Is Einstein Untouchable?

daniko · Oct 6, 2005

For those that are interested in finding the UNMATERIAL, here is a tricky question: Is Information Material or it is Unmaterial ?!? My feeling is that the information has a special role in our Universe. 1) The long path of the evolution of Life on Earth resulted in appearance of creatures that are best in processing Information 2) The life has the ability to reverse the Entropy 3) Gathering and processing information is another way to fight Entropy 4) Gathering and processing information is way to predict the flow of time and fight the natural undeterminism of the future. What you think about it? Do Information has a special role? Is it possible that Processing Information we will find the way out of this "Relativity Restricted Material Universe" ...

jatslo · Oct 6, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sound waves can be manipulated, and light waves are waves, so light waves can be manipulated too.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sounds are generally audible to the human ear if their frequency (number of vibrations per second) lies between 20 and 20,000 vibrations per second, but the range varies considerably with the individual. Sound waves with frequencies less than those of audible waves are called subsonic; those with frequencies above the audible range are called ultrasonic. A wavy, horizontal line usually represents a sound wave graphically; the upper part of the wave (the crest) indicates a condensation and the lower part (the trough) indicates a rarefaction. This graph, however, is merely a representation and is not an actual picture of a wave. The length of a sound wave, or the wavelength, is measured as the distance from one point of greatest condensation to the next following it or from any point on one wave to the corresponding point on the next in a train of waves. The wavelength depends upon the velocity of sound in a given medium at a given temperature and upon the frequency of vibration. The wavelength of a sound can be determined by dividing the numerical value for the velocity of sound in the given medium at the given temperature by the frequency of vibration. For example, if the velocity of sound in air is 1,130 ft per second and the frequency of vibration is 256, then the wavelength is approximately 4.4 ft. The velocity of sound is not constant, however, for it varies in different media and in the same medium at different temperatures. For example, in air at 0°C. it is approximately 1,089 ft per second, but at 20°C. it is increased to about 1,130 ft per second, or an increase of about 2 ft per second for every centigrade degree rise in temperature. Sound travels more slowly in gases than in liquids, and more slowly in liquids than in solids. S</blockquote></blockquote>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 6, 2005

@vogon13: Traveling 160000LY in 50 years is too much for a journey. My calculation shows the speed should be at least .9999999c using relativity formula. Dont forget that 160000LY is measured from the earth and 25 years is the time measured in the spaceship. This may cause some confusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 6, 2005

@DanIKo: I have to plead ignorant on 'information' question, because I rarely gave serious thought on this topic, though I should have. My immediate thoughts are, a) Information is non-material b) But transmission of information or processing of information is material dependent. I understand your points (1) and (4), but would you elaborate your points (2) and (3)? Specially how does information affect entropy because my present thinking is entropy reversing is virtually impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

vogon13 · Oct 6, 2005

Relative to you stay at home, stick in the mud types. Relative to my a$$ in the drivers seat of the souped up Matador I have, as far as I am concerned, traveled at 3200C. And what a ride it was! As long as the windows were rolled up, I could even listen to the 8-track tape deck along the way. Everything is relative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

dmjspace · Oct 7, 2005

Did you know Einstein was an unabashed plagiarist? Time will surely show that Einstein's elevation to godlike status is unwarranted. Einstein himself would be embarrassed by how much stock we've put into his theories. Lorentian Relativity passes all the same tests Special Relativity does, except that LR does not require a speed limit on light. It also does not require the sci-fi of warped space-time. If LR is more accurate, it is at once more believable AND more exciting, at least for those of us who think superluminal speeds should not be a barrier to space travel.

bonzelite · Oct 7, 2005

matter interacts with space through plasma dynamics as well. probably far more so than with gravity.

