Physics and Time
Physics and Time
Ok, was just having a discussion with a co-worker who is claiming that if a sun supernovas in a distant galaxy at this instant, it didn't happen. His reasoning is that it hasn't had an effect on us, and won't for several hundred or thousand years.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
I have read, einsteins universe, a brief history of time, and superstrings and the search for the theory of everything. Lalsed was also a physics major for a little while :P
Heres what I remember, I dont claim to be 100% right because I dont know that I am: I could be confused on some of these facts, but Im pretty sure im mostly right.
Heres how I understand it:
It cannot be proven that it happened yet, because the light from the exploding star has not yet entered your future light cone, i.e. that light has not reached us yet so we have no way to prove the supernova.
But just because something cannot be proven, doesnt mean that it did not happen.
Also, they claim that gravity does odd things to space/time. I dont know what hes pulling out of his ass, but its possible that if time was distored (if space is distorted enough, time can be distorted to compensate, e=mc2), its possible that the entire event could have taken place entirely outside of your past and future. Thusly, as far as the world you live in is concerned, it never happened because there is no observable proof to the fact.
Also, it is not possible to prove that something is impossible... if that helps you at all.
So he is right, after a fashion, and wrong, in a way. It cant be proven, but that doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
-Gerad "Physics Whore" Dreamingwolf
------------------
Auril tells you 'Yes, we're plotting the destruction of all that is holy - and unholy, too. Just to be thorough.'
Heres what I remember, I dont claim to be 100% right because I dont know that I am: I could be confused on some of these facts, but Im pretty sure im mostly right.
Heres how I understand it:
It cannot be proven that it happened yet, because the light from the exploding star has not yet entered your future light cone, i.e. that light has not reached us yet so we have no way to prove the supernova.
But just because something cannot be proven, doesnt mean that it did not happen.
Also, they claim that gravity does odd things to space/time. I dont know what hes pulling out of his ass, but its possible that if time was distored (if space is distorted enough, time can be distorted to compensate, e=mc2), its possible that the entire event could have taken place entirely outside of your past and future. Thusly, as far as the world you live in is concerned, it never happened because there is no observable proof to the fact.
Also, it is not possible to prove that something is impossible... if that helps you at all.
So he is right, after a fashion, and wrong, in a way. It cant be proven, but that doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
-Gerad "Physics Whore" Dreamingwolf
------------------
Auril tells you 'Yes, we're plotting the destruction of all that is holy - and unholy, too. Just to be thorough.'
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: O' Fallon, MO. USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gerad:
<B>Also, it is not possible to prove that something is impossible... if that helps you at all.
So he is right, after a fashion, and wrong, in a way. It cant be proven, but that doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
-Gerad "Physics Whore" Dreamingwolf
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So basically if you want a stalemate in the argument bring GOD into the picture
------------------
Gindipple (Gnome) stands here.
<B>Also, it is not possible to prove that something is impossible... if that helps you at all.
So he is right, after a fashion, and wrong, in a way. It cant be proven, but that doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
-Gerad "Physics Whore" Dreamingwolf
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So basically if you want a stalemate in the argument bring GOD into the picture
------------------
Gindipple (Gnome) stands here.
Ok, so this is my current thinking on the subject:
Let's say that a star exploded (or whatever stars do) and the resulting shockwave sent a meteor on a collision course with earth. However, a nebula or something blocks all light/radiation or anything from that star from reaching earth. Therefore, according to Adam's theory, since nothing from that star ever reaches earth and affects us the star never exploded (in fact, since we never saw any light from that star it would never have existed.) But say the meteor hits earth and destroys a city.
Since none of the events (supernova) that propelled the meteor towards earth ever happened, the meteor could never have been propelled towards earth. Therefore the city wasn't destroyed.
Does that work? I think there might be a hole in the argument... since one might consider the meteor to be the effect of the star exploding on us, therefore legitimizing it. Bleh.
Gindipple: Go see "You Too Can See the Light." I like to keep my God debates confined...
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Let's say that a star exploded (or whatever stars do) and the resulting shockwave sent a meteor on a collision course with earth. However, a nebula or something blocks all light/radiation or anything from that star from reaching earth. Therefore, according to Adam's theory, since nothing from that star ever reaches earth and affects us the star never exploded (in fact, since we never saw any light from that star it would never have existed.) But say the meteor hits earth and destroys a city.
Since none of the events (supernova) that propelled the meteor towards earth ever happened, the meteor could never have been propelled towards earth. Therefore the city wasn't destroyed.
Does that work? I think there might be a hole in the argument... since one might consider the meteor to be the effect of the star exploding on us, therefore legitimizing it. Bleh.
Gindipple: Go see "You Too Can See the Light." I like to keep my God debates confined...
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Reality is based on your perception. Did you perceive any of these events happening? Your ability to see this event or not has nothing to do with whether it happened or not. Ask him this: "If I fuck your mother in the shower, and you did not know about it, did it still not happen?" Then ask "Did it happen once 9 months have come around and you have a new sibling?"
This is more of a philosophy debate than a physics debate.
------------------
Gordex - Gordex Travel Agency
This is more of a philosophy debate than a physics debate.
------------------
Gordex - Gordex Travel Agency
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gordex:
<B>Reality is based on your perception. Did you perceive any of these events happening? Your ability to see this event or not has nothing to do with whether it happened or not. Ask him this: "If I fuck your mother in the shower, and you did not know about it, did it still not happen?" Then ask "Did it happen once 9 months have come around and you have a new sibling?"
This is more of a philosophy debate than a physics debate.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hahah! Good one gordo.
I am but a lowly math/physics major who has been MIA as far as school goes for a few semesters, but, from what i do remember, I would agree this is more along the lines of philosophy rather than completely a physics question. There is no completly right answer to this, nor can anybody say that one answer is right. The only thing you can hope to do is bring it to a stalemate, as far as wining the argument is concerned.
