Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

G'day ramparts

If the papers are over peoples heads, I cannot help that.

But! if some one is interested in what ever topic , I will go out of my way.

Since I know that I know very little, I keep on reading and rereading and every time I do that I pick up another bit of information or application.

Harry, reading and rereading papers that invoke higher order mathematics is not going to teach you anything unless you first understand the concepts, symbols, and principals upon which the mathematical presentations are based. You might just as well spend your time perusing the score of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C Minor in the hope that by looking at the symbols you will somehow gain an understanding of what makes some combinations of sounds melodious and others discordant.

Reading words you don't understand and looking at equations that are meaningless to you will not teach you anything.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

I understand that.

But I think you are missunderstaning my intentions.

You feel that I do not understand the papers.

But! I have the understanding.

I'm looking for that person who also has some form of understanding with or without the maths attached. It does get a bit heavier, years gone by I went through this maths, so I have some idea.

The subject on compact matter and the ultimate compact matter that forms the so called black holes without a singularity.

Mean while I'm reading through the papers on Phase transition from Hadrons to Quark matter 2009. Understanding the subatomic matter states is quite interesting.

Large Hadron Collider CERN is going provide us with some interesting data.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day

Then you can do your own research and reading. The information is out there, we live in the modern ERA.

Such a simple issue as the Twin Paradox.

I do not ask for people to research for my benefit.

You can search on arXiv or ADS or what ever, it is for your own benefit.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0704.2736
Twin Paradox and Causality

That's an interesting paper, and it agrees with my understanding of the "paradox" of the twins, a paradox which does not actually exist except as a result of trying to take an absolute view of the relativity of simultaneity in a universe where space and time are not absolutes.

Of course, it in no way contradicts the mainstream view that time is relative. You do know that, don't you?

 

[MeteorWayne]

MOD HAT ON***

OK, harrycostas, we have had enough in this. In the future, you must spend some more effort. When you post a link, please explain exactly how it relates to the subject you are discussing. This starts with first stating precisely WHAT subject you are discussing in that particular post. Then, what the link has to do with it, and how it supports your assertion.

Failing to do that in any fora other than the Unexplained, will earn you an official warning.

You waste too much of everyones time posting unrelated links, and those which directly refute the point you are allegedly trying to make.

This will solve a number of problems. First, we will know what point you are trying to make.

Second, before we invest the time in reading a paper, we will know how it supports that SPECIFIC assertion.

Then we will take the time to read it and see if it indeed does so.

You have abused the scientific fora here at SDC with your "here's the link but not read and understood it" posts.

As I said, if you want to do that in The Unexplained, encorcement will be looser. But in the hard science fora, you WILL show how what you post relates to your point.

MOD HAT OFF***

Meteor Wayne

Fortunately of course, this post is indeed in The Unexplained, where we know it may be safely ignored, since many here don't know how to defend their idea. But even here, members are within their rights to ask that you suppport your ideas
with more you say that's what the links say.

Be warned, your activities are being monitored. SInce your behaviour is exhibited in a number of fora, I have also PM'd you with the instructions.

Ignore moderator instructions at your own peril.

 

[vividasday]

...have been considering yours and all points between pressure & force ....
Consider This - I am no scientist; though I believe there is a difference. Like a Volcano that erupts because there is a pressure that has been building and an outlet for the lava to flow - that in my opinion would be pressure. Force - IMO - would be like tectonic plates slammed together to form a new land....?

 

[ramparts]

The volcano erupts because there's all sorts of stuff exerting a force on an area, and we call that pressure (force divided by area)

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Viivid

Whats your point?

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day Viivid

Whats your point?

I think Viivid was asking what the difference between force and pressure is. Ramparts explained it very succinctly.

A more commonplace example would be the pressure gauge on a steam boiler. If the gauge reads 100 psi that means that there's 100 pounds of force being exerted on each square inch of surface area of the boiler that contains the steam (force divided by area). That's pressure. The force can be imagined as taking a one hundred pound weight and balancing it on a little one inch by one inch square patch of the boiler. That's how much force (push) each square inch of the boiler must withstand. In this case, of course, the one hundred pound weight is on the inside of the boiler, so it would be convenient if your boiler is fairly big and you don't mind dismantling it to try this out.

If you wanted to know how much force was contained by the steam boiler you'd have to multiply the pounds per square inch pressure contained in the boiler by the total outside surface area of the boiler (in square inches). Since most steam boilers tend to be rather large, they have a lot of square inches of surface area. Technically, you'd also want to know the volume of pressurized steam contained in the boiler to get the whole picture, but the simpler calculation will tell you that there's a lot of force inside that boiler.

