mooeypoo

Ever heard of "Exponentials" ? That's all it means.. this is decreasing exponentially, which means it would never get to zero - but will keep getting smaller and smaller. The smaller fractions are showing you that principle. Our brain is "trained" to find patterns even when none are intentionally there. Think of the clouds, for example. Look up to the clouds and see shapes and patterns, same goes with the stars, and ink blots. That's how our brain evolved. We will find patterns anywhere, but that doesn't mean a pattern was designed to be there.

I am reminding everyone that a religious discussion is against the policy of the forums. This thread began as a philosophical and mathematical debate about the universe, and uses the term 'god' as a metaphorical question. The posts relating to arguments about religion (specifically, Intelligent Design) were split off to a new thread and locked: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39954 All members participating in the debate are encouraged to avoid reverting back to a religious argument and continue the philosophical and metaphorical argument, as is stated in SFN's rules of conduct. Enjoy.

This thread contains the religion-topic posts from "Infinity... Can God conceive it?" [thread]39832[/thread]. The original thread was dealing with mathematical issues and used god as a metaphorical question. The posts in this thread are deviating from ScienceForum's policy regarding religious arguments, and were split from the original thread. There is a reason ScienceForums has gotten rid of its previously active religion/philosophy subforum. Please avoid turning back to these subjects. Thread closed.

Chemistry is the sign of the atom.. And this isn't really a symbol, but I think Da Vinci's naked man is usually associated with Biology:

Some of those scientific topics are relatively new in name. For example, Astronomy wasn't really refered to as such until relatively more modern times than the greeks -- they refered to it as either Astrology or part of general science. So the symbols of Astronomy (and I am gritting my teeth saying that) are, I guess, Astrological symbols -- the zodiac.

Unfair, considering the fact I was talking about calling an argument stupid, not ****ing stupid. But yes, I think that if my argument is fallacious and inconsistent and stupid, you can call me up on it. I don't think it disrespects a person or his opinion by calling his ARGUMENT stupid. I respect people's opinions. I don't accept fallacious arguments. Arguments can be silly and stupid. People's opinions are their own, and calling someone stupid is not the same as calling their ARGUMENT stupid.

Thanks a lot everyone I'm going to go on to the next question, so I hope I got the principle enough to answer it. If not, well, expect some more questions. I *think* I got it.. but.. well, it's still getting my head to spin. Btw, That makes me feel so much better.... eeek! Thanks guys ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOkay, I'm sorry guys, but this doesn't work, the variables just don't add up for me.. I represent the moving frame with ' --> x', t' The rest frame is represented without that --> x, t Velocities are the same for both --> v' = v Here are my formulas: [math]x=\gamma (x' + vt')[/math] [math]t=\gamma (t' + \frac{v}{c^2}x')[/math] And, from the moving reference: [math]x'=\gamma (x' - vt')[/math] [math]t'=\gamma (t' - \frac{v}{c^2}x')[/math] And I have the speed of each frame relative to itself: [math]x' = vt'[/math] [math]x = vt[/math] Now, my variables according to the problem: [math]t' = 20 \text{ y}[/math] [math]x = 100 \text{ Ly}[/math] The x' will not be the same as x, because of length contraction. The t' will not be the same as t, because of time dilation. Swansont, I don't understand where you got your formulas from.. am I missing a formula? Am i missing a process of linking any of them together? I've been playing around with this and I can't manage to do the actual process. I get it that it should be close to 5 something (because 100/20 = 5) but .. I can't do that in practice in this exercise. This is where I got so far in the actual calculation: [math]x=100c=vt=\gamma (x'+vt')=\gamma (x' + 20v)[/math] [math]x'=vt'=\gamma (x-vt)=\gamma (100c - vt')[/math] And since v is equal in both reference frames, [math]v = \frac{100c}{20\gamma}-\frac{x'}{20}=\frac{x'}{t\gamma}-\frac{100}{t\gamma}[/math] I, quite simply, have too many variables. I may be overcomplicating myself. That is known to happen. But I don't want to just take swansont's method as-is without figuring out how and where it came from.. specially when it's such a confusing subject. So.. I'm sorry for being a pain, but.. HEEELLLPPP!!!!! I'm.. like.. sobbing. Every time I think I got it, I get stuck. ~moo

I think it would be better put as - opinions should not be called bullshit. Arguments can.