In this particular problem i would toss the schrodiner's cat experiment at him. For this to work you have to make sure he understands wave/partical duality. Wave partical duality states that any and all quantum entities travel as waves until they are being observed; once observed these entities will travel as a partical. It also states that this wave is a wave of probability. So, in all actuality, this entity is in all places at all times within its current range of possible existances(ie, the room in which it is created etc..).
Ok so the experiment is thus: You have a sealed room, a cat, a box with a partition in the middle of it which is capable of keeping something of the size of say an electron in one of the sides, an electron detector, one electron, and a mechanizm that releases deadly gas. You will hook this mechanizm up to the electon detector and set it so that when the detector detects the electron, the gas is pumped into the room which will kill the cat. You create a vacuum inside the box and create a single electron within this box and slide down the partition. So, now the electron is no longer a particle per se, but rather a wave of probability. The electron has a 50% chance on being in either side of the box. Now, when one side of the box is opened (by another mechanizm not capable of observation) the cat will now be in a superposition of states, both dead and alive at the same time until a consious observer enters the room to check if the cat is dead or alive.
So as to your problem, you would have to say that it happend and didnt happen at the same time since there is no concious observer to observe the supernova.
Something else you could throw at him is black holes. By his reasoning, black holes can not exist. We can't see the light rdiating from the matter creating this gravitational field, but we can see the absense of. How can we truely know that there is something there?
Or you could just throw common logic at him and do what gordex said hehe I would suggest giving him something a bit less crude, like the tree falling in the woods and nobody hears it...of coarse it fell its just that nobody observed it. Eventually somebody will see this tree on the ground. It would be retarded for somebody to say that the tree had never fallen when you finally see the tree because 1) You see the final position of the tree and 2) The tree didn't all-of-a-sudden happen to be on the ground. If you try to explain the cat experiment to him first and he tried to tell you that it was in a supper position of states remind him that the can only happen in the quantum world and that the tree, unfortunately does not meet the critereon to fall into that category.
Hope this helps
P.s. I am tired and am not re-reading this post, so if it doesnt make a whole lot of sense, i apologize.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B>Reality is based on your perception. Did you perceive any of these events happening? Your ability to see this event or not has nothing to do with whether it happened or not. Ask him this: "If I fuck your mother in the shower, and you did not know about it, did it still not happen?" Then ask "Did it happen once 9 months have come around and you have a new sibling?"
This is more of a philosophy debate than a physics debate.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hahah! Good one gordo.
I am but a lowly math/physics major who has been MIA as far as school goes for a few semesters, but, from what i do remember, I would agree this is more along the lines of philosophy rather than completely a physics question. There is no completly right answer to this, nor can anybody say that one answer is right. The only thing you can hope to do is bring it to a stalemate, as far as wining the argument is concerned.
In this particular problem i would toss the schrodiner's cat experiment at him. For this to work you have to make sure he understands wave/partical duality. Wave partical duality states that any and all quantum entities travel as waves until they are being observed; once observed these entities will travel as a partical. It also states that this wave is a wave of probability. So, in all actuality, this entity is in all places at all times within its current range of possible existances(ie, the room in which it is created etc..).
Ok so the experiment is thus: You have a sealed room, a cat, a box with a partition in the middle of it which is capable of keeping something of the size of say an electron in one of the sides, an electron detector, one electron, and a mechanizm that releases deadly gas. You will hook this mechanizm up to the electon detector and set it so that when the detector detects the electron, the gas is pumped into the room which will kill the cat. You create a vacuum inside the box and create a single electron within this box and slide down the partition. So, now the electron is no longer a particle per se, but rather a wave of probability. The electron has a 50% chance on being in either side of the box. Now, when one side of the box is opened (by another mechanizm not capable of observation) the cat will now be in a superposition of states, both dead and alive at the same time until a consious observer enters the room to check if the cat is dead or alive.
So as to your problem, you would have to say that it happend and didnt happen at the same time since there is no concious observer to observe the supernova.
Something else you could throw at him is black holes. By his reasoning, black holes can not exist. We can't see the light rdiating from the matter creating this gravitational field, but we can see the absense of. How can we truely know that there is something there?
Or you could just throw common logic at him and do what gordex said hehe I would suggest giving him something a bit less crude, like the tree falling in the woods and nobody hears it...of coarse it fell its just that nobody observed it. Eventually somebody will see this tree on the ground. It would be retarded for somebody to say that the tree had never fallen when you finally see the tree because 1) You see the final position of the tree and 2) The tree didn't all-of-a-sudden happen to be on the ground. If you try to explain the cat experiment to him first and he tried to tell you that it was in a supper position of states remind him that the can only happen in the quantum world and that the tree, unfortunately does not meet the critereon to fall into that category.
Hope this helps
P.s. I am tired and am not re-reading this post, so if it doesnt make a whole lot of sense, i apologize.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Ok, so this is my current thinking on the subject:
Let's say that a star exploded (or whatever stars do) and the resulting shockwave sent a meteor on a collision course with earth. However, a nebula or something blocks all light/radiation or anything from that star from reaching earth. Therefore, according to Adam's theory, since nothing from that star ever reaches earth and affects us the star never exploded (in fact, since we never saw any light from that star it would never have existed.) But say the meteor hits earth and destroys a city.
Since none of the events (supernova) that propelled the meteor towards earth ever happened, the meteor could never have been propelled towards earth. Therefore the city wasn't destroyed.
Does that work? I think there might be a hole in the argument... since one might consider the meteor to be the effect of the star exploding on us, therefore legitimizing it. Bleh.
Gindipple: Go see "You Too Can See the Light." I like to keep my God debates confined...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, there is a hole. The meteor would replace the necessity of light being the determining factor on whether the supernova exists. But what this does do, is prove that the supernova did in fact exist; its just that logic prevaled. In his theory, the trajectory of the meteor would have never existed (the funny thing is that every possibility of every event exists, but it only has a very very very very very minute probability). Which brings me back to it being a superposition of states meaning that it exists and does not at the same time until there is a consious observer observing the action or entity.
