The Biggest Questions in Science

[pantheory]

Ask any general science question(s) here, more than one at a time if you like, questions that can be generally understood by most readers. The questions below are examples, and all are controversial, meaning there are no consensus answers to these particular questions. I will provide “simple” answers to all questions asked, followed by “evidence” to the answers, mostly in the form of links. Readers can both ask and answer questions.

 

Big Questions in Science

 

• What is the universe made of? Astronomers still cannot account for 95% of the universe....
• How did life begin? ...
• Are we alone in the universe? ...
• What makes us human? ...
• What is consciousness? ...
• Why do we dream? ...
• Why does anything at all exist? ...
• Are there other universes?

 

Ask any of the above, or any of another 12 questions that can be seen and asked within the link below – or any other common-language science question you wish to ask, and I will provide the answers. Or you could provide alternative answers if you wish.  

https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/the-big-scientific-questions/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[pantheory]

Of all the most difficult science questions in the world, you had to pick one of humor that I had to look up

 

According to the link below, the average speed of an unladen European swallow is calculated to be between 20.1 to 24MPH. My guess concerning top linear speeds would have been about 25 MPH, which would have been a close guess. There is little data  available for the South African swallow which is a little bigger so it probably would be able to fly a little faster.

 

There are eight species of American swallows of varying sizes. The largest, like barn swallows, have a maximum airspeed of 40-50 MPH according to limited studies.

 

https://interestingengineering.com/science/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-airspeed-velocity-of-an-unladen-swallow

 

https://www.justanswer.com/general/533z5-airspeed-velocity-swallow.html

 

 

 

[older]

And, importantly, here is the average weight and calorific values for parts of the human body:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44707/tables/1

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, older said:

And, importantly, here is the average weight and calorific values for parts of the human body:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44707/tables/1

 

How did you know I was getting ready to ask that question?  

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, older said:

And, importantly, here is the average weight and calorific values for parts of the human body:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44707/tables/1

 

Great, now let’s turn this information into a question concerning early homosapien cannibals in Europe about 45,000 years ago in Spain. The average height of a homosapien man at that time was about 5’6” inches tall, and the average Neanderthal male’s height that also lived there at that time was about the same, 5’5” inches tall.

 

But their general anatomy was a little different. The average weight of a homosapien man was estimated to be about 135 lbs, while the average weight of a Neanderthal man of about 20 lbs. heavier. Neanderthals were more muscular, stronger but a little less flexible and agile. From what I read, Neanderthals were good in a sprint but of lesser endurance than a homosapien.

 

We know of homosapien cannibal’s food in Europe based upon the bones found in their caves. They ate both other homosapiens as well as Neanderthals. Besides food, both fought for territory.  45,000 years ago it was still in the ice-age of Europe, so even with animal skins as cloths and shoes, it still took maybe 3,000 min. or more calories for a homosapien man to survive.

 

Here’s the question. How long could a cannibal live off the body of another human? Based upon the calories of your posting, the meat and organs from a cannibalized body, and maybe the bone marrow, could have lasted as long as a month for another human.

 

 

Note: Homosapiens could throw rocks and spears further than Neanderthals in general for hunting. Their shoulder joints were not as strong, but were more flexible. Modern humans could have stoned Neanderthal tribes to death in a throwing war. Homosapein tribes were bigger and were trained from youth how to choose and throw rocks for hunting. Upon victory they would have probably taken Neanderthal caves, clothing, any stored food, and maybe some of their women and children – and some would have cannibalized all killed in the siege if that was a part of their particular culture.

 

                                                          

                  Depiction or the last known                                          Depiction of Homosapiens in Europe

                     Neanderthals in Europe  45.000                                                                                        45,000 years ago

                                Years ago.

Some tribes of both species were known to have been cannibals according to bone scrapings in their caves. According to my readings, there were probably as many differences of appearances between both species as there is between all humans alive today, which we call homosapien sapiens.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Where'd you get that photo of Ms. Ex-neck?

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Where'd you get that photo of Ms. Ex-neck?

 

Maybe the problem was with my chosen photo angle, the display, my posting etc, ?

 

Here "She" has a shorter haircut but with a longer beard cut.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Maybe the problem was with my chosen photo angle, the display, my posting etc, ?

 

Here "She" had a shorter haircut but with a longer beard cut.

 

 

She always could grow a better beard than me.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Dang, that looks like several of my cousins!

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

Dang, that looks like several of my cousins!

 

My genes say that I am close to 3% Neanderthal, higher than 95% of the people tested. I did shave off my beard however, to look more "modern."

[pantheory]

Concerning Faith, religion or science{  Believe nothing that you hear, only half of what you see, and be skeptical of everything you read regardless of the source. Examples IMO being the Big Bang Theory, Global Warming, Quantum Theory, Multiverse theory, and many others.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

[◊ Weezer ◊]

They say energy can not be created or destroyed.  So, where did it come from?  Has it always existed?

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

They say energy can not be created or destroyed.  So, where did it come from?  Has it always existed?

 

 

AFAIK Weezer, the jury's still out on this question.

 

But according to the cosmologist Sean Carroll energy is NOT conserved in a universe which is expanding in the way we think ours is.

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

 

In Newton's physics energy MUST be conserved because the volume and density of space itself is fixed and never changes.  But in Einstein's physics space itself (well, space-time, actually) is always changing and is never fixed in terms of it's volume or density.  Therefore, since our universe is observed to be expanding, energy within it is not conserved in the simple way it is under Newtonian physics.

 

This finding, if accepted, then makes your questions much more difficult to answer.  In Einsteinian physics energy is tied directly to the behaviour of space-time.  But all of our models of space-time break down and/or cease to apply at the Big Bang.  Therefore, we cannot really say if energy is created or destroyed at that event.  Nor can we say if it existed in some form prior to the event - assuming that the word prior can be applied to a time before time began!

 

You see how this is getting very messy?

 

And we haven't even factored quantum mechanics into the mix.  Which, of course, we must do to accurately describe the behaviour of the universe or it's origin.  In quantum physics it's extremely difficult to quantify and define the positions or energies of particles.  And if such things are either beyond definition or beyond human understanding (or both!) then how is it possible to say anything meaningful about the conservation of energy?

 

Sorry Weezer, but I don't think your questions are going to answered any time soon.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

51 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Sorry Weezer, but I don't think your questions are going to answered any time soon.

I had the understanding that the answer was 42.  Have I been misled?

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

They say energy can not be created or destroyed.  So, where did it come from?  Has it always existed?

 

Good question Weez: That energy cannot be created or destroyed comes from thermodynamics theory about 200 years ago. We now know that energy can be created by the fission of mass, and that energy alone can create new matter, the prime example being gamma ray interactions producing electron-positron pairs. Einstein's famous equation E = M c² explains the relationship between mass and energy.

In mainstream cosmology theory, the Big Bang, the universe began as pure energy without matter. It supposedly cooled in time and condensed out into matter. Mainstream cosmology now proposes something called dark energy, which is a simply a fallacy IMHO.  In my own cosmological model, the Pan Theory, all matter has potential energy within it causing it to unwind and then re-wind, perpetuating change and time.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

We observe this energy as particle spin. Protons, neutrons, electrons, and their antiparticles can be observed to spin. Atoms and molecules spin.

 

So yes, no mater what the cosmological model being considered, energy has always existed since the beginning of time.

 

 

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I had the understanding that the answer was 42.  Have I been misled?

 

Yes, I have heard the same. The answer is 42,  so you have not been misled. Exact answers are proof of the validity of science over the fantasies of religion.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Thanks!  Some  of those answers helped.  

 

But basically it seems like a mind boggling concept.  

[pantheory]

On 1/3/2023 at 7:50 PM, Weezer said:

Thanks!  Some  of those answers helped.  

 

But basically it seems like a mind boggling concept.  

 

Yes, pure energy is a difficult concept to understand as you suggest.

 

The definition of energy is important. Force times distance equals energy. This definition is fundamental in physics and easy to understand IMO.  For instance, a force applied to matter causes it move in the direction of the force. This motion is called the energy of motion. Pure energy without a carrier medium is a more modern concept. Prior to 1900 light was considered by most to be a wave within the aether. The aether was a type of background atmosphere like the Zero Point Field known today. Light was considered energy waves within the aether that was traveling at the speed of light. Like ocean waves, the water within them is not traveling at their apparent speed, only the waves of energy and the physics of the water creates the waves. So no part of the water within the wave is traveling at its apparent speed, And ;likewise no part of the light, from this theory, was traveling at the speed of light, only the density waves within the aether were accordingly traveling at the speed of light. 

 

But in 1905 Einstein proposed that light was better explained as discrete wave packets, an idea stemming from the work of Max Planck about the turn of the century. Instead of energy waves within an aether, these packets were considered particles (photons) traveling at the speed of light, involving no background medium such as an aether. Does a photon particle meet the divination of energy above, force time distance?? NO, But these theory changes were the basis for the pure energy idea. Electro-Magnetic (EM) radiation was accordingly  pure energy somehow, not density waves within a aether medium. 

 

IMHO pure energy is just a fantasy, but who am I (along with a few others) to say that Einstein and the great majority of others for 100+ years have got it all wrong Modern physics considers  EM radiation to be  both a wave and a particle, If a particle then how does that meet the definition of energy above? If it's a wave, what is the medium carrying the wave? A wave of what?  There is no answer to these questions other than pure energy.

 

So you're not alone if it doesn't make sense to you. This mainstream belief about energy doesn't make sense to me me and a few others, either.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Another question.  if there was a planet that made an exceptionally long, elongated orbit around the sun, and it got close to the sun part of the time, and very far from the sun at other times, and took 3,600 years to orbit, could it substain life?  I am reading a book that talks about the planet Nibiru.

[Wertbag]

The one I don't understand is dark matter. Scientists seem keen to say they can show something exists, but they have no idea what or why. Others are saying it's too much like aether, just a magical gap filler for an unknown. Could it be the idea/model is wrong hence the maths doesn't work or are we sure on enough to know there is some other hidden gravity source? 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Another question.  if there was a planet that made an exceptionally long, elongated orbit around the sun, and it got close to the sun part of the time, and very far from the sun at other times, and took 3,600 years to orbit, could it substain life?  I am reading a book that talks about the planet Nibiru.

 

The short answer is no, Weezer.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

 

Nibiru would have to obey Kepler's laws, just as all the other planets in our solar system (and others) have been found to do.  On that Wiki page you'll see four animations of planetary orbits with different eccentricities (degrees of elongation).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ellipitical_orbit_of_planet_with_an_eccentricty_of_0.8.gif

 

Do you see how the planet crawls slowly along when it's furthest from the Sun and then rushes in, swoops around and rushes back out?  If Nibiru has an exceptionally long and elongated orbit then the brief time it spends in the inner solar system would be too short to make it fit for life.  The Sun's warmth would barely make any difference to it before it was on it's way out again, into the freezing depths of deep space.

 

So... no.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 1/13/2023 at 8:41 PM, Weezer said:

Another question.  if there was a planet that made an exceptionally long, elongated orbit around the sun, and it got close to the sun part of the time, and very far from the sun at other times, and took 3,600 years to orbit, could it substain life?  I am reading a book that talks about the planet Nibiru.

 

Hi Weez,

 

Yes, such life could exist but probably not life as we know it. On such a planet such life would be subjected to extreme temperature conditions on the planet's surface, so such life, if any, would need to live underground, and IMO it would be unlikely that it could be intelligent life like the larger animals on  Earth, but possibly microscopic life.

[pantheory]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:11 AM, Wertbag said:

The one I don't understand is dark matter. Scientists seem keen to say they can show something exists, but they have no idea what or why. Others are saying it's too much like aether, just a magical gap filler for an unknown. Could it be the idea/model is wrong hence the maths doesn't work or are we sure on enough to know there is some other hidden gravity source? 

 

Yes, good question and conclusion. Mainstream cosmology and astronomy invented dark matter.  I and and an associate performed a multi-year study concerning the possibility of dark matter and concluded that it is not real and that there is another reason for the mainstream conclusions and observations other than dark matter, which is also  unrelated to gravity.  The reason is called background field flow.  Our conclusion was certain IMHO and based solely upon the related mathematics in our study.  Here are the links below: The related paper was published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, as seen below.

 

https://ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/167/132

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365488325_Background_Field_Flow_Dynamics_of_the_Zero_Point_Field

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:21 AM, pantheory said:

 

 On such a planet such life would be subjected to extreme temperature conditions on the planet's surface

 

That is what i was thinking.   Thanks!