Why did the chruch decide to accept modern cosmology?
The Church gradually accepted modern cosmology as scientific evidence supported it and challenged the previous geocentric view. Pope Pius XII's 1951 encyclical recognized the compatibility of faith and reason, helping pave the way for the Church to embrace scientific advancements. The acknowledgment of modern cosmology also aligns with the Church's emphasis on seeking truth and understanding the natural world.
Where can a wormhole take you?
A wormhole, if you were to dive into it, can take you anywhere in space or time. So say the science-fiction delighters, who ignore the fact that you can't survive a leap into a wormhole. Wormholes are hypothetical, mathematically possible but unobserved and therefore hypothetical. If a wormhole were to take you back in time, it could only take you as far back as the age of the wormhole. A wormhole has two ends, an in and an out. Imagine the out end oscillating at the speed of light from the moment the wormhole forms. Time stops for that end of the wormhole relative to the in end which oscillates at a leisurely pace in this illustration. Imagine you leave the wormhole from its birth for a year and then leap into the in end. You would emerge from the out end a year into the past. Imagine leaving the wormhole for a century. You could jump in and emerge from the out end a century into the past. But you can't travel back to a time older than the wormhole.
How we calculate the ka from the original equation?
To calculate the acid dissociation constant (Ka) from the original equation, you can use the equilibrium expression that represents the dissociation of the acid and the concentrations of the products and reactants at equilibrium. Ka is equal to the concentration of the products divided by the concentration of the reactants at equilibrium. This value can provide information about the strength of the acid.
How far has the universe expanded since the big bang?
From data extracted
within our small portion of the observable universe, the conjecture is that the universe has been expanding about 13.7 billion years. The size of the observable universe is calculated upon the comoving
distance (or current proper cosmological distance) to particles from the CosmicMicrowave
Background Radiation (CMBR), which encompasses a fourth dimensional area with a diameter of about 28 billion parsecs (or about 93 billion light years). Therefore, presupposing a universal centricity, it can then be said that the observable universe has expanded about 14.3 billion parsecs (or about 46.6 billion light years).
Note: As the term "far" implies distance, this is an unknowable quantity for the actual universe at large. The actual universe has been evolving and expanding from the considered condition of a singularity toward an unfolding of the SpaceTime
continuum. The reality of our existence is based within a traditional fourth dimensional perspective of the observable universe, and it is unknown if this unfolding of the SpaceTime
continuum is farther along than we are able to perceive.
What percent of the Sun's energy intercepted by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds?
This Answer is as Variable, considering all of the varying Parameters, as it is Crucial to Our Tenuous Situation. This percentage, as Critical as it is, in not predictable as the Output of Solar radiation is as unknowable as the powerful Incidence of detrimental Cosmic Rays.
Is matter from the big bang still moving?
Yes, matter from the Big Bang is still moving. The expansion of the universe that began with the Big Bang is still ongoing, causing galaxies and other structures to move away from each other. This movement is evidenced by the redshift observed in the light from distant objects.
Are planet names becoming a joke with txt talk?
Some people might use text talk or abbreviations when referring to planets informally, but planet names remain scientifically accurate and standardized. It's important to maintain the integrity of planet names in educational and professional settings to avoid confusion and miscommunication.
Why is Jupiter not a star when its made up the same elements as a star?
Well, what if you take a SCUBA tank or a big balloon, and first you pump in
a bunch of hydrogen, and then you go ahead and pump in about 10 or 20
percent more gas but the second time you make it helium. Now you have
a mixture of gases inside the tank or the balloon that's made of the same
elements in the same proportions as a star, but I'm willing to bet that the
tank will not suddenly erupt in spontaneous nuclear fusion with emissions
of heat, light, X-rays, and great flares, arches, and magnetic storms.
There's not enough pressure and temperature inside the balloon to ignite the
fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, with the conversion of mass into
energy.
And there never was inside Jupiter either.
How long after the big bang do scientist think it takes before the first star is born?
Larger stars (larger than our own sun) usually have relatively short lives, around 100 million years. That's because they tend to have more hydrogen to burn, expand much faster, and go through their supply in less time. As opposed our sun with a predicted life span of about 9 billion years.
What was the reaction to the Big Bang Theory when it was announced?
When Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre first presented the concept of an expanding universe in 1927, very few scientists even read the article -- it was in fairly obscure journal. Not until Arthur Eddington, in 1930, translated LeMaitre's work did other cosmologists take note -- and a lot of the response was derisive. LeMaitre quoted Einstein as saying, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable."