Another thing you could bring up is that ,just because you didn't observe it, or neither did anybody else on earth for that matter, does not mean that somebody or something didn't observe it that 100,000 lightyears away. So, once again, you can never know since nobody knows if anybody observed it over there.
My guess is that he will say something along the lines of, "I am talking about your perception of reality. That, since you didnt observe it, it doesnt exist in your personal reality". If this happens, then it all goes down to philosophy and there is nothing physics can do to help you Then you should say something completely rediculous like, "So, if we didnt have the news, california would not exist? Or even the house down the block that i cant see because of that huge tree?" There is no way to argue this...And always remember that no matter what, you will always have a trump card NOTHING in our reality is proven, the laws of physics are NOT proven, biology is NOT proven, etc...They are all theories and theories are NOT fact The only thing that IS fact is that there is NO fact. Our idea of gravity could be wrong tomorrow and we could all be floating.
Hope i didnt confuse you.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B>Ok, so this is my current thinking on the subject:
Let's say that a star exploded (or whatever stars do) and the resulting shockwave sent a meteor on a collision course with earth. However, a nebula or something blocks all light/radiation or anything from that star from reaching earth. Therefore, according to Adam's theory, since nothing from that star ever reaches earth and affects us the star never exploded (in fact, since we never saw any light from that star it would never have existed.) But say the meteor hits earth and destroys a city.
Since none of the events (supernova) that propelled the meteor towards earth ever happened, the meteor could never have been propelled towards earth. Therefore the city wasn't destroyed.
Does that work? I think there might be a hole in the argument... since one might consider the meteor to be the effect of the star exploding on us, therefore legitimizing it. Bleh.
Gindipple: Go see "You Too Can See the Light." I like to keep my God debates confined...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, there is a hole. The meteor would replace the necessity of light being the determining factor on whether the supernova exists. But what this does do, is prove that the supernova did in fact exist; its just that logic prevaled. In his theory, the trajectory of the meteor would have never existed (the funny thing is that every possibility of every event exists, but it only has a very very very very very minute probability). Which brings me back to it being a superposition of states meaning that it exists and does not at the same time until there is a consious observer observing the action or entity.
Another thing you could bring up is that ,just because you didn't observe it, or neither did anybody else on earth for that matter, does not mean that somebody or something didn't observe it that 100,000 lightyears away. So, once again, you can never know since nobody knows if anybody observed it over there.
My guess is that he will say something along the lines of, "I am talking about your perception of reality. That, since you didnt observe it, it doesnt exist in your personal reality". If this happens, then it all goes down to philosophy and there is nothing physics can do to help you Then you should say something completely rediculous like, "So, if we didnt have the news, california would not exist? Or even the house down the block that i cant see because of that huge tree?" There is no way to argue this...And always remember that no matter what, you will always have a trump card NOTHING in our reality is proven, the laws of physics are NOT proven, biology is NOT proven, etc...They are all theories and theories are NOT fact The only thing that IS fact is that there is NO fact. Our idea of gravity could be wrong tomorrow and we could all be floating.
Hope i didnt confuse you.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yayaril:
<B>Just tell your friend that you're a solipsist, thus all of existence is just a product of your mind. So whatever you think exists- obviously exists.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where i come from, we call them schitzophrenics
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B>Just tell your friend that you're a solipsist, thus all of existence is just a product of your mind. So whatever you think exists- obviously exists.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where i come from, we call them schitzophrenics
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
I like the schrodinger's cat/black hole ones. I tried the tree falling in the woods, he is certain it makes no sound. Of course, I find that to be wrong. Vibrations in the air (sound) are created whether anyone hears it or not...
Anyways, he seems to have changed his argument slightly. He still uses this cone/hourglass type thingy to show that an event happening outside your cone of time never affects you, therefore never existed. But now he's claiming it means that nothing can happen _simultaneously_ on an interstellar scale. He says that "simultaneous" is meaningless when talking about such large distances in space. I think that's bullshit, and that our perceptions of when something happens have nothing to do with when it actually happened. If two things happen at the same time, it doesn't matter if the effects reach us hundreds of years appart... the events were simultaneous.
Anyways... I should go to bed now. Sorry for anybody's brain that I fried this early in the morning.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Anyways, he seems to have changed his argument slightly. He still uses this cone/hourglass type thingy to show that an event happening outside your cone of time never affects you, therefore never existed. But now he's claiming it means that nothing can happen _simultaneously_ on an interstellar scale. He says that "simultaneous" is meaningless when talking about such large distances in space. I think that's bullshit, and that our perceptions of when something happens have nothing to do with when it actually happened. If two things happen at the same time, it doesn't matter if the effects reach us hundreds of years appart... the events were simultaneous.
Anyways... I should go to bed now. Sorry for anybody's brain that I fried this early in the morning.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Heh, i think this guy read a physics article in discovery magazine and is trying to argue something he is not too educated on. He is trying to argue something that has to do with the 4th dimension (space/time) but actually the only argument here is perception and reality. Just tell him that you(yourself) do not have to observe for something to happen (as far as his arguments are geared), but only something classified as a consious observer has to observe it. And, since we have no idea how to catagorize or what the limits are to be a consious observer, there is no way of proving or disproving that something happend, or that it happend simultaniously. The only theory i can think of atm has to do with things happening at the same time would be that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.
Oh, and it takes one hell of a gravitational field to make that much of a warp in space/time so what he is thinking of is a very rare situation and doesnt work for most things And it is not the distance in which his argument works its the amount of space/time distortion that has occured between these points in space/time. And this only happens for things like black holes and the such.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
Oh, and it takes one hell of a gravitational field to make that much of a warp in space/time so what he is thinking of is a very rare situation and doesnt work for most things And it is not the distance in which his argument works its the amount of space/time distortion that has occured between these points in space/time. And this only happens for things like black holes and the such.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Ok, was just having a discussion with a co-worker who is claiming that if a sun supernovas in a distant galaxy at this instant, it didn't happen. His reasoning is that it hasn't had an effect on us, and won't for several hundred or thousand years.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sarvis, ask your friend, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make noise?