Really? At least the "home team" is not blatantly ignoring claims others make because they are uncapable of answering them honestly. Seriously, this tendency of yours to ignore claims, argue different nitpicks of arguments you choose to deal with, then wait 2-3 pages and claim no one dealt with the original claim (expecting people to just forget you couldn't deal with them yourself) is getting old. This might be a political issue, but we're still a science forum. We don't really do much for bad, one-sided debates, home team or not home team.

This is where I get confused,though: Isn't it enough that the clock ran slow, to explain how it took different times for (A) and for (B) ? Why do we need to explain it with the distance being shorter too? Also, again, my professor explained the x' (contraction of distance) as a story about a train moving. The train itself will contract, not the distance it's moving - at least that's what I understood.. He also told us about an oval "whispering gallery" (only with light) that, when it moves close to the speed of light, it becomes a sphere rather than an "oval" shape.. because it contracts.. So.. the object ITSELF is contracting. Right? No? My brain does, right about now. Okay so I think that's another aspect that confused me. The v and v' are the same? I thought that I will end up with two different velocities -- the relative velocity for (A) and relative velocity for (B), but I think that was me overcomplicating things.. it would've been 2 velocities if the traveler inside the moving shuttle was.. like.. running or something. But he's stationary compared to the moving shuttle, so I guess it's logical how both velocities are the same. Yeah, I don't get the idea that BOTH contraction of distance AND the slowing down of time is ahppening.. I thought only one is enough to explain this (obviously fi time moves slower, it would take the traveler longer, compared to the stationary observer..).. but .. I.. am not sure.. anymore.. Graah.. These equations are simple algebra, it's just the IDEA that drives me crazy. I am sure i'm not the only one, I just want to make sure I understand this now before we (probably) move on to more complicated notions within relativity. And to think we didn't even touch General relativity.. oie.. Anyhoo, thanks! sorry for being a pain ~moo

That does it, then, doesn't it? You don't need to "see" it to prove its existence, there are plenty of particles that were proven by observing predicted phenomena they produce rather than observing them directly. Unless you come up with some way to prove its existence (and lack thereof, don't forget your theory must be falsifiable as well), your theory is useless.

You're again trying to shift the argument and not answer questions. I didn't ask about "THEM", I ask about you. When I confront you for what you claim, you shift to "them" again, and when I speak of them, you shift to you. Seriously, scrappy, it's getting old.

It's not about arrogance, it's about opinions and values. Democracy is not *ONLY* majority rule, it's also giving rights to the minority and not ignoring the minority. Supreme courts *can* be wrong, and all you have to do is read a bit of American history. Democracy works because the people are active: Active in making decisions (voting), active in putting the state at check (through elections, demonstrations, ballots, etc). If the citizens are inactive, democracy deteriorates to something other than democracy. Look at the Weimar Republic of pre-Nazi germany. The german people "won" democracy when it was quite clear that they're not quite ready for it - the government was too disorganized, the people were not being active - they were not keeping the state at bay, they were not making sure the people were properly represented. The Majority voted Nazi party. The Nazi party put up rules against minorities in society - from Jews to disabled people. People in Germany were not ACTIVE, they did not DO ANYTHING against the decisions that were decided in that state (Majority rule, yes?) and the country deteriorated into one of the worst fascistic regims in our recent history. Don't tell us we're the arrogant ones, Scrappy, because we care about our country enough to fight for what we believe in. Fighting for what you believe in does not mean that you betray your country, it means you work to make your country better. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do with not sticking your head in the sand and letting things just "pass" around you. I believe in the system of democracy, but not blindly. If I think the supreme court's decision was unfair, I will use my constitutional right and appeal. It's called having principles and fighting for your values. I will not violently go against the state, and I will not do anything illegal, and I will (and am) follow the rules, but that does not mean I will not use my rights as a citizen to fight against that decision. That is the part of the difference between fascism and democracy, Scrappy. Yes, so what, the religious organizations are the main force against same-sex marriage anyways, and are using any argument in their arsenal (logical or not) to fight it. That's not really saying anything other than (what I believe we all know, deep down) that this anti-same-sex-marriage debate in our culture stems MOSTLY from religion. If anything, that should prove to you that for the sake of separation of church and state, their arguments are void. Yeah, not funny. You haven't really tackled any of the arguments, you're just using some hiding tactics of "I will follow whatever is decided". What happens if what is decided is against what you believe? Will you not fight against it then? Will you be putting your head in the sand then, too, claiming that you're not as arrogant as to argue? Should I remind you the situation 200 years ago with "colored" people, their status in society, and the position of courts about the matter? Are you truly claiming that people should not have been "arrogant" and fight against unfair treatment because the courts decided it was constitutional? ~moo

