StringJunky

Hi Rai Go It's best to understand what the current standard state of knowledge is before hypothesising and offering new ideas. The standard theories are derived from actual observations and measurements and any new ideas must encompass those measurements, which scientists consensually accept to be correct, as well...regardless of whether they appear to defy commonsense. Measurement is king in science. Here's a good place to start.

Apparently, what an organism experiences environmentally could be passed on to the next generation without change to its DNA: Research into epigenetics has shown that environmental factors affect characteristics of organisms. These changes are sometimes passed on to the offspring. ETH professor Renato Paro does not believe that this opposes Darwin’s theory of evolution. A certain laboratory strain of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has white eyes. If the surrounding temperature of the embryos, which are normally nurtured at 25 degrees Celsius, is briefly raised to 37 degrees Celsius, the flies later hatch with red eyes. If these flies are again crossed, the following generations are partly red-eyed – without further temperature treatment – even though only white-eyed flies are expected according to the rules of genetics. <snip>...the DNA sequence for the gene responsible for eye colour was proven to remain the same for white-eyed parents and red-eyed offspring. For more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm

Would it be right to say: you cannot observe from that which you are observing with. Is this why it is illogical to talk about a photon's FOR?

Would a very finely etched screen placed in front of the lens, etched side outwards, be worth trying? Anti-newton glass has such a surface...it will cause some degree of image softening depending on the distance between the lens and glass.

The apparent slowdown is caused by the additive time effects of absorption and emission of a photon through consecutive molecules in its path. In a transparent medium the absorbed photon transfers insufficient energy to an electron to enable it to overcome the energy threshold that would allow to go the next higher energy level or orbital...if it did the material would be classed as opaque.

There's nothing wrong with your question: Emfield is distracting it with his own pet ideas and objections which is not allowed here in the classical physics section. Your question (post 32) is answered by quantum electrodynamics which is concerned with electron-photon interactions and it is these interactions which determine the reflection/absorption/transmission properties of materials. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can link you to some good sites that explain the basic idea around the reflection/transmission properties of materials in QED terms for layman. QED: The strange theory of light and matter by Richard Feynman is a well-known book written for the general reader that is well-regarded.

TBH I don't understand your question so I'll leave it to someone that does.

AFAIK a photon only travels in a vacuum (a vacuum lies between atoms), otherwise it is absorbed by an electron. In a material, like glass, an incoming photon meets an electron giving it energy to try to move up to the next higher energy level/orbital but it is insufficient (in materials with transparent properties) so the electron promptly drops back down to the rest state and releases the photon, whereupon it travels to the next one and the process is repeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.... <snip> Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the components of any field that do not carry information from place to place at the speed of light (information radiated by means of a field must be composed of real particles).

I see where you are coming from but the clocks are corrected/contrived so that they can say now at the same time...the important part of my thought-experiment is that each will not hear the other for about 1 1/2 seconds. Your universal now is an abstract notion in your head whereby you are mentally trying to extrapolate simultaneously occurring events between two far-distant points which have no way of actually being measured/observed, in real-time without corrections, due to the limitations of the SOL. Just because this sense of a universal now makes sense or exists in our heads doesn't mean that it exists in the nature, or physics, of the universe. Hope that makes sense.

Regardess of the medium light only has one speed: the reason for the apparent velocity differences between media is that a photon is 'atom-hopping' ie it is being absorbed and re-emitted as it passes through and the cumulative absorption/emission times are the cause of the slowdown compared to results in a vacuum. Don't forget a vacuum lies between atoms in any given media.

If a person on the Moon and another on Earth each had synchronised clocks and both said "now" at a predetermined time, each would not hear the other for 1 1/2 seconds...one can safely conclude a universal now does not exist.

Just to be clear,I wasn't implying they were wrong...they just don't have any evidence as yet, or even if they will, and so don't at the moment deserve the 'theory' tag.

I agree, these ideas shouldn't be called theories and it demeans the value of the word in terms of evidential weight associated with it scientifically to call them that. It also puts them on par with the likes of SR and GR et al when they aren't...it's a sloppy attribution. I dare say someone will chime that although there is no evidence to support them the maths is very pretty.

It depends whether one is referring to "God" as a name then a capital 'g' is appropriate but if one is referring to gods in general as a description then a lower-case 'g' is appropriate. The OP appears to be using it in the context of the latter mostly, although I do note he should use a capital in one or two places because he is using it as a proper name. I don't think he has any intent to condescend and he is merely unaware of this minor distinction.

There isn't a universal now...now can't move faster than light.

Bismuth is considered an environmentally safe alternative for lead split-shot used in fishing. Lead shot below a certain size (1oz) is illegal to use in the UK as lost shot that remains in the swan and other waterfowl feeding areas causes them to have cumulative lead-poisoning when they grub around. It's a lot safer than lead and most people have some notion of that particular metal's toxicity.

See what you can get out of this: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Which part of this didn't you understand?: Moderator Note EMField This thread is about the naming of dark matter and dark energy. Do not post here regarding the validity of the science behind those theories. You have a thread in speculations for that purpose. We have many threads on the validity or not of Dark matter and Dark energy - these ideas are not suppressed. Do not reply to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel the moderation is unjustified.

I'll be annoyed if they do that...it wants closing to further replies.

You are wasting your time...his mouth is open and his brain is switched off. This thread wants locking...one should only go round the block so many times.

Here's a link to a paper he did with Scherrer that talks about this. I've linked to it in another recent thread so apologies if you've already read it.

Thanks. You can close this thread if people keep veering it off-topic...I'm satisfied with your summary.

As the OP, my intention was to ask only about the word Dark associated with a certain type of matter and energy...nothing else. To reiterate: why are they called Dark?

when I first read it I remember thinking it was of the utmost importance that we store our current cosmological data in catastrophe-proof storage in case there is a serious interruption in the status of humanity on Earth and if they recovered when the "island universe" was a reality then the truth is in storage to enlighten them. Is that paranoia?