------------------
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
<B>Ok, was just having a discussion with a co-worker who is claiming that if a sun supernovas in a distant galaxy at this instant, it didn't happen. His reasoning is that it hasn't had an effect on us, and won't for several hundred or thousand years.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sarvis, ask your friend, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make noise?
------------------
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by moritheil:
<B>You should warn him to say his last words, because as soon as you turn the corner and walk away from him he will vanish!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bahaha! You rule mori
and mikayla, its been brought up before
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B>You should warn him to say his last words, because as soon as you turn the corner and walk away from him he will vanish!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bahaha! You rule mori
and mikayla, its been brought up before
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Myre:
<B>DUDE!
I read this string as the first post I brought up this morning right after I woke up.
Do I even need to tell ya how much dammage abstract thought like this can do to a tired brain!
heh</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
me too!!!
i think i brained my damage
<B>DUDE!
I read this string as the first post I brought up this morning right after I woke up.
Do I even need to tell ya how much dammage abstract thought like this can do to a tired brain!
heh</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
me too!!!
i think i brained my damage
(again, could be wrong, feel free to shoot me down)
I have heard, that time is not a constant within the universe, either... one second on earth is not the same as one second on say, jupiter... (they are pretty close, tho :P) The difference might be much greater in say, another galaxy though.
So, simultaniously? Maybe... Maybe not
Just something to burn some brain cells on...
-Gerad
------------------
Auril tells you 'Yes, we're plotting the destruction of all that is holy - and unholy, too. Just to be thorough.'
I have heard, that time is not a constant within the universe, either... one second on earth is not the same as one second on say, jupiter... (they are pretty close, tho :P) The difference might be much greater in say, another galaxy though.
So, simultaniously? Maybe... Maybe not
Just something to burn some brain cells on...
-Gerad
------------------
Auril tells you 'Yes, we're plotting the destruction of all that is holy - and unholy, too. Just to be thorough.'
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Virginia Beach
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Ok, was just having a discussion with a co-worker who is claiming that if a sun supernovas in a distant galaxy at this instant, it didn't happen. His reasoning is that it hasn't had an effect on us, and won't for several hundred or thousand years.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's all relative imho. Most of the things you're speaking of are unfathomable, and are mostly conceptual. If a star supernovas, and it takes the light a hundred years to reach earth, let's figure out how far away it is.
Light travels at about 186,282 miles per second.
The time frame we're dealing with, is only 100, which is a pretty damn close star considering.
186282 x 60 = 11176920 - Miles in a minute
11176920 x 60 = 670615200 - Miles in an hour
670615200 x 24 = 16094764800 - Miles in a day
16094764800 x 365 = 5874589152000 - A year
5874589152000 x 100 = 587458915200000 -100 years.
Now, tell me if anyone can actually fathom how far that last distance is? 587 Trillion miles away from us :P
When we look up at the night sky we're seeing echo's. That's how I look at it. Alot of those stars in the nightsky could be quite dead, cold and dormant, because the light takes so long to reach us. I totally lost my train of though because im sitting in a class with one hell of a boring teacher. I'll continue later. On another note, talking about stars so far away. We've receieved gamma bursts from exploding stars that were so massive, and they say it took billions of years to reach us. Try and fathom how far away that is. :P
------------------
Arilin Nydelahar - Zulkir of Necromancy
Death is a state of mind.
<B>Ok, was just having a discussion with a co-worker who is claiming that if a sun supernovas in a distant galaxy at this instant, it didn't happen. His reasoning is that it hasn't had an effect on us, and won't for several hundred or thousand years.
He through a bunch of physics crap at me, about time dilation and speed of light and some cone thing. (Basically, if things happen outside the cone representing my past they didn't happen because they never affect me.)
So, can someone give me some good physics type stuff to prove him wrong? I'm looking at Elseenas here... and expecting some kind of string theory or something. Others are welcome too... heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's all relative imho. Most of the things you're speaking of are unfathomable, and are mostly conceptual. If a star supernovas, and it takes the light a hundred years to reach earth, let's figure out how far away it is.
Light travels at about 186,282 miles per second.
The time frame we're dealing with, is only 100, which is a pretty damn close star considering.
186282 x 60 = 11176920 - Miles in a minute
11176920 x 60 = 670615200 - Miles in an hour
670615200 x 24 = 16094764800 - Miles in a day
16094764800 x 365 = 5874589152000 - A year
5874589152000 x 100 = 587458915200000 -100 years.
Now, tell me if anyone can actually fathom how far that last distance is? 587 Trillion miles away from us :P
When we look up at the night sky we're seeing echo's. That's how I look at it. Alot of those stars in the nightsky could be quite dead, cold and dormant, because the light takes so long to reach us. I totally lost my train of though because im sitting in a class with one hell of a boring teacher. I'll continue later. On another note, talking about stars so far away. We've receieved gamma bursts from exploding stars that were so massive, and they say it took billions of years to reach us. Try and fathom how far away that is. :P
------------------
Arilin Nydelahar - Zulkir of Necromancy
Death is a state of mind.
I think you got him when he said events in the universe can not happen at the same time. Quantum theory clears states that this is not only possible it does happen. The classic experiment is to have 2 electron with thier spin states entangled. If one electron changes spin states then the other instantaniously changes states. This happens regardless of distance and is one of the major discrepencies between quantum physics and relitivity. It has even been experimentaly proven in the lab conditions and people are working to try to create a new communications medium from the concept (this is more difficult then it sounds at first because you have to get around the measuremnt problem somehow but thats a whole nother topic)
------------------
------------------
What he is talking about is a theory called "Last Thursdayism", i.e., nothing exists until it is observed.
It is actually a theory of Deist Cosmology: Nothing exists until it is observed, therefore the universe could not have existed in the first place without an observer.
Like all of current Cosmology Theories, including Quantum Cosmology, it prettymuch requires abdigating all of physics as we know it and/or introducing other--unprovable--elements for it to work.