Occasionally one of these things will explode. When they do, the amount of force they unleash creates quite a mess. Sort of like a bomb.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

I assumed as much. Knowing that.

What was his point in talking about it"

Why did he bring it up?

 

[csmyth3025]

G'day Chris

I assumed as much. Knowing that.

What was his point in talking about it"

Why did he bring it up?

Perhaps out of curiosity.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

That goes without saying.

It seems that he does not want to tell us.


===============

Sorry for being short, busy reading some interesting papers.

Then have to take the kids out.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speed freak

I posted a response to you before but reading the posts, it seems as though it must have gone into cyber space.

You said

Of course, it in no way contradicts the mainstream view that time is relative. You do know that, don't you?

Time is relative.

I agree, what is your point?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Time is relative.

I agree, what is your point?

ARRRRGH!!! You are making no sense!! This is the "thread" that I have been following. None of the following is out of context. Yevaud is talking about special relativity.

If one is going to grieve what has been rigorously experimentally confirmed multiple times, then one must have some solid basis for stating so and some alternative hypothesis. Otherwise, all that's being said and done is stating "I object."

G'day

If you think it has been proven then supply the proof.

Or we continue with the same.

I have seen this through out history.

With all due respect, Harry, that's not how the scientific method works; it's not how these forums work either. You're asking people to re-explain all of science for your benefit, because you have objections to it.

Ain't going to happen.

G'day

Then you can do your own research and reading. The information is out there, we live in the modern ERA.

Such a simple issue as the Twin Paradox.

I do not ask for people to research for my benefit.

You can search on arXiv or ADS or what ever, it is for your own benefit.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0704.2736
Twin Paradox and Causality

So.. what is YOUR point in posting that paper? It does not contradict anything that Yevaud said. It does not contradict any of the known experimental evidence for time dilation. Time dilation is experimentally verified, it has been proven.

Did you post it to show us time-dilation has been proven or has not been proven?

What are you asking? What are you trying to say? Do you even know, yourself?

We state that SR has been proven, you ask for the proof. You seem to think it has not been proven, judging by your responses, and then you post a link to a paper about time-dilation. What are we supposed to make of it?

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

This is why, when you are posting a link to a paper, you have to tell us why you are posting it and why you think it is relevant to the discussion.

So, we all agree that time-dilation has been proven to be real, do we?

Can we continue now, without questioning that time (and therefore, space) are relative, due to the constancy of c?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speed freek

I agreed that time is relative but I did not agree that time dilation has been proven.

The question is what caused the difference in time.

Inertia was the resolution, changing the time of the twin's clock. The working parts of the clock altered the ticking and therefore the time. Cause and effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Paradox

Resolution of the paradox in special relativity

The standard textbook approach treats the twin paradox as a straightforward application of special relativity. Here the Earth and the ship are not in a symmetrical relationship: the ship has a "turnaround" in which it undergoes non-inertial motion, while the Earth has no such turnaround. Since there is no symmetry, it is not paradoxical if one twin is younger than the other. Nevertheless it is still useful to show that special relativity is self-consistent, and how the calculation is done from the standpoint of the traveling twin.

Special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent. But the space ship jumps frames (accelerates) when it performs a U-turn. In contrast, the twin who stays home remains in the same inertial frame for the whole duration of his brother's flight. No accelerating or decelerating forces apply to the homebound twin.

There are indeed not two but three relevant inertial frames: the one in which the stay-at-home twin remains at rest, the one in which the traveling twin is at rest on his outward trip, and the one in which he is at rest on his way home. It is during the acceleration at the U-turn that the traveling twin switches frames. That is when he must adjust his calculated age of the twin at rest.

In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present. A present is defined as a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference (see relativity of simultaneity), so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) simultaneity plane in Minkowski space, then switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane.

Minkowski diagram of the twin paradox

In the spacetime diagram on the right, drawn for the reference frame of the stay-at-home twin, that twin's world line coincides with the vertical axis (his position is constant in space, moving only in time). On the first leg of the trip, the second twin moves to the right (black sloped line); and on the second leg, back to the left. Blue lines show the planes of simultaneity for the traveling twin during the first leg of the journey; red lines, during the second leg. Just before turnover, the traveling twin calculates the age of the resting twin by measuring the interval along the vertical axis from the origin to the upper blue line. Just after turnover, if he recalculates, he'll measure the interval from the origin to the lower red line. In a sense, during the U-turn the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the world line of the resting twin. The traveling twin reckons that there has been a jump discontinuity in the age of the resting twin.