Saiph · Oct 7, 2005

Well, sure, Lorentz contractions came first, and do explain what is seen as far as length contraction and time dilation. But Einstein was the one that derived them from the constant speed of light and put it into a larger framework that is relativity. I.e. he explained why they were valid. That's why we use Lorentz contractions when we deal with Einstein's Relativity. Warped space-time, btw, is from GR, which is a whole other can of worms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

daniko · Oct 7, 2005

As I understand it - Entrophy is a natural inclination of the matter ( and energy ) to spread randomly and chaotically. In the terms of the Information if the medium used to transfer information is filled with random and chaotic patterns it is described as "White Noise". The "White Noise" is equivalent to the absolute absence of Information. This leads to the conclusion that the natural inclination of the matter is to erase all kinds of information. The Life on the other hand is based on chemical structures that replicate themselves and evolve in time. It's simply a chemical way of handling the Information. That way Life acts opositely to the Entrophy. The next great step in the evolution of Life was made when the electrical handling of information appeared. It is the appearance of the Neuron cells. The advantage of electrical handlig of information is that it happens with less energy losses. Then humans discovered silicon chips ... Then humans discovered luminal information processing ... Every next step finds better ways of Information handling which are less energy consuming. This means that every next Information device creates more Anti Entrophy paying for it wit Less Entrophy (thermal losses 4 example). This line of thoughts make me feel that the Information is something not Natural for our Material Universe. Information is out of this world and may be it is the way out of it !

bonzelite · Oct 7, 2005

"Einstein had no qualms about abolishing the ether and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae meaningless without it; he was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory." if this has been posted a million times, please accept my apology: http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

bonepile · Oct 7, 2005

Most people who talk about relativity don't understand it, and that unfortunately includes myself. Here is the part that confuses me: From our point of reference, there is no way for us to speed up a clock. We can, however, slow one down by accelerating it to relativistic speeds, stopping it, accelerating it back to us, and then stopping it once again in our frame of reference for comparison. However, there do exist reference frames for which speeding up a clock IS possible. Here is an example of how to make one: 1) Accelerate two probes, A and B, away from us at 0.9c. A and B are now sharing a frame of reference from which speeding up a clock is possible. 2) Accelerate A back to our frame of reference (ie. stop it). 3) Accelerate B back to our frame of reference. 4) Let A and B compare clocks by measuring transit times of radio signals. For this experiment, we expect B < A < Earth clock. A's clock "speeds up" relative to B's clock as it returns to Earth's reference frame. This is a problem. The central tenet of relativity is that all frames of reference obey the same laws of physics and are indistinguishable. Any thoughts?

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

Yes, there is much left to understand. Great!<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />He did not abolish physical laws, but simply changed them to more accurately describe the universe than Newton's classical physics.<hr /></blockquote>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 8, 2005

This line of thoughts make me feel that the Information is something not Natural for our Material Universe. Information is out of this world and may be it is the way out of it ! I'm not sure if you are making something too big out of insignificant 'information'. Or information is something we should also invest some time into. I see two types of info, one kind of info for living things, and another kind for non-living materials. One atom attracts another atom to form a molecule. Here some info get buried into the new system. A living being extract this buried info and process it. Now are we talking here about the speed with which info can be processed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 8, 2005

@bonzelite: I read the article in the link you posted. I didn't read his book, so I dont know if Dingle presented detailed explanation against relativity. Because the article doesn't do a good job in refuting relativity. Like others, I also think Einstein's main contribution is general relativity, not special relativity. Any one who goes from Lorentz-Fitzerald contraction to special relativity will not think he has encountered anything significantly new. If it were not Einstein, some other physicist of early 1900s ( and there were some brilliant physicists at that time) would have seen the consequences of L-F contraction formula. Another thought I like to present, if we look at the physical world, there must be a limit to speed also, it cannot go on and on without a limit. Now the question is, is this limit c or 100c or 100...00c? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /><h1>E = m ( c v + c i ) 2</h1><blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Another thought I like to present, if we look at the physical world, there must be a limit to speed also, it cannot go on and on without a limit. Now the question is, is this limit c or 100c or 100...00c?<hr /></blockquote></blockquote>

kmarinas86 · Oct 9, 2005

X-rays are "invisible" so to speak.

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

Yes, your so smart. How did you know that?

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

A whole spectrum of colors too; can you see it?

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 9, 2005

Yes, of the entire electromagnetic spectrum (theoretically from 0nm to infinity wavelength) only a very very narrow band is visible to human eyes (around 400nm to 700nm wavelength). The rest of the electromagnetic waves remain invisible to our eyes. Now imagine how much info we are kept out of. jatslo, I still dont have any idea what you are using vi for? If you want to add a second velocity component, you have to associate another wavelength to the wave. Explain vi, what do you mean by invisible? What does it mean physically? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

It is complicated, but it works. I am going to need to draw an illustration I think. All matter is different, in that it reacts differently to velocity, and there doesn’t have to be matter for this formula to work either. I know how to get matter to 186,000 miles per second, and I can get light to bend around a corner without reflection and refraction. I am pretty excited!

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

daniko · Oct 12, 2005

About the Information - no I don't have a whole theory but some observations. Here is one: Where from the Information enters the Material Universe or how it appears ? I think that Information enters our four-dimentional Universe from the edge where Future becomes Past - the Present. The appearance of new Information is a change. In the past everything is justified and static. In the future everything is undetermined as comes out of the Quantum Physics. Is it possible that by controlling the Information it is possible to control the Happening ? Or simply the Information is by-product of the Happening ?

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 13, 2005

Where from the Information enters the Material Universe or how it appears ? I think that Information enters our four-dimentional Universe from the edge where Future becomes Past - the Present. I'm still not sure if your concept of 'info' is the same as mine. When you say info flows from past to future, it reminds me what we call 'state'. See the diagram below. &%$#@! &%$#@!="time.jpg" /> All past info (states) lead to future info (states). By states I mean positions and natures of all objects microscopic or macroscopic at one instant. As you can see from the picture, how can we define 'present' then? Present is not very well defined. If we go from past to future the way we think info is flowing, we have to quantize time. In my opinion it is the 'space' that is quantized. I think the reason special relativity is so hard to disprove is Einstein, knowingly or unknowingly, used time as 'changes'. And because of time or 'space' quantization, this 'change' has a limitation, which appeared as speed limitation c. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

lampblack · Oct 13, 2005

As one who brings to this topic all the authority and rights that go with being a one-time English literature major, I have to say the whole question of whether Einstein is untouchable strikes me as strange. The actual question ought to be: are Einstein's *ideas* untouchable. To which one must reply: of course not. Nobody's ideas are untouchable -- not even Einstein's. Then the question becomes: what must one do -- and who must one be -- to touch Einstein's ideas? Many years of graduate and post-graduate work in extremely high-level mathematics and/or theoretical physics would have to be assumed. One must also assume a quirky and creative temperament -- the sort of person who will look at a cat and ask the question, 'why doesn't this creature bark at me?' One who would touch Einstein's ideas would not simply *assume* the meow, but would seek to more thoroughly understand the *why* behind the missing bark. Yes, Einstein's ideas might be touched. But to touch them (or even get anywhere close to touching them), you'll have to build a mile-high step ladder singlehandedly. Then you'll need to be prepared to dance your way up the step ladder (just climbing won't do) -- and be ready to step out onto thin air every now and again, assuming (correctly, as it turns out) that something will be there to support you (even though it looks for all the world like open air). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 14, 2005

HAHAHA Yes, I intentionally used the phrase 'Is Einstein Untouchable' instead of his 'ideas', to give a dramatic flavor to the thread. And everyone here knows I'm talking about touching Einstein's ideas and him physically. I'm not good at writing English, writing technical papers doesn't make anyone good in English, but I know a bit how to use English language to grab attention. Anyway, who can touch Einstein's ideas? Here is my thought. You know every religion has a prediction that someone will be born in the future and he'll unite the world? Second comming of Jesus, and the Moslems have a similar figure. I think in the future an extremely genius person will be born, a super mathematician, a super scientist. He'll look at the scientific world in a different way, he will develop a new type of math which will make every scientific explanation extremely simple. Scientific math currently is in extremely bad shape. His new approach will dump many old theories and enhance many existing theories. Too bad none of us here will be alive that time. How is that for a prediction? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

Is Einstein Untouchable?

daniko

Guest

jatslo

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

vogon13

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

daniko

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonepile

Guest

jatslo

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

daniko

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

lampblack

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page