So yes, it is a valid cosmologic theory, albeit a "little" bit of a fringe one.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
It is actually a theory of Deist Cosmology: Nothing exists until it is observed, therefore the universe could not have existed in the first place without an observer.
Like all of current Cosmology Theories, including Quantum Cosmology, it prettymuch requires abdigating all of physics as we know it and/or introducing other--unprovable--elements for it to work.
So yes, it is a valid cosmologic theory, albeit a "little" bit of a fringe one.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
I feel like a simpleton, but honestly all I could think about is Sarvis ducking under his covers and yelling at the top of his lungs "EVIL MONSTER MAN, YOU CAN'T HURT ME CUZ I CAN'T SEE YOU"
How about I throw this into the mix:
If 'reality' requires someone or something to perceive it to be 'real' as postulated in some theories. . and if there is a God (defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being) that sees everything, then does that not make all things possible ?
Or, perhaps this lends proof of other life elsewhere in the universe, as things that happen need observers, and we know that things happen that we ourselves do not directly observe, there has to be someone to be observing these things. . .
And yes, Elseenas, you're right! Wouldn't it be horrible if none of you ever 'really' got laid until *I* observed it?! *laugh*
ANyway just a couple of thoughts. I'm sick and so very tired. Or, Im stupid. . so enjoy!
Lost
------------------
How about I throw this into the mix:
If 'reality' requires someone or something to perceive it to be 'real' as postulated in some theories. . and if there is a God (defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being) that sees everything, then does that not make all things possible ?
Or, perhaps this lends proof of other life elsewhere in the universe, as things that happen need observers, and we know that things happen that we ourselves do not directly observe, there has to be someone to be observing these things. . .
And yes, Elseenas, you're right! Wouldn't it be horrible if none of you ever 'really' got laid until *I* observed it?! *laugh*
ANyway just a couple of thoughts. I'm sick and so very tired. Or, Im stupid. . so enjoy!
Lost
------------------
Elseenas: Hrm... he wasn't just talking about observation though. He said if it has an _effect_ on me it happened. An example would be a butterfly fluttering it's wings in the rain forest, and causing a rainstorm over my house. I didn't _observe_ the butterfly, but I got rained on so the butterfly did actually flutter it's wings.
He's not religious though, so telling him his argument is mainly a proof of God's existence should help. Then the whole "abdigating all of physics as we know it" thrown in just for good measure. Think I'll lead with the spinning electrons if I can get some more info about it though... heh.
Waelos: It's my co-worker doing that! Not me... I'm fully aware of the monster and reaching for my bokken!
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
He's not religious though, so telling him his argument is mainly a proof of God's existence should help. Then the whole "abdigating all of physics as we know it" thrown in just for good measure. Think I'll lead with the spinning electrons if I can get some more info about it though... heh.
Waelos: It's my co-worker doing that! Not me... I'm fully aware of the monster and reaching for my bokken!
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tilandal:
<B>I think you got him when he said events in the universe can not happen at the same time. Quantum theory clears states that this is not only possible it does happen. The classic experiment is to have 2 electron with thier spin states entangled. If one electron changes spin states then the other instantaniously changes states. This happens regardless of distance and is one of the major discrepencies between quantum physics and relitivity. It has even been experimentaly proven in the lab conditions and people are working to try to create a new communications medium from the concept (this is more difficult then it sounds at first because you have to get around the measuremnt problem somehow but thats a whole nother topic)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are several examples. The Feynman virtual photon thing might be a simultaneous event too.
At any rate... Sarvis probably has all the help he needs to send this guy shrieking back to his desk. And then some.
*bow Kifle*
------------------
You tell Ushug 'err... spankmistress??'
Ushug tells you 'you can't help it, I've always thought of mori as a chick'
<B>I think you got him when he said events in the universe can not happen at the same time. Quantum theory clears states that this is not only possible it does happen. The classic experiment is to have 2 electron with thier spin states entangled. If one electron changes spin states then the other instantaniously changes states. This happens regardless of distance and is one of the major discrepencies between quantum physics and relitivity. It has even been experimentaly proven in the lab conditions and people are working to try to create a new communications medium from the concept (this is more difficult then it sounds at first because you have to get around the measuremnt problem somehow but thats a whole nother topic)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are several examples. The Feynman virtual photon thing might be a simultaneous event too.
At any rate... Sarvis probably has all the help he needs to send this guy shrieking back to his desk. And then some.
*bow Kifle*
------------------
You tell Ushug 'err... spankmistress??'
Ushug tells you 'you can't help it, I've always thought of mori as a chick'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by moritheil:
<B> Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are several examples. The Feynman virtual photon thing might be a simultaneous event too.
At any rate... Sarvis probably has all the help he needs to send this guy shrieking back to his desk. And then some.
*bow Kifle*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nod the simultainous thing also works on photons like this: If you fire two photons from a photon gun (yes i said a photon gun, but not like the ones on star trek you freaks) in opposite directions and you check the uggghhh, brain fart! be back in 15.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B> Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are several examples. The Feynman virtual photon thing might be a simultaneous event too.
At any rate... Sarvis probably has all the help he needs to send this guy shrieking back to his desk. And then some.
*bow Kifle*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nod the simultainous thing also works on photons like this: If you fire two photons from a photon gun (yes i said a photon gun, but not like the ones on star trek you freaks) in opposite directions and you check the uggghhh, brain fart! be back in 15.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: O' Fallon, MO. USA
- Contact:
Here's an old site I bookmarked for whenever I want to humble myself.
Talks about relative sizes of things in physics like time and space.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/
------------------
Gindipple (Gnome) stands here.
Talks about relative sizes of things in physics like time and space.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/
------------------
Gindipple (Gnome) stands here.
THE ANSWER:
And YES I study physics.
If the event has truly occured outside of your light cone, it means one thing. The light from this object will NEVER reach your eyes, no matter where you stand or where you look, not with all the time in the universe. Everything in the universe is within your light cone. The further out on the cone it is, the farther away physically it is, and the longer it takes for the light to reach you. Hence, the image you ultimately see is OLDER. (telescopes are time machines which can look into the past, this is true.)
