Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 23 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 25 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
i just saw this question on a discussion page, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, where did it came from?
very long and totally unreadable list of incomprehensible questions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How hydrogen Absolute zero superfluidity react to Neutrino? neutrino travel near speed of light if accelerated infinitly increase in mass? could massive neutrino webs be used to gather their particals for energy? fold space superfluidity of anti matter (?dark matter)? graviton of gravity yet has force to pull photons without mass itself emitted powerful gamma ray jets? do gamma ray column ever are parallel with another jet and collide? would this travel faster then light? the universe is curved were is its centre and does it have a gamma ray jet? are there super symetrical forces surrounding the universe one universe being symetrical to the next and particale infintly symetrical in mass interger or fractal, both ? or nothing beyond its perameter and finite? do all objects in the universe travel at one constent relative to the big bang as other mass moves or are all things static, relative to other moving objects? is time a mesurement of one thought to the next and it is humans inability to use sensury perseption to notice? Is there 5 or 11 dimention then would it be possible for any number of dimentions to exist. If all things are made of two dimentional particals they can make up anything could a single string be a unverce, a person, a star and if a human brain are made up of the universe is that why we have imagination, then all we think, imagine exists as some string, would this be a fact if energy can not be destroied or created changed or redirected does that apply to all particals? Before a chemical reaction between two particals occurs it is not a molacule itself or the other what is it does it exist as anything? If there is zero its angle would be nothing; does nothing exist? Regardless of any mathematical equation; explanation, metaphysical, religeus ,quantum. the expressions are diffrent yet it seems that their solution to the system is an assignment of values to all the unknowns so that all of the equations are real, conclutions the same; is their a formula for all that we concieve becomes reality? Even if it contradics physics with diffrent formulas of the orgin of reality; is there abstract formula were our law of physics do not function the same values and particals do not have the same properties? Is reality just a matter of perception? If physiologicly we are made of strings and have imagination would that mean that our thoughts, dream could become what is considered sensery perception reality,(like miricals)? Do we exist on some level of a reverberating string like dimention where anything probable or not all happen simutaniosly ? It just our sences absolute threshold to notice what is around us and do we ignore this human potential and just mirror quantitivly, qualitivly? without the ability to imagine would we ever evolve, one nerve net react to stimuli of simple life? Similar to boson gauge? Is it nerves ,brain imagined the next step reacted evolved by ingesting a amino acid and replicated itself adapting one gene at a time why we evolve? To understand that this is all placed in thought; the entire universe, trilions or infinate (for every string in the brain) and each mind of every person as though we all share one? Would naturaly we evolve with our imagination to create miricale? no longer phenominon being made entirerly of strings a part of many facts that build reality? If knowlege is built on knowledge, based on more resent finding of quantum physics these formulas ancient; human know this as a fact? Being so why hide reality from the world considering there are more pros then cons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.211.175 ( talk) 01:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Okay, maybe it's best if I just came out and asked about what I'm specifically looking for. I'm writing a story where I've got a stream of near-light-speed positrons being used as a weapon. I'm trying to come up with some kind of defense against said weapon. Thus far, thanks to the previous question I asked, I've got the following possibilities:
Does anything I just mentioned have any bearing whatsoever on reality? Am I at least close to something scientifically plausible? If not, could you guide me in a better direction?
Thank you very much for your time. -- Brasswatchman ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It is useful to know the radius of the circle on which a positron will move in a (homogeneous) magnetic field. The formula is
where p is the momentum of the positron, e is the charge of the positron and B is the magnetic flux density. In the low-speed limit the momentum is just the product of mass and velocity, but for speeds close to the speed of light (denoted by c) you need the relativistic formula:
Expressing the momentum in another way, in terms of kinetic energy (E) instead of speed:
For the highest values of B that are currently technically possible, see Electromagnet#High field electromagnets
Icek ( talk) 14:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
An electromagnetic field would be your best bet. But like what someone else said, if their energy is too high, they will come through. Just posit an immensely powerful electromagnetic field. ScienceApe ( talk) 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So far I don't see enough scientific context in the question to be able to answer it. How near light speed are you talking about? The difference between 0.99c and 0.999c is greater than the difference between 0 and 0.9c. It makes all the difference in the world how much energy the particles actually have. Secondly, unless you are using this "weapon" in a near vacuum, then the whole notion of them being positrons is moot. In the presence of air (or anything else) low-energy positrons annihilate into gamma rays, while high-energy positrons will scatter into showers of secondary particles. Either way, the only place you'd have a pure positron beam is in a vacuum. Hence it matters what environment the beam travels through in order to determine what kind of shielding is actually necessary. At the moment it just sounds like a very contrived plot device. If your weapon is going to be pseudo-scientific, then I'm not sure why you are looking for a scientific defense. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The UARS satellite should have reentered, but there is no update, more than one orbit past the re-entry time NASA picked as most probable, plus or minus a few hours.. Does NASA, or the various world powers, have radar to actually track a satellite, or do they wait for reports from amateur astronomers, commercial airline pilots, commercial shipping, Inuits, or African villagers who might have seen or heard something? The US and the other world powers are supposed to have the capability to track things in space in real time, to detect nuclear attacks, for instance. Edison ( talk) 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there any plants that have recruited bacteria or single cell animals to patrol themselves as a natural part of their existence?