When LeMaitre explicitly stated that our Universe once had (his words) "a day with no yesterday," most scientists rejected the idea, preferring the Steady State Model.
When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1964, Big Bang Cosmology was accepted by the vast majority of scientists. As more and more of its predictions were found to perfectlyl match observations, the steady state model went further and further to the fringes, and is now considered almost pseudo-science.
Can phase velocity exceed the speed of light?
Yes, phase velocity can exceed the speed of light in certain mediums. This is known as superluminal phase velocity. However, this does not violate the principle of causality or the speed of light in vacuum as it is the group velocity, rather than the phase velocity, that carries the information in a wave.
What happened 3 mintues after the big bang?
Three minutes after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled down enough for protons and neutrons to begin combining to form the first atomic nuclei, a process known as nucleosynthesis. This marks the beginning of the era of light nuclei formation in the early universe.
Why scientist are responsible for big bang theory?
Actually is it not just scientists who are responsible for the Big Bang Theory. In fact it was a non-secular theologian who is credited with fathering the theory of the Big Bang; i.e. the current consensus for our inflationary theory of the universe.
The Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre was, in 1927, the first to mathematically detail a cosmological study now known as the Big Bang.
The consensus for modeling cosmology was agreed upon based on the work of four scientists: Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson, and Arthur Geoffrey Walker. Occasionally referred to as the FLRW, FRW, FL, or RW (e.g., a complete or partial combination of their last initials) Universe, it presents a metric used to explain Einstein's field equation of general relativity and thus became the foundation for the currently understood version of the standard 'Big Bang Theory'.
How does a hurricane featuring in a rubbish heap blow around and gather all the rubbish particles into an aeroplane? The chances are astronomical against! That is my effort at 'quoting' (it isn't exact - word for word - but the idea is there) a similar argument, one mentioned by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The watch-in-a-bag reminds me of Paley's 19th century watch lying around waiting to be discovered and used to back an argument from design. The ideas above focus on a creationistic attitude to biological evolution. The question asked about a cosmological likelihood and I want to emphasise the distinction between cosmology and biology - that the theory of evolution is biology, not cosmology. I defend my insertion of the above in that anti-evolution design arguments like Paley's watch play with probability as does the watch-in-a-bag. What are the chances of a watch without a designer? What are the chances of life without a designer? What on Earth are the chances of the Universe without a designer? It must also be stressed that probability is (probably) a very tricky point to argue.
Life changes by chance mutation that is acted upon by non-random selection. That does away with the aeroplane and Paley's watch. What of the Universe?
At each point of biological evolution, the situation has to be at point x for selection to act. There has to be something to act on. There has to be matter. There was no matter at he time t = 0, the point of the big bang and thus it doesn't matter what state particles were in at the point of the big bang. What particles? There weren't any particles until after the big bang, the initial expansion of space-time. Thus the watch-in-a-bag argument is backwards. If you shake all the particles in the Universe up after the big bang, what has that got to do with the chances of the big bang? You have to shake everything up before the big bang to affect its chances of happening. Which is impossible of course, as t = 0 at the point of the big bang. You can't prevent a car crash after it has happened and nor can you fail to have given birth moments after the doctor cries "It's a boy!".
Perhaps the creationist giving the argument thinks, by their argument, that they mean the difficulty of the Universe arranging itself into its marvellous atoms and magnificent galaxies and planets after the big bang was too difficult without a creative hand. Moments after the big bang, the Universe was boiling hot and a seething mass of particles and antiparticles. When the Universe coolled, atoms formed and electrons took up their space-filling arrangements around atoms. And since there were atoms, why not nebulae and then stars and galaxies. At this point, ask what the creationist knows of particles and the 4 forces of nature(gravity, the strong force, the weak force etc) anyway! It may be that no particle (due to interactions with other nearby particles) could have ever been in any other place other than where it actually was. There is a peculiar habit of electrons to fill up space, to move apart, to only fill an electron shell in a pattern of two electrons per orbital. This is called the Pauli exclusion principle. Matter spreads out and fills up space. Planets can thus form, taking up space. And stars are so hot that elements up to iron can be produced, and in supernovae and through radioactive decay, all elements can be formed. It appears quite a lot can happen all by itself without the need of a creator. And even things many creationists and scientists alike may take for granted - the fact that matter takes up space - can exist by quantum principles like Pauli exclusion.