Many events have occured that have not yet reached our eyes, but they will, especially given all the time in the universe. Anything that cannot be seen, even with all the time in the universe, has effectively occured in another universe, IF it occured, and such and event absolutely cannot be proven, disproven, or even really guessed upon. Not unless we could move to other universes (think the ULTIMATE in gate spells) This has NOTHING to do with any kind of philosophical debate (unless you are still debating your own existence), nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =)
And YES I study physics.
If the event has truly occured outside of your light cone, it means one thing. The light from this object will NEVER reach your eyes, no matter where you stand or where you look, not with all the time in the universe. Everything in the universe is within your light cone. The further out on the cone it is, the farther away physically it is, and the longer it takes for the light to reach you. Hence, the image you ultimately see is OLDER. (telescopes are time machines which can look into the past, this is true.)
Many events have occured that have not yet reached our eyes, but they will, especially given all the time in the universe. Anything that cannot be seen, even with all the time in the universe, has effectively occured in another universe, IF it occured, and such and event absolutely cannot be proven, disproven, or even really guessed upon. Not unless we could move to other universes (think the ULTIMATE in gate spells) This has NOTHING to do with any kind of philosophical debate (unless you are still debating your own existence), nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =)
I realize that light is faster than a meteor. But a cloud of dust can block light, which is why I put a nebula in between. Dust would not stop a meteor however, so the example still works. The light isn't failing to reach us because of distance, but because of obstruction.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
So... if Gormal is playing with his goats and no one is around seeing it happen, is he still playing with his goats?
Damn right he is!
Therefore, we HAVE to know that just because we didn't see something happen, we know it did.
*nods*
Elisten
PS - Gormal, forgive me for using you as an example! It was all for the sake of.. something.
[This message has been edited by Elisten (edited 11-07-2002).]
Damn right he is!
Therefore, we HAVE to know that just because we didn't see something happen, we know it did.
*nods*
Elisten
PS - Gormal, forgive me for using you as an example! It was all for the sake of.. something.
[This message has been edited by Elisten (edited 11-07-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by grorrakk:
nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was only using that experiment to show the idea of superpositions and their posibilities which should have sufficed for the argument. I am well aware of its limitations...
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was only using that experiment to show the idea of superpositions and their posibilities which should have sufficed for the argument. I am well aware of its limitations...
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
Tilandal, is there a link or something where I can read about the communication devices? Searching for spin entangled states and such just gives me a bunch of high end Quantum computing papers it seems...
Arilin: heh... for some reason I just now saw that reply. I know that those stars are far away, but I don't care about the distance. I state that the star can supernova without ever affecting me, or anyone on earth ever. Adam is claiming that if it never affects anyone, it never happened. :shrug:
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Arilin: heh... for some reason I just now saw that reply. I know that those stars are far away, but I don't care about the distance. I state that the star can supernova without ever affecting me, or anyone on earth ever. Adam is claiming that if it never affects anyone, it never happened. :shrug:
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by grorrakk:
<B>THE ANSWER:
And YES I study physics.
If the event has truly occured outside of your light cone, it means one thing. The light from this object will NEVER reach your eyes, no matter where you stand or where you look, not with all the time in the universe. Everything in the universe is within your light cone. The further out on the cone it is, the farther away physically it is, and the longer it takes for the light to reach you. Hence, the image you ultimately see is OLDER. (telescopes are time machines which can look into the past, this is true.)
Many events have occured that have not yet reached our eyes, but they will, especially given all the time in the universe. Anything that cannot be seen, even with all the time in the universe, has effectively occured in another universe, IF it occured, and such and event absolutely cannot be proven, disproven, or even really guessed upon. Not unless we could move to other universes (think the ULTIMATE in gate spells) This has NOTHING to do with any kind of philosophical debate (unless you are still debating your own existence), nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
einstein has been proved wrong on many occasions in the last few years, and - ultimately, he knew he would be wrong - on many topics, he WANTED to be wrong to prove his greater theories. plz update your textbooks, and i don't know how comfortable the entire scientific community is with you speaking on their behalf.
<B>THE ANSWER:
And YES I study physics.
If the event has truly occured outside of your light cone, it means one thing. The light from this object will NEVER reach your eyes, no matter where you stand or where you look, not with all the time in the universe. Everything in the universe is within your light cone. The further out on the cone it is, the farther away physically it is, and the longer it takes for the light to reach you. Hence, the image you ultimately see is OLDER. (telescopes are time machines which can look into the past, this is true.)
Many events have occured that have not yet reached our eyes, but they will, especially given all the time in the universe. Anything that cannot be seen, even with all the time in the universe, has effectively occured in another universe, IF it occured, and such and event absolutely cannot be proven, disproven, or even really guessed upon. Not unless we could move to other universes (think the ULTIMATE in gate spells) This has NOTHING to do with any kind of philosophical debate (unless you are still debating your own existence), nor has it anything to do whatsoever with schroedingers cat, which is a problem of quantum physics (IE the VERY VERY SMALL). The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
einstein has been proved wrong on many occasions in the last few years, and - ultimately, he knew he would be wrong - on many topics, he WANTED to be wrong to prove his greater theories. plz update your textbooks, and i don't know how comfortable the entire scientific community is with you speaking on their behalf.