Bah, I'm confused. First off, just for the sake of simplicity (and my sanity! ) please let's call the frame where the nebula is 100 light years away (our "starting" point), the rest frame, and the frame of the moving traveler the moving frame. I'm well aware those two frames can, in their own turn, be relative frames of some other frame, but for the sake of this question, my sanity, and simplicity, let's just treat 2 frames for now.. otherwise I'm just getting more confused My question is this: Part of the calculation uses the "simple", calculation x=vt. That implies that there's no relation to dilation of time or contraction of space if we ONLY look at this calculation, and none other. Swansont used this calculation for the person inside the shuttle, the moving frame (if I understood correctly), which implied to me that for the person inside the shuttle, the movement is calculated in a non-relativistic way. x=vt is non-relativistic correction.. I calculated x=vt when I was in highschool, without knowing relativity. That was my point, and my question.. I don't mean that relativity doesn't apply - it obviously does - I'm just trying to figure out how to know when to use which part of the equation and where. I'm trying to make sure I know how to calculate all of these in the next homework question (and I do have a few more of these) and in the exam, etc. Second, if the distance changes for the moving frame, where do I use that in the calculation? In swansont's solution I don't see a representation for the x' (moving), just for L (which, if I understood correctly, represents x-rest)... What am I missing here?

Right, well, then, be consistent. There are some places in the USA (sadly, in my opinion) that a majority rule would probably result in reinstating slavery, or at least something quite close to it. He should be supporting that, too, if that's his claim. That said, no offense ParanoiA, but I would like to hear about his claim from him, not anyone else, so I won't fall into the same trap of generalizing or misunderstanding the claims that are put forth. I'm waiting for Scrappy to tell me what Scrappy thinks, not what everyone else think Scrappy thinks. I think that's fair, don't you? ~moo

swansont, L is the distance? what I used as "x" ? If so, I'm a bit confused. My professor wrote that there's a difference between x (rest frame) and x' (moving frame). I know that in a moving frame there's the effect of length contraction, but that's an effect that is supposed to act on the objects that are moving, no? In other words, the "ship" will contract in length, not the actual distance. Am I right? So if that's the case, why do I have different formulas for x (rest) and x' (moving)? Does the distance *to* the nebula changing? Now, other than that, I just want to make sure I understand this part: Relative to the person moving, the movement feels "normal", and we don't use relativistic calculation (hence, the calculation is simply x=vt). Only relative to an outsider at rest are we using the relativistic calculations that "correct" for the dilation of time. Is that right? Actually, that raises another point -- the person moving doesn't feel like his time is dilating, which makes sense in theory, no matter how fast he goes - he feels as if his movement is completely "galilean" mechanics.. x=vt as distance, etc. The corrections come for the relative frame at rest, where we, the people at rest, notice that it takes him longer than we thought to reach the endpoint, and, if we had a camera inside the shuttle, we'd see time dilation on his part. Is that right? (this is a bit confusing) I'll go over the calculations after my morning routine step-by-step so I can also make sure I can re-do it when I have another similar question Thanks! ~moo

Interesting. Martin, can you shed light on this? I've never heard about this before, I always thought time was an integral part of physics (the notion of space-time, etc).. I'm going to need to read more than an abstract about this, and hope that Martin still follows the thread and can help us shed light on the matter