Was Einstein wrong in claiming that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? -- DinoXYZ ( talk) 08:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Today we can make direct images of exoplanets, but with really poor quality. Its extremely complicated, I understand.
Can we make hight quality image of exoplanet with current technology? Is it possible?
What we need for 100х100 pixel image of the nearest exoplanet? Really big telescope? How big?
sorry for my English -- Ewigekrieg ( talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
To aid a rename request what is this specifcally? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Is TIME just an idea, or does it really exist? how do you prove its existence? does this question make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time is, at root, simply change. Every time you speak a sentence that uses a verb, you presuppose the existence of change -- so this is really a self-answering question: the act of asking it implicitly answers it. Looie496 ( talk) 15:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time... time is a magazine.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time as a pointer, singling out the present moment as being real, doesn't exist, see e.g. here. Also, simply from the fact that information is conserved, it follows that the distant past and the future exist on an equal footing as the present moment. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The OP got it right when he asked "Does this question make sense?" Such fundamental concepts as time are so necessary to thought that they are in effect axiomatic--they cannot be denied without implicitly being used in the very denial. For example, what would it mean to say "Elbert Ainstein has proven that time does not exist" or that the OP is waiting for us to answer his question? Another problem that may be lurking here is materialism, the belief that to exist is to be matter. That is a subtle misconception that lurks in our culture. The notion is, roughly, that everything is made of atoms, and therefore, since things like time or thought are not made of atoms they are not really real, just illusions, or so forth. (The obvious problem here is that it implies that illusions exist, which contradicts the premise that all things are only atoms. If you find it hard to believe that all things are not atoms, ask yourself if shadows are real, and if so, what is their molecular mass.) The correct way to analyze time is to see that while it is not an entity, (like a book or a body, or an atom, or a galaxy) and it is not an attribute, (like soft, or pink, or sticky) it is a relationship. Time in the concrete experiential sense is the relationship of before and after and so forth, just as size is the relationship of bigger or smaller than and direction is comprized of the relations nearness and being between and so forth. Time in the sense of "all of time and space" is simply the grand matrix of all the before and after relationships of all entities and the changes which they undergo. Indeed, time is relative, and without change or the entities which undergo change there would be no time. The Newtonian notion of absolute time is ultimately a confusion.
DEFINE TIME if you wanna get a result from that discussion...-- Irrational number ( talk) 15:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats the problem, i cant even define time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen#Neoteny
"Ashley Montagu noted that Bushmen have the following neotenous traits relative to Caucasoids: "large brain", light skin pigment, less hairy, round-headed, bulging forehead, small cranial sinuses, flat roof of the nose, small face, small mastoid processes, wide eye separation, median eye fold, short stature and horizontal penis"
What exactly is a horizontal penis? ScienceApe ( talk) 15:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
whats the official army acu glove for cold weather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.221 ( talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
"You take in more toxic chemicals from drinking one cup of coffee or smoking one cigarette than you do from eating unwashed fruit every day for a year".