Ummm...wrong. First, i said in regards to einsteins theories about light. These theories are continuously backed up by all experiments done since the theory was first postulated. EVERY experiment verifies the special theory of relativity (time-light problems). As for gravity, the far more difficult problem, see general theory of relativity, Einstein NEVER finished this theory to his satisfaction and it was never discussed as either complete or correct. ALL non-agreement with einstein falls under this area, and einstein had already stated that the theory was not complete and hence, incorrect. Even with this said, i would love to have you actually state WHICH experiments have been done to disprove this section of theory, as as far as i know, there are none. The theory is only said to be wrong/incomplete because it fails to predict certain aspects of reality. The things it DOES predict have all so far turned out to be accurate. The only problem is that it does not predict enough and hence, cannot conform to other internal theories which do predict these realities(see quantum theory among others). The general theory, if completed, should contain all these theories, which it does not. Such a completed theorem, often called the holy grail of physics, as it would describe all of reality, is called grand unified theory. All attempts thus far of achieving this knowledge have failed, and most of the suggested theories are pure fantastic conjecture which have no possibilty of being tested experimentally because of their grandiouse nature. (see super strings and other super-symmetry theories, they deal with multiple dimensions to which human beings have no tangible connection to)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by grorrakk:
<B>THE ANSWER:
The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =) </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK... let me get this straight. If the light from a distant source is simply too feeble to be resolved, you are saying that automatically means the distance is too great for any physical object from said location to ever traverse?
That doesn't sound right...
------------------
You tell Ushug 'err... spankmistress??'
Ushug tells you 'you can't help it, I've always thought of mori as a chick'
<B>THE ANSWER:
The idea about the meteor is missing a key point. light is the fastest thing in the universe. a meteor would simply be passed by the light beams in almost no time. if the light cant reach you, the meteor certaintly never will.
I stand by this answer with as much assuredness as scientists have that einsteins theories about light are correct.
Please send more physics questions =) </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK... let me get this straight. If the light from a distant source is simply too feeble to be resolved, you are saying that automatically means the distance is too great for any physical object from said location to ever traverse?
That doesn't sound right...
------------------
You tell Ushug 'err... spankmistress??'
Ushug tells you 'you can't help it, I've always thought of mori as a chick'
Daz:
Einstein has not been "proved wrong" and his theories with respect to relativity are still used and taught even in the most modern physics texts and papers. The terminology "proved wrong" is only being used by people who don't understand physics or mathematics.
The reason why he is not the end-all-be-all is simple: relativity breaks down at a certain size threshold or under special conditions (i.e., large temperatures). QM does not, but we prefer not to try and calculate the UNIVERSE as a Quantum System (heh, and before anyone starts to say that this is easy, YOU do some of the path integrals)
Many of Einstein's theories have been backed up repeatedly in recent years.
Before you start yelling at me and saying "YOU ARE WRONG, F001" give me a series of citations. If they are as common as you claim it shouldn't be a problem to find them.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Einstein has not been "proved wrong" and his theories with respect to relativity are still used and taught even in the most modern physics texts and papers. The terminology "proved wrong" is only being used by people who don't understand physics or mathematics.
The reason why he is not the end-all-be-all is simple: relativity breaks down at a certain size threshold or under special conditions (i.e., large temperatures). QM does not, but we prefer not to try and calculate the UNIVERSE as a Quantum System (heh, and before anyone starts to say that this is easy, YOU do some of the path integrals)
Many of Einstein's theories have been backed up repeatedly in recent years.
Before you start yelling at me and saying "YOU ARE WRONG, F001" give me a series of citations. If they are as common as you claim it shouldn't be a problem to find them.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by grorrakk:
light is the fastest thing in the universe. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As much as i do find that you have a lot of knowledge of physics and the such, this is a big mistake Light is not the fastest thing in the universe. There are entities which can travel faster than light. Although it is true that nothing can ever accelerate to the speed of light, whether positive acceleration or negative. Things moving slower than the speed of light travel forwards in space/time while things moving faster than the speed of light move backwards in space/time.
Edit: Example of claim: Cerenkov Radiation
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
[This message has been edited by Kifle (edited 11-08-2002).]
light is the fastest thing in the universe. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As much as i do find that you have a lot of knowledge of physics and the such, this is a big mistake Light is not the fastest thing in the universe. There are entities which can travel faster than light. Although it is true that nothing can ever accelerate to the speed of light, whether positive acceleration or negative. Things moving slower than the speed of light travel forwards in space/time while things moving faster than the speed of light move backwards in space/time.
Edit: Example of claim: Cerenkov Radiation
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
[This message has been edited by Kifle (edited 11-08-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>Incidentally, if it is a peer reviewed journal I can get access to it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
good thing you are that wealthy, i can't afford all of those publications.
<B>Incidentally, if it is a peer reviewed journal I can get access to it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
good thing you are that wealthy, i can't afford all of those publications.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0614/p25s03-stss.html
"The plain truth is, yes, we're pretty sure that Einstein was wrong, at least in some very special circumstances. But he was also very, very, close to being right, and probably always will be. And scientists are now on the cusp of making the first measurements that will tell us how close to being right Einstein was, and just how wrong he was, too."
http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Layman/EinsteinWrong.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020530073614.htm
http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/vivid.htm
http://www.whyevolution.com/einstein.html
"Observations suggest the light has taken about 10 billion years to reach the Earth.
What is more, a key constant involving the interaction of light photons and electron particles seems to have changed.
It appears to have been smaller 10 billion years ago."
http://www.nestafuturelab.org/articles/learn08.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/HowCanEinsteinBeWrong.html
http://wbabin.hypermart.net/paper/jr/joseph.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/
"Millennium relativity is a new theory in relativistic physics that replaces Einstein's special relativity and general relativity theories. It is the result of six years of independent research aimed at reconciling the principles of physics with the accepted body of experimental evidence. Methodical analysis of the evidence leads to the discovery of significant flaws in the underlying foundation of special relativity. These in turn undermine, not only special relativity, but the entire foundation of relativistic physics. The new theory begins with an analysis of the classical principles of motion and progresses to a conclusion through five additional works involving relativistic principles."
"The plain truth is, yes, we're pretty sure that Einstein was wrong, at least in some very special circumstances. But he was also very, very, close to being right, and probably always will be. And scientists are now on the cusp of making the first measurements that will tell us how close to being right Einstein was, and just how wrong he was, too."
http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Layman/EinsteinWrong.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020530073614.htm
http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/vivid.htm
http://www.whyevolution.com/einstein.html
"Observations suggest the light has taken about 10 billion years to reach the Earth.