The twin paradox illustrates a feature of the special relativistic spacetime model, the Minkowski space. The world lines of the inertially moving bodies are the geodesics of Minkowskian spacetime. In Minkowski geometry the world lines of inertially moving bodies maximize the proper time elapsed between two events.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The working parts of the clock altered the ticking and therefore the time. Cause and effect.

So how does that work for atomic clocks, where the "working parts" are the speed at which atoms "vibrate"? How does it work with the half-life of muons? Why do muons age at different rates, depending on their relative speed?

Why, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, was there a difference in the elapsed times of atomic clocks that were flown in opposite directions around the world, when compared to an atomic clock on the ground? One clock gained time when compared to the clock on the ground and one clock lost time.

If the resolution is in inertia, what is the difference in inertia, between the clock that was flown west, the clock on the ground, and the clock that was flown east?

And what was the point of that long quote from wikipedia, which yet again supports the mainstream view?

Note: The twin paradox is based in Special Relativity, which is only part of the story as it does not include the effects of gravity. Once Einstein realised that acceleration was equivalent to gravity, it all fell into place with General Relativity.

It is the combination of relative movement and the difference in the gravitational potential around the frames of reference involved that causes the time-dilation we have confirmed with many experiments, one of which was the Hafele-Keating experiment.

The atomic clocks flown around the world showed elapsed times that were predicted by both SR and GR. The same is true of the clocks on GPS satellites. The same is true for the half-lives of muons. The same is true for all the high-energy experiments at particle accelerators. These experiments are measuring elapsed times caused by the speed of events at the level of atoms or fundamental particles.

These are the particles that make up the building blocks of your body, and the body of your twin brother, who would have aged less than you when he returned from his relativistic journey. His "working parts" were altered, relative to yours, by the difference in his path through space-time.

 

[drwayne]

I have seen several folks on here attempt to use the "Mechanically, all clocks, regardless of their mechaniism,
change their operation in a manner consistent with SR. The mechanism for this is not known. Therefore
the experiments are inconclusive".

Humorous aside....

I have run into several posters over the years that think that adding a link somehow
adds to the gravitas of their argument. I remember one fellow who, in defending a proposition posted a
series of links that had absolutely nothing to do with the point being argued. When I pointed this out
to him (gently, assuming that he had made an honest mistake), he went ballistic. Obviously he was not
expecting people to follow and read his links, simply to assume that it was evidence for the point he
was making.

 

[csmyth3025]

by drwayne » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:30 am
I have run into several posters over the years that think that adding a link somehow
adds to the gravitas of their argument. I remember one fellow who, in defending a proposition posted a
series of links that had absolutely nothing to do with the point being argued. When I pointed this out
to him (gently, assuming that he had made an honest mistake), he went ballistic. Obviously he was not
expecting people to follow and read his links, simply to assume that it was evidence for the point he
was making.

Hmm... Since this tactic has been tried before I guess I'll have to rewrite my Doctoral Thesis

Chris

 

[MeteorWayne]

Or maybe harrycostas need to stop posting links that are unrelated or disagree with the point he is trying to make. That is why I have insisted on clarification of what point he is trying to make in a post, since his seem to fit this exact profile.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

There is no use in posting links:

But! I would advice people to do a bit of research on the Twin Paradox.

On arXiv or ADS or whatever.

Such as

Twin Paradox
http://aps.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AN ... /0/all/0/1

That would give you the range of papers written on the subject.

Or if you wish to submit a paper proving what you think.

I'm all ears.

 

[ramparts]

Harry, as with any subject, it's best to know the basics of a subject before diving into the technical research, and you may want to begin with Wikipedia and non-technical sites as a source on the twin paradox, rather than the most recent papers on the arXiv.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Rampart

I have already given the wiki response.

The arXiv are not so bad, most of them are quite simple.

We know that the twins time is different on the return of one.

The question is why?

What caused the difference in time?

 

[SpeedFreek]

As I have already said, the difference in elapsed time at the end of the thought experiment is due to the different paths the twins take through space-time. That wiki page explains it all very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_parad ... time_paths

 

[origin]

You tell em Harry!

Don't let your utter lack of understanding a subject prevent you from vehemently voicing an incoherent opinion on that subject...

 

[MeteorWayne]

While posting links that show the subject is not understood :roll: :lol:

 

[ramparts]

Jeez, I wish most articles on the arXiv were easy to understand!