True or false? It's a line that I've heard people quoting when it comes to people who are concerned that shop-bought fruit is covered in large amounts of highly-toxic (poss. carcinogenic) pesticide residue - as one of those 'well, smart people know that...' things, though I'm not sure where it comes from... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 17:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
is there any effort, outside religion, that is fully documented to prove God's existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 18:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah, im asking if there is a fully documented effort to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, im not asking if there is a fully documented proof of god, but if there is a documented effort to prove god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, there is an anthropic factor at work here:
So, the fact that we are neither machines nor part of a galactic civilization is consistent with anthropic reasoning. Perhaps anthropic reasoning can also explain why we aren't very rational beings. Most people still hold on to religious believes that are incompatible with (modern) science. Perhaps there is an anthropic factor that at work here. Scientific progress has been hindered by religion over the centuries. Perhaps civilizations consisting of more rational beings evolve faster than us and transform to machines in less generations than we will do. The total number of individuals that will ever have lived in our backward civilization may be much larger than in rational civilizations
Count Iblis ( talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is an interesting answer for you, which would be a yes to your question. Given that Christians consider Jesus the moshiach, the Son of God and God himself, then the fact that archaeologists do actively search for evidence that Jesus Christ did exist (to my knowledge we still don't have concrete contemporary evidence) would mean that there is a serious and scientific effort to prove the existence of God (in one way). Then again, most of the archaeologists doing this are ike myself anyway, so we don't really believe he's God anyway (or the moshiach except for these guys (who are Christians anyway)). ;) You can find it all published in Hershel Shenks's sensational Biblical Archaeology Review. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 06:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Frank Tipler is an example of a (once?) reputable scientist giving a scientific approach to God. Say what you will about his work (I'm unconvinced, to put it mildly), but it is absolutely "a fully documented effort to prove" God's existence using science. I'm sure he's not the only one, but maybe the most successful and visible contemporary one. Staecker ( talk) 12:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by a fully documented effort but I assume you mean an effort that is done for others in the first place. I know of one effort that was done mainly for the author's satisfaction of disproving a counter claim the author chose to share with others. -- DeeperQA ( talk) 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if I have a narrow tube or pipe down which I want to force air, at a pressure of 0.5psi, say, but that it is in a rather awkward to get to place, then I think through all the options and somehow come to the conclusion that the best way to proceed is to build my own battery powered pump to move the air through, then, how small could such a thing actually be built? What component parts would it need to be made from, I assume there is some limit to the sizes at which they would be able still to work up to that pressure, anyone give some sort of rough estimate here?
148.197.81.179 ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So how would this microscopic thing actually work, though, would it need some particularly expensive materials to stop such a small thing breaking under the pressure perhaps? What about getting enough power to the mechanism itself? Would the tools to build it be hard to get hold of?
Or if you insist, how about this then, how small would be possible just using things that someone or some people could easily go out and buy and put together? Could people with enough knowledge, somewhere to work and not a huge amount of money build one that could fit through a hole perhaps say 10mm wide? What about 5? 148.197.81.179 ( talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 23 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 25 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
i just saw this question on a discussion page, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, where did it came from?
very long and totally unreadable list of incomprehensible questions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How hydrogen Absolute zero superfluidity react to Neutrino? neutrino travel near speed of light if accelerated infinitly increase in mass? could massive neutrino webs be used to gather their particals for energy? fold space superfluidity of anti matter (?dark matter)? graviton of gravity yet has force to pull photons without mass itself emitted powerful gamma ray jets? do gamma ray column ever are parallel with another jet and collide? would this travel faster then light? the universe is curved were is its centre and does it have a gamma ray jet? are there super symetrical forces surrounding the universe one universe being symetrical to the next and particale infintly symetrical in mass interger or fractal, both ? or nothing beyond its perameter and finite? do all objects in the universe travel at one constent relative to the big bang as other mass moves or are all things static, relative to other moving objects? is time a mesurement of one thought to the next and it is humans inability to use sensury perseption to notice? Is there 5 or 11 dimention then would it be possible for any number of dimentions to exist. If all things are made of two dimentional particals they can make up anything could a single string be a unverce, a person, a star and if a human brain are made up of the universe is that why we have imagination, then all we think, imagine exists as some string, would this be a fact if energy can not be destroied or created changed or redirected does that apply to all particals? Before a chemical reaction between two particals occurs it is not a molacule itself or the other what is it does it exist as anything? If there is zero its angle would be nothing; does nothing exist? Regardless of any mathematical equation; explanation, metaphysical, religeus ,quantum. the expressions are diffrent yet it seems that their solution to the system is an assignment of values to all the unknowns so that all of the equations are real, conclutions the same; is their a formula for all that we concieve becomes reality? Even if it contradics physics with diffrent formulas of the orgin of reality; is there abstract formula were our law of physics do not function the same values and particals do not have the same properties? Is reality just a matter of perception? If physiologicly we are made of strings and have imagination would that mean that our thoughts, dream could become what is considered sensery perception reality,(like miricals)? Do we exist on some level of a reverberating string like dimention where anything probable or not all happen simutaniosly ? It just our sences absolute threshold to notice what is around us and do we ignore this human potential and just mirror quantitivly, qualitivly? without the ability to imagine would we ever evolve, one nerve net react to stimuli of simple life? Similar to boson gauge? Is it nerves ,brain imagined the next step reacted evolved by ingesting a amino acid and replicated itself adapting one gene at a time why we evolve? To understand that this is all placed in thought; the entire universe, trilions or infinate (for every string in the brain) and each mind of every person as though we all share one? Would naturaly we evolve with our imagination to create miricale? no longer phenominon being made entirerly of strings a part of many facts that build reality? If knowlege is built on knowledge, based on more resent finding of quantum physics these formulas ancient; human know this as a fact? Being so why hide reality from the world considering there are more pros then cons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.211.175 ( talk) 01:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Okay, maybe it's best if I just came out and asked about what I'm specifically looking for. I'm writing a story where I've got a stream of near-light-speed positrons being used as a weapon. I'm trying to come up with some kind of defense against said weapon. Thus far, thanks to the previous question I asked, I've got the following possibilities:
Does anything I just mentioned have any bearing whatsoever on reality? Am I at least close to something scientifically plausible? If not, could you guide me in a better direction?
