Or.....

dreadmoc · Aug 25, 2007

So a large area of the Universe seems fairly empty (yawn). It's interesting how a blind man describes an elephant. Try this: Elcobar's 4 Truths 1. The Universe is infinite in size. A (Euclidean) ray starting from any point in the Universe, goes on forever in any direction. Matter is also infinite. Since the Universe is infinite and matter exists everywhere in the Universe, matter shares the claim of infinity. 2. Time is infinite. There was no beginning of time, and there will be no end to it. Time does not stop, speed up, or slow down. Time could also be a Universal Constant, since it is unaffected by physical events of any nature, but since itâ€™s measure must be performed by man made instruments, itâ€™s use as such is accordingly unreliable. 3. That event which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang was only a regular bang, and was one of the most common events in the Universe. There has probably never been a big bang, but there have been countless regular bangs since you began reading this sentence. Bangs may vary in size, intensity, type, and trigger, but they are all part of the method whereby the Universe converts matter into energy and vise-versa. 4. There are no parallel Universes. There is only one Universe and, being infinite, it is neither shrinking nor growing. It is merely involved in the ongoing process of redistributing matter and energy, as it always has, and always will. And for you Star Trek buffs, 3 more truths - 1. There is no such thing as a wormhole, warped or folded space. These ideas are simply figments of sci-fi writersâ€™ imagination that have unfortunately caught on with mainstream science, as possible methods of defeating FTL travel difficulties, which so far, cannot be otherwise reconciled. 2. Time travel is never going to be possible. Any theory that deals with the possibility of movement through time at any pace other than you are n

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

I see. So, without any justification or explanation you're going to throw out over one hundred years of scientific theory? So, let's address these four "truths" with some of the observations that run contrary to them, and have caused these same ideas to be discarded decades ago: 1) Olber's paradox. If the universe is infinite and eternal then any line of sight (your euclidean ray) originating from earth would eventually impinge upon a star. As such there should be no dark, uncovered spots in the sky at any time. If one runs through the math on such a setup, you end up with the sky having an apparent brightness of -26 magnitudes, or brighter than our sun. Since the night sky is indeed dark, how do you avoid this consequence of an "infinite" universe? Other points against it: The more distant a galaxy is from us, the younger it appears. In an infinite and eternal universe the age and complexity of a region should be randomly distributed. Also, all distant galaxies are observed to be receeding from us, which contradicts what should be a random velocity dispersion in an infinite and eternal universe. 2) Well...not entirely wrong here. Science makes no definitive claim as of yet if there is a beginning or ending to time. The big bang theory, coupled with general relativity can be used to support such a claim, but there's still contention on that aspect of the theories. The problem is: Time isn't constant, as demonstrated daily by the observed decay of particles in particle accelerators. Depending upon the speed of the particles, the observed half-life of their decay varies. They decay slower the faster the particle moves. The only successful explanation to date is the incorporation of time dilation into the equations. Time dilation and length contraction crop up everywhere. If they were false, many things we use today wouldn't work very well at all (For instance modern computers and <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>

vandivx · Aug 25, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1. There is no such thing as a wormhole, warped or folded space. These ideas are simply figments of sci-fi writersâ€™ imagination that have unfortunately caught on with mainstream science, as possible methods of defeating FTL travel difficulties, which so far, cannot be otherwise reconciled.<hr /></blockquote> I am only going to pick on this one right now it is precisely on the contrary, sci-fi writers got the idea of a 'wormhole, warped or folded space' from mainstream scientists - namely from one John Archibald Wheeler (not sure who were the others, I think Edwin F. Taylor was another) who was big fan of such things and these things even made their way into school textbooks, I personally did have it as textbook myself... and sci-fi writers got it from them, they would never have enough fantasy to think of it on their own, sci-fi writers always have very poor fantasy IMO otherwise you are right on the possibilities of time travel, I could sign that also with Saiph (@Saiph: I think when he talks about 'warped or folded space' he doesn't mean it includes bent space, at leas that's how I understood him, I think warped space means something else in star trek terminology but I could be wrong, never was a big follower of those series, ditto for 'folded space') welcome to these boards budding genius, I think you move in the right rebeling direction even if its not always beyong criticism, just work on it some more, lots more <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Aug 25, 2007

I tend agree with most of your speculative conclusions except one thing, there is no such thing as 'infinity'. Drop infinity from points (1) and (2), then they'd conform better with reality. Parallel universes as most people think of probably do not exist. But there is a possibility of an alternative reality of the universe. In other words, what we 'see' is not everything there are more to it. Your all comments on star trek reality are probably correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 25, 2007

I.. am Batman. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

science_man · Aug 25, 2007

1. The Universe is infinite in size. A (Euclidean) ray starting from any point in the Universe, goes on forever in any direction. Matter is also infinite. Since the Universe is infinite and matter exists everywhere in the Universe, matter shares the claim of infinity. The universe can be closed, saddle shaped, or open. You are saying the universe is open without any proof. 2. Time is infinite. There was no beginning of time, and there will be no end to it. Time does not stop, speed up, or slow down. Time could also be a Universal Constant, since it is unaffected by physical events of any nature, but since itâ€™s measure must be performed by man made instruments, itâ€™s use as such is accordingly unreliable. Einstein's general theory of relativity says that time is tangible. Time can be slowed down and "touched". 3. That event which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang was only a regular bang, and was one of the most common events in the Universe. There has probably never been a big bang, but there have been countless regular bangs since you began reading this sentence. Bangs may vary in size, intensity, type, and trigger, but they are all part of the method whereby the Universe converts matter into energy and vise-versa. OK. May be True 4. There are no parallel Universes. There is only one Universe and, being infinite, it is neither shrinking nor growing. It is merely involved in the ongoing process of redistributing matter and energy, as it always has, and always will. You are basically saying that there is no such thing as air because you cant see it... You are just saying things without any supporting evidence. 1. There is no such thing as a wormhole, warped or folded space. These ideas are simply figments of sci-fi writersâ€™ imagination that have unfortunately caught on with mainstream science, as possible methods of defeating FTL travel difficulties, which so far, cannot be otherwise

jaxtraw · Aug 25, 2007

"Time dilation and length contraction crop up everywhere. If they were false, many things we use today wouldn't work very well at all (For instance modern computers..." I'd be genuinely amazed to discover that SR applies inside my Windows box. What is moving at relativistic speeds within it?

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

SR and Quantum Mechanics are used in the design of microchips IIRC. Most of the impact SR makes is some general circuitry design dealing with communication time across the chip, and most of that's just acknowledgement of the light speed limit. So I should say modern PC's wouldn't work as well without considering it. <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>

jaxtraw · Aug 25, 2007

I don't see how it can apply at all. Calculating delays due to the speed of light isn't anything to do with time dilation. The actual electrons aren't moving anywhere near c, they crawl along. The fields theoretically propagate at c (rather less generally due to inductance and capacitance) but I don't believe there's any relevance to relativity in it. Time dilation in GR is due to gravity (not relevant here), in SR it's due to masses moving in inertial frames. Can't see what that has to do with it either. At high modern frequencies there are practicalities associated with propagation delays, yes, but taking into account the speed of light doesn't invoke relativity. It would be the same problem with "newtonian" light.

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

newtonian light is instantaneous, I usually lump a constant C in with SR. <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>

usn_skwerl · Aug 26, 2007

"beaming" or teleportation, has in fact been done. i learned about an experiment taking place while i was in the navy, ca. 1999 or 2000. they teleported a few atoms a very short distance. another experiment, though not done yet, could involve a "pan" with an object in it. for the sake of arguement, we'll say nitrogen. its broken down into its basic individual atoms, and the exact same number of atoms are placed in another pan a short distance away and then reassembled. in the process the original is obliterated, and that energy is used in part (it couldnt be 100% efficient) to create the "new" matter. lastly, quoting Wikipedia, Until recently, scientists had been able to transport only light or single atoms over short distances (millimeters). However, it was reported in October 2006 in the weekly science magazine "Nature" that Professor Eugene Polzik and his team at the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University in Denmark have made a breakthrough in the field. Their experiment involved the transportation of information from a weak light beam to a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms, located half a meter away. The technique involved the use of quantum entanglement, quantum measurement and quantum feedback <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Aug 26, 2007

Only place in computers where they use a little bit of SR is in the old CRT monitors, IIRC. The electron beam from electron gun hit the screen at a very high speed. They make relativistic corrections to the distance between electron gun and the screen because timing is important when drawing small letters on the screen. Though I wonder how much difference would that make. Now that CRT monitors are being replaced by LCD monitors, our computers will be totally SR free, not from quantum physics though. usn_skwerl: Most transportations done in the labs are on photons only. Think about the constituents of a proton or a neutron, which are still being debated. If they can transport one atom where destination previously had no atom, that'll open up a flood gate. If it is ever possible, it can only be done on non-living small objects. But before that we have to master the alchemy processes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

Kalstang · Aug 26, 2007

Hrmmm...another stevehw33? Ok genius, since you state these "truths" as fact let me welcome you to one of the rules here at the SDC. Show me Proof. Prove what your saying that all your "truths" are actually true. Otherwise please either retract or restate your claims. BTW, Welcome to the SDC! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> One bit of advice...Beware of Vogons!!!! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

jaxtraw · Aug 26, 2007

The speed of light was known long before Einstein... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Olaf Roemer first showed it in 1677 by observing Io. It took a couple of decades before it was generally accepted... nonetheless very much in the Newtonian era. Einstein could only formulate SR because c was already known...

weeman · Aug 26, 2007

Light speed varies, depending on the conditions in the area of the Universe the light is traveling through. It may well be that light slows to a crawl (or even stops, i.e. escaping a black holes), in some areas of the Universe, and may travel much faster in other areas (traveling into and/or near a black hole). First of all, light is not traveling any slower once inside a blackhole than it is when it is zipping through normal space. Light appears to get sucked into a blackhole, because once it enters, it must travel at a speed faster than itself to escape. This is because the escape velocity of a black hole is equal to the speed of light. Visualize this. When the space shuttle (or any other rocket for that matter) is taking off, it must travel at a speed that is faster than Earth's escape velocity to overcome Earth's gravity and reach orbit. Let's say, hypothetically, that in the middle of it's launch, the shuttle decreases its speed so that it exactly matches Earth's escape velocity. It would appear, to an observer on the ground, that the shuttle isn't going anywhere, not making any forward progress. However, the shuttle is still traveling at a fixed speed, and the "speedometers" would show that it is still moving at a high velocity. This is the same occurence that is happening inside a black hole. If you could hypothetically view a beam of light from inside the event horizon, you would see that it is still traveling at the speed of light, 300,000kps. It's just that it's traveling against a "stream" that is equal to it's speed, so it makes no forward progress. The idea that light is sucked into a black hole and is slowed to a stop, in my opinion, is a major misconception. Secondly, even if light gets too close to a black hole, it will never exceed its regular speed of 300,000kps/186,000mps. The fastest velocity that a black hole can obtain is within the event horizon, which is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

Saiph · Aug 26, 2007

however the framework behind why the speed of light was constant was done in einsteins era. Before that there was the problematic aether. I'm not saying SR was the first and foremost claimant of a constant C, only that it's now integrally intermingled (to me anyway). <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>

vandivx · Aug 27, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />however the framework behind why the speed of light was constant was done in einsteins era. Before that there was the problematic aether. I'm not saying SR was the first and foremost claimant of a constant C, only that it's now integrally intermingled (to me anyway).<hr /></blockquote> as I understand the history of physics and Einstein's relativity theory, there is no *framework* 'why the speed of light is constant' a framework implies some theoretical construct - a reason why something is so - but speed of light was accepted as a base for special relativity theory and it was admited that nobody knows why it is constant, just that it is constancy of speed of light puzzled physicists before 1905 and there were some theories made to account for it (to explain it - H. Lorentz's equations of length of objects changing depending on relative speed) but only Einstein's SR theory was viable one based on recognition that the speed of light is constant - for Einstein that was a postulate instead of a phenomenon that should be explained vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kelvinzero · Aug 27, 2007

My phyisics lecturer taught that Maxwell's equations predicted that light should have a constant speed, which raised the obvious question "with respect to what?". This is the reason people were searching for evidence of an aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation <hr /></blockquote>

h2ouniverse · Aug 27, 2007

Young (or very very old) DreadMoc, do you want "truths"? Try this: At leat one of these three assertions is true: 1) Space is an illusion 2) Time is an illusion 3) The universe is not a unique succession of causes and effects Pick up whichever is the least annoying for you (personnally I choose 1 and 2, because 3 is difficult to swallow). I am afraid you have to drop off some of your "truths", or explain to me, with real physics, why the multiple experiments that demonstrate this triple alternative are all false. The first experiments to evidence that were Alain Aspect's experiment in 1981 and 1982 in Orsay. The experiments have been conducted many times with many versions of the test device. Including Anton Zeilinger"s in 1998. Regards.

Saiph · Aug 27, 2007

I need to stop posting when I'm sleep deprived. As I've said, SR and C are things I lump together. I know C was held constant before einsteins work in 1905, I know that maxwell founded the idea of a self-propagating wave, I also know that the aether was still floating around until einsteins work and that Lorentz's work helped show why it wasn't needed. But this is all the history of SR and C, how one resulted in the other. You can't really talk about one without talking about the other. Anyway....bleh, I'm getting more sleep. I really need to stop waking up at 4am. <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>

dreadmoc · Aug 29, 2007

>Young (or very very old) DreadMoc, do you >want "truths"? Elcobar. Old, (but not very). />Try this: />At least one of these three assertions is true: />1) Space is an illusion />2) Time is an illusion />3) The universe is not a unique succession of causes >and effects I chose none of the above. None of them are particularly annoying, it's just that none of them make any sense. Sorry. Your just trying to sound more profound than you could ever be. (Poser). />I am afraid you have to drop off some of your "truths", >or explain to me, with real physics, .... I HAVE to do nothing of the sort. These ARE truths, whether you care to accept them or not is what YOU MAY do. Explain them with "real physics"? You should first define real physics, because so far no one has found a way to disprove my truths, other than quoting various "THEORIES", which are based on provably questionable math, that changes every few years, so please don't reference SR or GR when you challenge my truths. No one agrees on that crap anyway. And what's truly annoying is when those like you who are incapable of understanding try to disprove truth by referencing work they only vaguely comprehend, but have managed to sound resonably authoritative about. If you know so much, write the truth, as I did, and prove it with your own irrefutable work. Elcobar

jaxtraw · Aug 29, 2007

"please don't reference SR or GR when you challenge my truths. No one agrees on that crap anyway." Sorry, can't let that one past. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Firstly, while you may disagree with the above theories there are a very large number of physicists who do agree on that crap, so while that doesn't prove it's correct it does disprove your assertion as to how many people agree on it. Secondly, Relativity is a very successful theory which so far hasn't met a knock-down objection. SR in particular would be pretty easy to shoot down if it were wrong, because all one would need is one measurement of light not travelling at c. Nobody has done this yet.

dreadmoc · Aug 29, 2007

>First of all, light is not traveling any slower once inside a blackhole .... Your experience from travel within blackholes? />The idea that light is sucked into a black hole and is slowed to a stop, in my opinion, is a major misconception. Light doesn't get sucked into blackholes. The misconception is yours alone. Didn't mean to say that. />Secondly, even if light gets too close to a black hole, it will never exceed its regular speed of 300,000kps/186,000mps. The fastest velocity that a >black hole can obtain is within the event horizon, which is the speed of C. C is a very local constant. C is different in some other areas of the Universe. Use C when calculating trips to the moon, mars, and tours of the solar system. However, if your planning to go to Andromeda, you may miss your connecting flight.

dreadmoc · Aug 29, 2007

Thank you for the welcome. Your contention that I prove infinity is ridiculous. Infinity is a real concept that cannot be proved. I know this is like fingernails on a chalk board to all those scientific minds among you who cannot live with something that cannot be proved (like the existence of God), but face it - the concept is undeniable. Like zero. (Please, no "they're the same thing" bull&%$#@!) Elcobar

dreadmoc · Aug 29, 2007

Dissassembling an atom and reproducing it at an alternate location is hardly teleportation. In any case, I made no contention that it was impossible - just extremely impractical. Elcobar

Or.....

dreadmoc

Guest

Saiph

Guest

vandivx

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

science_man

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

Saiph

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

weeman

Guest

Saiph

Guest

vandivx

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

h2ouniverse

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dreadmoc

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

dreadmoc

Guest

dreadmoc

Guest

dreadmoc

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page