It may be that there is an analogy of natural selection in the cosmos. All that exists, can exist. That which tries to exist but can't, doesn't. Atoms in a state all mixed up and unassembled like a shattered watch could not be in any better state moments after the big bang as it was too hot. Stars can only form without a narrow range of masses. There is no magic, only what can or cannot be. The best way forward for all (creationists included) is to study and learn.
The shaking of a broken watch does not disprove the big bang at point t = 0, nor shower doubt upon the post-big bang formation of atoms and stars and galaxies. Besides, the concept of 'fixing' itself is a bit naive. If it could, it would. If it couldn't, it wouldn't. The question also assumes that a 'fixed' watch is an ideal, that the random movement of particles immediately after the big bang was not ideal, not a Universe. At any point, consider this, what could be, may be and what could not be, would not be. So a watch is not fixed! So what? Whatever is 'fixed' should be perfectly explicable within the laws of physics and logic and this possibly analogy of natural selection.
How does the CMBR serve as evidence for the Big Bang theory?
Cosmic microwave background radiation is a thermal radiation which fills our universe uniformly. Before the formation of stars and planets when universe was young, it was much smaller and hotter and filled with uniform glow of hydrogen plasma but As the universe expand it grew Cooler and when universe is cool enough electrons and protons form neutral atom then these atom No longer absorb thermal radiation and universe become transparent instead of being opaque fog and thus this theory explain the evidences of big bang that it's really a phenomena that creates everything that you see
What are some examples of stars that have already turned into black holes?
Cygnus X-1; Sagittarius A*
Actually, any observed black hole can be assumed to have been a star at some moment; although in the case of the supermassive black holes, it is not quite clear how they formed.
Dark matter does not consist black holes, neutron stars, faint old white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, or any other object that we understand -- there simply isn't enough of these, even in total, to account for what's seen. In an typical, amusing choice for a scientific name, these are collectively called "MACHOs."
Dark matter has to consist of something we don't fully understand.
What does the uniformity of cosmic radiation imply about its source?
The uniformity of cosmic radiation suggests that it originates from sources that are distributed evenly throughout the universe. This could point to sources such as distant galaxies, black holes, or other cosmic phenomena that emit radiation in all directions with similar intensity.
What is 1 sigma and 2 sigma error in cosmology?
In cosmology, 1 sigma error represents a range of values that includes about 68% of possible outcomes, while 2 sigma error represents a range of values that includes about 95% of possible outcomes. These errors help quantify the uncertainty in measurements and observations in cosmological studies.
What happened 3800000000 years after the big bang?
Approximately 377,000 years after the end of inflation, the density and temperature of the proton / electron / photon "soup" had decreased to the point where, on the average, photons would no longer blast electrons from protons, when the former went into an orbital near the latter. When this happened, photons were de-coupled from the other two, and could then move freely throughout our Universe. Following that event, photons began to move from all parts of our Universe towards all other parts of the our Universe.
As the photons continued to move for the next 13.7 billion years or so, space continued to expand. Thus, the wavelengths of these photons grew. At this time in the history of our Universe, all such photons have had their wavelengths expand such that they are now all microwave photons. This why all parts of our Universe now experience an almost perfectly isotopic microwave background radiaion.
How many hours are in a day on a comet?
It all depends upon the rotation of the comet, as the length of a 'day' is determined by the rate of rotation and the position from which it is measured on the comet itself as well as the current position of the comet in relation to the nearest 'sun'. There is no simple answer.
Is the mysterious dark matter the fastest-moving material in the universe?
Dark matter does not move faster than the speed of light. It interacts gravitationally with other matter, affecting how galaxies rotate and clusters form, but it does not move on its own at superluminal speeds.
What physical law explains why a cloud heats up as it collapses?
The ideal gas law explains why a cloud heats up as it collapses. As the cloud shrinks in size, the volume decreases, causing an increase in pressure and temperature due to the conservation of energy. This process is known as adiabatic compression.
How do red shifts were used by cosmologists to determine that the universe is expanding?
A Galaxy's red-shift can be used to determine how fast it is travelling away from you. The opposite is "blue-shift" which is what happens when the Galaxy is travelling towards you.
The first astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to analyse the light coming from distant galaxies discovered that almost all of them were red-shifted, indicating that they were almost all heading away from us. This was the first indication that the universe was expanding.