Well, they have no *rest* mass.It's a common source of confusion - check the Physics FAQ. Photons have mass "equivalence" by virtue of them having momentum. However, they have zero rest mass. The modern convention is to define the mass of a particle as its rest mass. Consequently, in modern parlance, the photon is massless. This, however, doesn't mean it isn't affected by gravity, or that its energy doesn't have a mass equivalence.
You make a good point. I think the best way is to use common sense for the most part. For example when the bible calls Satan the serpent and Jesus the lamb...well I don't really think that they are real animals. That's just a quick example but I think you know what I'm getting at.
It is expanding though, cluster galaxies have been observed moving away from each other. Whether or not we can grasp how or why this happens, it IS happening. We can say its impossible for the universe to expand into emptiness but who are we to actually speculate on what emptiness even is? "Dark Matter" plays a huge role in our universe, it seems to be a coagulant for visible matter to attatch itself to and so form stars and galaxies. What we cant see, we cant begin to understand for certain.
The difference is that the big bang theory emerged by examining evidence of change and then seeking, using mathematics - which requires no religious faith and works the same for everyone regardless of their beliefs - a logically consistent way to explain it - and continuing to examine new evidence and challenging the theory in light of it, and being prepared to discard the theory should contradictory evidence emerge - or if a simpler theory with greater explanatory power should emerge through logical thinking (for example, one theory does away with the need for an original cause altogether, building a mathematical basis in space-time curvature for the universe being its own cause.The theistic dogmatic approach, on the other hand, is to invent a hand-wave to explain away everything "goddidit", avoid examining the evidence, ignoring contradictory evidence, and explaining away all new evidence by saying that "godfooledusintothinkingthat".They are entirely different approaches to gaining knowledge about the universe. Thousands of years of religion failed to yield a fraction of the advances in understanding that a few hundred years of critical thinking has accomplished, and the proof is empirically available all around us. You and I would not be alive today if we still relied on faith to cure disease, increase food production, provide sanitation and safe water, etc - and we certainly would not be communicating using technology that exploits particles invisible to the naked eye - the same underlying technology that has allowed us to gain such an understanding of the history of the universe, and to peer backwards in time over tremendous distances all the way to mere fractions of a second after the universe came in to being in its current state.A theist's response to not understanding something is to ask a priest for "the" answer, and never question it again. A scientist's response to not understanding something is to think for themselves, design experiments, test results, and follow the evidence.
dopplerdogFeb 11, 2008
Well, they have no *rest* mass.It's a common source of confusion - check the Physics FAQ. Photons have mass "equivalence" by virtue of them having momentum. However, they have zero rest mass. The modern convention is to define the mass of a particle as its rest mass. Consequently, in modern parlance, the photon is massless. This, however, doesn't mean it isn't affected by gravity, or that its energy doesn't have a mass equivalence.
chikoFeb 11, 2008
You make a good point. I think the best way is to use common sense for the most part. For example when the bible calls Satan the serpent and Jesus the lamb...well I don't really think that they are real animals. That's just a quick example but I think you know what I'm getting at.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2008
Wow.
vincentweberFeb 11, 2008
There is no spoon.
vincentweberFeb 11, 2008
You mean this? XD -> <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg</a>
totz83Feb 11, 2008
It is expanding though, cluster galaxies have been observed moving away from each other. Whether or not we can grasp how or why this happens, it IS happening. We can say its impossible for the universe to expand into emptiness but who are we to actually speculate on what emptiness even is? "Dark Matter" plays a huge role in our universe, it seems to be a coagulant for visible matter to attatch itself to and so form stars and galaxies. What we cant see, we cant begin to understand for certain.
eightballrjFeb 11, 2008
A knowledge and education in physics does not make YOUR point more pertinent. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive...
tshaarFeb 12, 2008
This is the effect in question, a caricature of space-time bent by gravity: <a class="user" href="http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5862/gravitybc3.png">http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5862/gravitybc3 ...</a>
rationalistFeb 13, 2008
The difference is that the big bang theory emerged by examining evidence of change and then seeking, using mathematics - which requires no religious faith and works the same for everyone regardless of their beliefs - a logically consistent way to explain it - and continuing to examine new evidence and challenging the theory in light of it, and being prepared to discard the theory should contradictory evidence emerge - or if a simpler theory with greater explanatory power should emerge through logical thinking (for example, one theory does away with the need for an original cause altogether, building a mathematical basis in space-time curvature for the universe being its own cause.The theistic dogmatic approach, on the other hand, is to invent a hand-wave to explain away everything "goddidit", avoid examining the evidence, ignoring contradictory evidence, and explaining away all new evidence by saying that "godfooledusintothinkingthat".They are entirely different approaches to gaining knowledge about the universe. Thousands of years of religion failed to yield a fraction of the advances in understanding that a few hundred years of critical thinking has accomplished, and the proof is empirically available all around us. You and I would not be alive today if we still relied on faith to cure disease, increase food production, provide sanitation and safe water, etc - and we certainly would not be communicating using technology that exploits particles invisible to the naked eye - the same underlying technology that has allowed us to gain such an understanding of the history of the universe, and to peer backwards in time over tremendous distances all the way to mere fractions of a second after the universe came in to being in its current state.A theist's response to not understanding something is to ask a priest for "the" answer, and never question it again. A scientist's response to not understanding something is to think for themselves, design experiments, test results, and follow the evidence.
vile20Feb 13, 2008
Wicked stuff!
theduck71Feb 16, 2008
Is it just me, or does that look like a blurry USS Voyager (NCC-74656) in the middle of that picture? I know its not..... but dang.