What is more, a key constant involving the interaction of light photons and electron particles seems to have changed.
It appears to have been smaller 10 billion years ago."
http://www.nestafuturelab.org/articles/learn08.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/HowCanEinsteinBeWrong.html
http://wbabin.hypermart.net/paper/jr/joseph.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/
"Millennium relativity is a new theory in relativistic physics that replaces Einstein's special relativity and general relativity theories. It is the result of six years of independent research aimed at reconciling the principles of physics with the accepted body of experimental evidence. Methodical analysis of the evidence leads to the discovery of significant flaws in the underlying foundation of special relativity. These in turn undermine, not only special relativity, but the entire foundation of relativistic physics. The new theory begins with an analysis of the classical principles of motion and progresses to a conclusion through five additional works involving relativistic principles."
Awesome! I started a physics debate!
Anyways... back to my problem. Adam is now claiming that time moves at different rates dependent upon the gravity wells in an area. So that nothing can be simultaneous because the "time" in each region of the galaxy is different. His chief example is the event horizon of a black hole...
Any thoughts?
Unfortunately, he doesn't buy into Quantum Physics since there are no current applications of it. So that spin-entangled electron thing didn't work...
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the whole time stopping at the speed of light thing? I don't understand how time's passage can be affected by an objects acceleration.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Anyways... back to my problem. Adam is now claiming that time moves at different rates dependent upon the gravity wells in an area. So that nothing can be simultaneous because the "time" in each region of the galaxy is different. His chief example is the event horizon of a black hole...
Any thoughts?
Unfortunately, he doesn't buy into Quantum Physics since there are no current applications of it. So that spin-entangled electron thing didn't work...
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the whole time stopping at the speed of light thing? I don't understand how time's passage can be affected by an objects acceleration.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Awesome! I started a physics debate!
Anyways... back to my problem. Adam is now claiming that time moves at different rates dependent upon the gravity wells in an area. So that nothing can be simultaneous because the "time" in each region of the galaxy is different. His chief example is the event horizon of a black hole...
Any thoughts?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
His problem is he is making this a generlization of how time behaves. His examples are all special instances. Yes, at the event horizon of a black hole time has been distorted to such a degree that the laws of physics are no longer valid. But in most other situations it is very plausable that things can happen simultaneously. Think of it this way, he is arguing how gravity disrupts and distortes space/time, which is true. Now say that planet A and planet B are the exact same planet except they are placed in complete opposite ends of the universe. You would have the exact same gravitational distortion in both places so the distortion would cancel each other out making the perception of time equal on both planets.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Unfortunately, he doesn't buy into Quantum Physics since there are no current applications of it. So that spin-entangled electron thing didn't work...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my opinion that your friend is an idiot. There are many many many many applications of where Quantum Mechanics work time and time again. Wave-Partical duality being one of the simplest examples. But, if he would like to attempt to reason that into conceptual physics, be my guest Also, i would think he is being quite the hypocrite since he is trying to argue something which, in itself, is something that can not be proven...nobody knows exactly what laws govern blackholes and singularities of that type. And i am pretty sure nobody also knows whether or not a supernova has occured in another regoin of our universe and say that it has or hasnt occured.
<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the whole time stopping at the speed of light thing? I don't understand how time's passage can be affected by an objects acceleration.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ugh, nm i was trying to explain it but it just didnt really translate into words very well for me
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<B>Awesome! I started a physics debate!
Anyways... back to my problem. Adam is now claiming that time moves at different rates dependent upon the gravity wells in an area. So that nothing can be simultaneous because the "time" in each region of the galaxy is different. His chief example is the event horizon of a black hole...
Any thoughts?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
His problem is he is making this a generlization of how time behaves. His examples are all special instances. Yes, at the event horizon of a black hole time has been distorted to such a degree that the laws of physics are no longer valid. But in most other situations it is very plausable that things can happen simultaneously. Think of it this way, he is arguing how gravity disrupts and distortes space/time, which is true. Now say that planet A and planet B are the exact same planet except they are placed in complete opposite ends of the universe. You would have the exact same gravitational distortion in both places so the distortion would cancel each other out making the perception of time equal on both planets.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Unfortunately, he doesn't buy into Quantum Physics since there are no current applications of it. So that spin-entangled electron thing didn't work...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my opinion that your friend is an idiot. There are many many many many applications of where Quantum Mechanics work time and time again. Wave-Partical duality being one of the simplest examples. But, if he would like to attempt to reason that into conceptual physics, be my guest Also, i would think he is being quite the hypocrite since he is trying to argue something which, in itself, is something that can not be proven...nobody knows exactly what laws govern blackholes and singularities of that type. And i am pretty sure nobody also knows whether or not a supernova has occured in another regoin of our universe and say that it has or hasnt occured.
<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the whole time stopping at the speed of light thing? I don't understand how time's passage can be affected by an objects acceleration.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ugh, nm i was trying to explain it but it just didnt really translate into words very well for me
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> good thing you are that wealthy, i can't afford all of those publications.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't. I have neither time nor money for such subscriptions.
OTOH I live next to a College Campus with a strong Physics department.
As to your "citations."
Not one is evidence to your point. I want citations to peer-reviewed journals, not crap published for the popular press.
Incidentally, as to your references... They all say the same thing: Good Model, breaks down in certain circumstances (which is *exactly* what I said above).
This does not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, mean that it has been "disproven". Only exactly what it was claimed to be in the first place: A MODEL that accurately predicts certain phenomena.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't. I have neither time nor money for such subscriptions.
OTOH I live next to a College Campus with a strong Physics department.
As to your "citations."
Not one is evidence to your point. I want citations to peer-reviewed journals, not crap published for the popular press.
Incidentally, as to your references... They all say the same thing: Good Model, breaks down in certain circumstances (which is *exactly* what I said above).
This does not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, mean that it has been "disproven". Only exactly what it was claimed to be in the first place: A MODEL that accurately predicts certain phenomena.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests