point out that there is no "proof" in science; science uses evidence, only mathematics and logic have proof). Evolution as a process was known about long before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species; his theory is merely a proposed mechanism for explaining the observations. The major categories of evidence supporting evolution are: - comparative genetics (similarities and differences in the genomes of organisms) - comparative anatomy (insect mouthparts, the vertebrate pentadactyl limb, etc.) - comparative biochemistry (the universal genetic code; the 20 natural amino acids) - paleontology (fossil evidence) - biogeography (marsupials are restricted to Australia, and no native placental mammals are found there, etc.) -… [cont.]
Answered by gribbling - Wed Oct 7 08:27:31 2009
Q. honestly, what exactly has the non-religious scientific community based their theory of existence on? like i know it started with Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species" and that he stated the Galapagos island finches as an example of evolution, but what exactly is this all based on; what sciemtific evidence. and please don't cite some fossil or whatever that they estimate is ten gazillion years old or whatever: carbon dating is so ridiculously flawed it's not even funny.
Asked by WithThisHeart... - Sat Oct 3 17:39:52 2009 - - 11 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (Firstly, I should point out that there is no "proof" in science; science uses evidence, only mathematics and logic have proof). Evolution as a process was known about long before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species; his theory is merely a proposed mechanism for explaining the observations. The major categories of evidence supporting evolution are: - comparative genetics (similarities and differences in the genomes of organisms) - comparative anatomy (insect mouthparts, the vertebrate pentadactyl limb, etc.) - comparative biochemistry (the universal genetic code; the 20 natural amino acids) - paleontology (fossil evidence) - biogeography (marsupials are restricted to Australia, and no native placental mammals are found there, etc.) -… [cont.]
Answered by gribbling - Wed Oct 7 08:27:31 2009
Is there really sufficient empirical proof to support the theory of evolution?
Q. Or is it mostly about inferences, guesses and theory (understood in the scientific sense of the word)?
Asked by sokrates - Sun Apr 8 00:48:28 2007 - - 24 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Let's see; Adaptation has been observed in both the lab and in nature. And we see mankind gaining in height over the centuries. Which, if evolution is not true, would be impossible to happen. There exists literally millions of fossils of animals that are now extinct. Some marine fossils can be found in mountains and deserts, indicating changes in earth that took place over millions of years, which is just about the time needed for evolution to take place. We have cataclysmic disasters (volcanoes, meteor collisions, etc.) that destroyed the majority of life on earth. Which is another way of showing adaptation and brutal way of natural selection. We have animals with organs and body parts that have no real function (e.g. the appendix… [cont.]
Answered by barefoot_rob1 - Sun Apr 8 01:10:05 2007
Q. Or is it mostly about inferences, guesses and theory (understood in the scientific sense of the word)?
Asked by sokrates - Sun Apr 8 00:48:28 2007 - - 24 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Let's see; Adaptation has been observed in both the lab and in nature. And we see mankind gaining in height over the centuries. Which, if evolution is not true, would be impossible to happen. There exists literally millions of fossils of animals that are now extinct. Some marine fossils can be found in mountains and deserts, indicating changes in earth that took place over millions of years, which is just about the time needed for evolution to take place. We have cataclysmic disasters (volcanoes, meteor collisions, etc.) that destroyed the majority of life on earth. Which is another way of showing adaptation and brutal way of natural selection. We have animals with organs and body parts that have no real function (e.g. the appendix… [cont.]
Answered by barefoot_rob1 - Sun Apr 8 01:10:05 2007
is there any proof of the theory boys make you carry the weight on your front/alll over weight gain for girls?
Q. have noticed this is true for carrying my son and daughter but is there any scientific proof of this old wives tale? well i was told i look pretty but i think i look like the exorcist extra so maybe there is a good thoery for your response legend!
Asked by carly - Sat Jan 30 09:45:31 2010 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No proof, but it was true for me
Answered by momto8gr8 - Sat Jan 30 09:57:59 2010
Q. have noticed this is true for carrying my son and daughter but is there any scientific proof of this old wives tale? well i was told i look pretty but i think i look like the exorcist extra so maybe there is a good thoery for your response legend!