Thank you very much for your time. -- Brasswatchman ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It is useful to know the radius of the circle on which a positron will move in a (homogeneous) magnetic field. The formula is
where p is the momentum of the positron, e is the charge of the positron and B is the magnetic flux density. In the low-speed limit the momentum is just the product of mass and velocity, but for speeds close to the speed of light (denoted by c) you need the relativistic formula:
Expressing the momentum in another way, in terms of kinetic energy (E) instead of speed:
For the highest values of B that are currently technically possible, see Electromagnet#High field electromagnets
Icek ( talk) 14:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
An electromagnetic field would be your best bet. But like what someone else said, if their energy is too high, they will come through. Just posit an immensely powerful electromagnetic field. ScienceApe ( talk) 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So far I don't see enough scientific context in the question to be able to answer it. How near light speed are you talking about? The difference between 0.99c and 0.999c is greater than the difference between 0 and 0.9c. It makes all the difference in the world how much energy the particles actually have. Secondly, unless you are using this "weapon" in a near vacuum, then the whole notion of them being positrons is moot. In the presence of air (or anything else) low-energy positrons annihilate into gamma rays, while high-energy positrons will scatter into showers of secondary particles. Either way, the only place you'd have a pure positron beam is in a vacuum. Hence it matters what environment the beam travels through in order to determine what kind of shielding is actually necessary. At the moment it just sounds like a very contrived plot device. If your weapon is going to be pseudo-scientific, then I'm not sure why you are looking for a scientific defense. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The UARS satellite should have reentered, but there is no update, more than one orbit past the re-entry time NASA picked as most probable, plus or minus a few hours.. Does NASA, or the various world powers, have radar to actually track a satellite, or do they wait for reports from amateur astronomers, commercial airline pilots, commercial shipping, Inuits, or African villagers who might have seen or heard something? The US and the other world powers are supposed to have the capability to track things in space in real time, to detect nuclear attacks, for instance. Edison ( talk) 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there any plants that have recruited bacteria or single cell animals to patrol themselves as a natural part of their existence?
Was Einstein wrong in claiming that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? -- DinoXYZ ( talk) 08:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Today we can make direct images of exoplanets, but with really poor quality. Its extremely complicated, I understand.
Can we make hight quality image of exoplanet with current technology? Is it possible?
What we need for 100х100 pixel image of the nearest exoplanet? Really big telescope? How big?
sorry for my English -- Ewigekrieg ( talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
To aid a rename request what is this specifcally? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Is TIME just an idea, or does it really exist? how do you prove its existence? does this question make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time is, at root, simply change. Every time you speak a sentence that uses a verb, you presuppose the existence of change -- so this is really a self-answering question: the act of asking it implicitly answers it. Looie496 ( talk) 15:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time... time is a magazine.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Time as a pointer, singling out the present moment as being real, doesn't exist, see e.g. here. Also, simply from the fact that information is conserved, it follows that the distant past and the future exist on an equal footing as the present moment. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The OP got it right when he asked "Does this question make sense?" Such fundamental concepts as time are so necessary to thought that they are in effect axiomatic--they cannot be denied without implicitly being used in the very denial. For example, what would it mean to say "Elbert Ainstein has proven that time does not exist" or that the OP is waiting for us to answer his question? Another problem that may be lurking here is materialism, the belief that to exist is to be matter. That is a subtle misconception that lurks in our culture. The notion is, roughly, that everything is made of atoms, and therefore, since things like time or thought are not made of atoms they are not really real, just illusions, or so forth. (The obvious problem here is that it implies that illusions exist, which contradicts the premise that all things are only atoms. If you find it hard to believe that all things are not atoms, ask yourself if shadows are real, and if so, what is their molecular mass.) The correct way to analyze time is to see that while it is not an entity, (like a book or a body, or an atom, or a galaxy) and it is not an attribute, (like soft, or pink, or sticky) it is a relationship. Time in the concrete experiential sense is the relationship of before and after and so forth, just as size is the relationship of bigger or smaller than and direction is comprized of the relations nearness and being between and so forth. Time in the sense of "all of time and space" is simply the grand matrix of all the before and after relationships of all entities and the changes which they undergo. Indeed, time is relative, and without change or the entities which undergo change there would be no time. The Newtonian notion of absolute time is ultimately a confusion.
DEFINE TIME if you wanna get a result from that discussion...-- Irrational number ( talk) 15:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats the problem, i cant even define time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen#Neoteny
"Ashley Montagu noted that Bushmen have the following neotenous traits relative to Caucasoids: "large brain", light skin pigment, less hairy, round-headed, bulging forehead, small cranial sinuses, flat roof of the nose, small face, small mastoid processes, wide eye separation, median eye fold, short stature and horizontal penis"
What exactly is a horizontal penis? ScienceApe ( talk) 15:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
whats the official army acu glove for cold weather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.221 ( talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
"You take in more toxic chemicals from drinking one cup of coffee or smoking one cigarette than you do from eating unwashed fruit every day for a year".
True or false? It's a line that I've heard people quoting when it comes to people who are concerned that shop-bought fruit is covered in large amounts of highly-toxic (poss. carcinogenic) pesticide residue - as one of those 'well, smart people know that...' things, though I'm not sure where it comes from... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 17:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
is there any effort, outside religion, that is fully documented to prove God's existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 ( talk) 18:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah, im asking if there is a fully documented effort to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, im not asking if there is a fully documented proof of god, but if there is a documented effort to prove god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, there is an anthropic factor at work here:
So, the fact that we are neither machines nor part of a galactic civilization is consistent with anthropic reasoning. Perhaps anthropic reasoning can also explain why we aren't very rational beings. Most people still hold on to religious believes that are incompatible with (modern) science. Perhaps there is an anthropic factor that at work here. Scientific progress has been hindered by religion over the centuries. Perhaps civilizations consisting of more rational beings evolve faster than us and transform to machines in less generations than we will do. The total number of individuals that will ever have lived in our backward civilization may be much larger than in rational civilizations
Count Iblis ( talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is an interesting answer for you, which would be a yes to your question. Given that Christians consider Jesus the moshiach, the Son of God and God himself, then the fact that archaeologists do actively search for evidence that Jesus Christ did exist (to my knowledge we still don't have concrete contemporary evidence) would mean that there is a serious and scientific effort to prove the existence of God (in one way). Then again, most of the archaeologists doing this are ike myself anyway, so we don't really believe he's God anyway (or the moshiach except for these guys (who are Christians anyway)). ;) You can find it all published in Hershel Shenks's sensational Biblical Archaeology Review. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 06:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Frank Tipler is an example of a (once?) reputable scientist giving a scientific approach to God. Say what you will about his work (I'm unconvinced, to put it mildly), but it is absolutely "a fully documented effort to prove" God's existence using science. I'm sure he's not the only one, but maybe the most successful and visible contemporary one. Staecker ( talk) 12:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by a fully documented effort but I assume you mean an effort that is done for others in the first place. I know of one effort that was done mainly for the author's satisfaction of disproving a counter claim the author chose to share with others. -- DeeperQA ( talk) 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if I have a narrow tube or pipe down which I want to force air, at a pressure of 0.5psi, say, but that it is in a rather awkward to get to place, then I think through all the options and somehow come to the conclusion that the best way to proceed is to build my own battery powered pump to move the air through, then, how small could such a thing actually be built? What component parts would it need to be made from, I assume there is some limit to the sizes at which they would be able still to work up to that pressure, anyone give some sort of rough estimate here?
148.197.81.179 ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So how would this microscopic thing actually work, though, would it need some particularly expensive materials to stop such a small thing breaking under the pressure perhaps? What about getting enough power to the mechanism itself? Would the tools to build it be hard to get hold of?
Or if you insist, how about this then, how small would be possible just using things that someone or some people could easily go out and buy and put together? Could people with enough knowledge, somewhere to work and not a huge amount of money build one that could fit through a hole perhaps say 10mm wide? What about 5? 148.197.81.179 ( talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)