Asked by carly - Sat Jan 30 09:45:31 2010 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No proof, but it was true for me
Answered by momto8gr8 - Sat Jan 30 09:57:59 2010
Is not the use of the theory of evolution as proof that the a God does not exist just a cover-up?
Q. Evolution is a method or process and the fact of whether there is a God is looking at or for a possible starting point/source? The question about the existing or nonexistence of a God is about an intelligent source as the originator and not about the method used. Give it some good thought and then please state your view.
Asked by cjkeysjr - Thu Jan 1 18:50:10 2009 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I cannot prove God exists or not by creation or evolution because God could do it anyway He chooses. All matter had to start somewhere. And God started it. In Genesis, Moses wrote this happened in 6 24 hour days. It is said that Moses met with God in the Holy of holies so it could have been given to him. Your question, if I hear you correctly, you are saying that the theory of evolution was invented to undermine religion. If I heard you correctly, I would agree with your statement. Darwin was a mason, and evolution tends to go against the original sin and fall idea. Jesus confirmed and did not deny Genesis as written. This website favors the intelligent design theory
Answered by Mistoday - Thu Jan 1 19:05:20 2009
Q. Evolution is a method or process and the fact of whether there is a God is looking at or for a possible starting point/source? The question about the existing or nonexistence of a God is about an intelligent source as the originator and not about the method used. Give it some good thought and then please state your view.
Asked by cjkeysjr - Thu Jan 1 18:50:10 2009 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I cannot prove God exists or not by creation or evolution because God could do it anyway He chooses. All matter had to start somewhere. And God started it. In Genesis, Moses wrote this happened in 6 24 hour days. It is said that Moses met with God in the Holy of holies so it could have been given to him. Your question, if I hear you correctly, you are saying that the theory of evolution was invented to undermine religion. If I heard you correctly, I would agree with your statement. Darwin was a mason, and evolution tends to go against the original sin and fall idea. Jesus confirmed and did not deny Genesis as written. This website favors the intelligent design theory
Answered by Mistoday - Thu Jan 1 19:05:20 2009
What proof do we have of the Big Bang Theory?
Q. I am not trying to start a debate on religion and science, I am just wondering what evidence do scientists have that this theory is correct? What led them to this conclusion?
Asked by systemglitch - Tue Dec 8 22:03:16 2009 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Very simply put, scientists noticed that the Universe appears to be expanding. (It is the best explanation for the red shift: ) From this they concluded that if the Universe was expanding, then at some point in the past it must have all been bunched together into one point. (The Big Bang) If this was the case, scientists reasoned, then calculations indicate that the tiny early universe must have been a really energetic place, and that we should still be able to see the "glow" from that time. And when scientists looked for the "afterglow" of the Big Bang, they found it, the CMB or cosmic microwave background radiation: That's very simply put. Things predicted by other theories of the origin of the Universe have not been found, so… [cont.]
Answered by unitedcats2004 - Tue Dec 8 23:26:57 2009
Q. I am not trying to start a debate on religion and science, I am just wondering what evidence do scientists have that this theory is correct? What led them to this conclusion?
Asked by systemglitch - Tue Dec 8 22:03:16 2009 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Very simply put, scientists noticed that the Universe appears to be expanding. (It is the best explanation for the red shift: ) From this they concluded that if the Universe was expanding, then at some point in the past it must have all been bunched together into one point. (The Big Bang) If this was the case, scientists reasoned, then calculations indicate that the tiny early universe must have been a really energetic place, and that we should still be able to see the "glow" from that time. And when scientists looked for the "afterglow" of the Big Bang, they found it, the CMB or cosmic microwave background radiation: That's very simply put. Things predicted by other theories of the origin of the Universe have not been found, so… [cont.]
Answered by unitedcats2004 - Tue Dec 8 23:26:57 2009
What proof is there of the Big Bang Theory?
Q. I heard my friends discussing it after class and I was wondering how the idea came to thought. What did scientist examine to come up with this theory? Ehrm, I'm in highschool, would you mind using simpler words than "WMAP and the cosmic microwave background" Sure, the universe IS expanding... But what does it expand from. You can't make something out of nothing.
Asked by oliver - Wed Nov 25 01:19:23 2009 - - 14 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The universe is expanding (look up Hubble and the Doppler Effect). Therefore it must have once been smaller. The universe is cooling (look up WMAP and the cosmic microwave background). Therefore it must have once been hotter. Extrapolate back and you get a hot, dense singularity that expanded. 'Theory' does not mean 'guess' in science. Theory is as good as it gets - theories don't get promoted to laws or facts, they outrank laws and facts. Theories tell us not only what happened, but also why.
Answered by eri - Wed Nov 25 01:25:05 2009
Q. I heard my friends discussing it after class and I was wondering how the idea came to thought. What did scientist examine to come up with this theory? Ehrm, I'm in highschool, would you mind using simpler words than "WMAP and the cosmic microwave background" Sure, the universe IS expanding... But what does it expand from. You can't make something out of nothing.
Asked by oliver - Wed Nov 25 01:19:23 2009 - - 14 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The universe is expanding (look up Hubble and the Doppler Effect). Therefore it must have once been smaller. The universe is cooling (look up WMAP and the cosmic microwave background). Therefore it must have once been hotter. Extrapolate back and you get a hot, dense singularity that expanded. 'Theory' does not mean 'guess' in science. Theory is as good as it gets - theories don't get promoted to laws or facts, they outrank laws and facts. Theories tell us not only what happened, but also why.
Answered by eri - Wed Nov 25 01:25:05 2009
Atheists why do you expect more proof from God then Big bang Theory or evolution?
Q. Big bang has never spoken to you. And you have never met in person this ape creature that atheist scientists have said we evolved from.
Asked by Gorillawits - Sun Jan 3 06:08:44 2010 - - 32 Answers - 0 Comments
A. hahah i love this question. never thought about that. they really don't
Answered by A&G is #1 - Sun Jan 3 06:20:43 2010
Q. Big bang has never spoken to you. And you have never met in person this ape creature that atheist scientists have said we evolved from.
Asked by Gorillawits - Sun Jan 3 06:08:44 2010 - - 32 Answers - 0 Comments
A. hahah i love this question. never thought about that. they really don't
Answered by A&G is #1 - Sun Jan 3 06:20:43 2010
Do conservatives have proof of their Democrat conspiracy theory?
Q. That Democrats seek to make people poor and dependent as part of a grand strategy to rule over America for all time?
Asked by Matthew D - Tue May 18 09:55:42 2010 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No of course not. This is tinfoil-hat paranoia only.
Answered by jack99skellington - Tue May 18 10:03:18 2010
Q. That Democrats seek to make people poor and dependent as part of a grand strategy to rule over America for all time?
Asked by Matthew D - Tue May 18 09:55:42 2010 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No of course not. This is tinfoil-hat paranoia only.
Answered by jack99skellington - Tue May 18 10:03:18 2010
Are evolutionist's mourning the loss of their only real proof to their theory of evolution being undeniable fa?
Q. FACT,--THAT IS the anniversary of michael jackson's death,the only recorded evidence of a man who evolved from black african to white westerner,color and facial features
Asked by but i love you - Fri Jun 25 16:03:25 2010 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. That could apply to his pedophiliaism as well,couldn't it?
Answered by MoHart - Fri Jun 25 16:19:21 2010
Q. FACT,--THAT IS the anniversary of michael jackson's death,the only recorded evidence of a man who evolved from black african to white westerner,color and facial features
Asked by but i love you - Fri Jun 25 16:03:25 2010 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. That could apply to his pedophiliaism as well,couldn't it?
Answered by MoHart - Fri Jun 25 16:19:21 2010
How can we prove third order perturbation theory/ need a theoretical proof?
Q. How can we prove third order perturbation theory/ need a theoretical proof?
Asked by Prince D - Fri Sep 21 18:49:56 2007 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. i dont know but... i is certain yo caint proof it
Answered by jsbjoe - Mon Sep 24 19:34:08 2007
Q. How can we prove third order perturbation theory/ need a theoretical proof?
Asked by Prince D - Fri Sep 21 18:49:56 2007 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. i dont know but... i is certain yo caint proof it
Answered by jsbjoe - Mon Sep 24 19:34:08 2007
Is there actually any proof in the big bang theory?? Any supporters, could you please convince me?
Q. I am not completely familiar with the big bang theory, but what I know about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I feel that it is a way for rationalists to try to explain the unexplainable. If their were nothing in existence to cause a bang, why was their a bang? What was around before the bang, and how could they figure this out? I am looking for a more philosophical answer as opposed to a scientific answer, although either would be appreciated.
Asked by pjhorton31 - Sat Jul 1 15:49:34 2006 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. FIRST Theories aren't proofs. There is no deductive necessity to the big bang THEORY. It is a plausible explanation of scientific facts. An organization; a cosmology. We see stars , planets, matter moving away from each other. Therefore, among many other things, we infer a center. A starting point. An initial nexus. That doesn't mean there was nothing before it. Nor do we have a firm grasp on what void and nothingness IS. It's possible there is NO starting point. Or causa sui. The dogmatic think it to be a problem. But the question begs the question whether there is a first cause. The religious answer: God is the causa sui. God is always the "answer" to impossible questions. Causa sui is a metaphysical nightmare of a contradiction.… [cont.]
Answered by -.- - Sat Jul 1 17:16:58 2006
Q. I am not completely familiar with the big bang theory, but what I know about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I feel that it is a way for rationalists to try to explain the unexplainable. If their were nothing in existence to cause a bang, why was their a bang? What was around before the bang, and how could they figure this out? I am looking for a more philosophical answer as opposed to a scientific answer, although either would be appreciated.
Asked by pjhorton31 - Sat Jul 1 15:49:34 2006 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. FIRST Theories aren't proofs. There is no deductive necessity to the big bang THEORY. It is a plausible explanation of scientific facts. An organization; a cosmology. We see stars , planets, matter moving away from each other. Therefore, among many other things, we infer a center. A starting point. An initial nexus. That doesn't mean there was nothing before it. Nor do we have a firm grasp on what void and nothingness IS. It's possible there is NO starting point. Or causa sui. The dogmatic think it to be a problem. But the question begs the question whether there is a first cause. The religious answer: God is the causa sui. God is always the "answer" to impossible questions. Causa sui is a metaphysical nightmare of a contradiction.… [cont.]
Answered by -.- - Sat Jul 1 17:16:58 2006
Is the North American Union theory real? What proof is there?
Q. Is there really a hidden agenda to push Can/USA/Mex into a tri-lateral union similar to the European Union?
Asked by Krautmeister - Fri Jan 15 14:13:10 2010 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. That is the plan, of course there is no proof yet,*
Answered by molkey - Fri Jan 15 17:00:00 2010
Q. Is there really a hidden agenda to push Can/USA/Mex into a tri-lateral union similar to the European Union?
Asked by Krautmeister - Fri Jan 15 14:13:10 2010 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. That is the plan, of course there is no proof yet,*
Answered by molkey - Fri Jan 15 17:00:00 2010
From Yahoo Answer Search: 'Proof theory'
Mon Sep 6 17:46:57 2010 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
consortiumnews.com
Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:14:12 GMT+00:00
Consortium News However, the publications in their rush to debunk what they deemed a conspiracy theory had misread the evidence and had failed to do the follow-up ...
thoughtengineers.com
578px x 770px | 567.60kB
[source page]
June 6 June 17th 2005 University of Notre Dame Southbend in usa group Photo
youtube.com
Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:05:09 PST
Download the Redshirt Theory song in this video for free here soundcloud.com The Red Shirt Theory dictates that all those who wear a red shirt ... youtube.com.
dailygalaxy.com
Casey Kazan Daily Galaxy Editorial Staff
Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:48:00 GM
For those who did not get what Hawking meant by "spontaneous creation", I recomend you look up quantum fluctuations, false vacua, and the anthropic string . theory. land scape to shed light on the issue. ... Dark Energy is . proof. of anti- gravity and a dumb Hawking statement for more fame and money. Likely dark energy expansion cools the universe to absolute zero, where Bose-Einstein condensates by condensation forms larger black holes. other big-bangs are fractal size- scaled ...
[Hide]▲