Some of them do. No, that's proof that SOME OF THEM are inconsistent. Don't generalize. I didn't speak about anyone other than your opinions, which I've read in this forum. I am not generalizing all those who are against gay marriage or call homosexuals "same sexers", because I didn't hear THEIR opinions. I hear yours. Don't generalize, and don't beat around the bush. I asked you about yours, not about anyone else's. And even if you're right and the gay community is wrong about not being consistent, are you really suggesting that two wrongs make a right here? That the idea that the gay community might be inconsistent (generalization, geesh) allows YOU to be inconsistent as well? I had no idea this is how discussions over the constitution, or about freedom or equal rights went. "Same Sexers" are as diverse as "Multi Sexers", scrappy. Drop the generalization, you're avoiding my question (I'm starting to get used to it) and not representing your own opinion too well, either. "but they do it first!" is not what I would call a valid logical argument, even if it wasn't so broadly generalized. ~moo

What do you mean the "removal of time" from physics? Last I checked, time was still part of physics... can you show which of the links you took this from? Either I'm missing something, or you might've misunderstood.

Hey guys, I have hw in relativity and I have no clue how to even start. I looked up all the equations, I know the PRINCIPLES (time dilation, length dilation, etc) but I just cant figure out how to ACTUALLY solve this. The question: A space traveler with 20 years to live wants to see a nebula 100 light years away. How fast must he travel? So I know that the relative time he has (IE, the dilated time, is 20 years). That means that relative to Earth, he would travel longer than what he technically has to live. I have these equations: [math]x=\gamma (x'+vt')[/math] [math]t=\gamma (t'+\frac{v}{c^2}x')[/math] Where x and t relate to the 'rest' frame and x' and t' relate to the moving frame. So: [math]x=100 \text{light years}[/math] [math]t'=20 \text{years}[/math] [math]t=\gamma(20+\frac{v}{c^2}x')[/math] And I need to find [math]\frac{dx'}{dt'}[/math] I have another formula: [math]U_{x}' = \frac{dx'}{dt'} = \frac{U_{x} - v}{1-\frac{v}{c^2}U_{x}}[/math] Which is where I got stuck. If my x = 100, then dx/dt =0 which makes my equation above -v which is absolutely unhelpful! :\ Help! what am I getting wrong here.. where do I start? What am I missing? I know the principles, but I just don't get how to actually use the formulas, and I don't have any example to go on .. Thanks! ~moo

And why not? Any of them hurt you, steal or override your rights or personally affect you in any way? In case these are supervised to make sure no one gets hurt (hence, the prostitutes *want* to do this job - and many do, you'd be surprised, choose to earn money on it safely and *willingly*, polygamists do not abuse their wives - and many don't, and pot smokers/users do not abuse anyone else and don't drive - just like alcohol drinkers) then it's not only none of your business, it's also about fairness and equality. How is that, by any means, unconstitutional? How is it, by any means, any of your business? If consensual adults decide to do something that has no effect on other people, that does not hurt others in their society (remember the key word 'consensual'), then how is it any of anyone else's business, really? And if that's your standard, then you should outlaw alcohol, race betting, kickboxing, and about 150 other activities people choose to do. In other words: How do you decide what is a "good" activity and what isn't if your ground rules aren't really very consistent?

To your question are we sure about the precession of the Earth, the answer is yes, we're sure. As Sisyphus pointed out, this can be calculated very accurately, and we know the forces that are applied to create this motion. Furthermore, a "figure eight" motion is not very logical -- it means a changing direction, and that would require different types of forces that are applied to achieve the precession to begin with. You should really read the wikipage Sisyphus posted (the link was half broken, notice that there should be a ")" sign at the end of the link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy) It's a good place to start.

What are you talking about grandpa? You gave us a formula, and the formula clearly shows that mass is part of the calculation for acceleration, which means taht acceleration is absolutely dependent on mass. If you think otherwise, you need to prove yourself. You can't expect to post a proof, have it fail miserably, and then have us accept your idea regardless. That's not the way things work.

Well, in the case of the closed windows, and the air carried along with the car, there's nothing with inertia, true. I didn't notice I'm mixing the two subejcts -- I started my thread about the scenario of the car stopping rapidly- the human body will be thrown out of the car while the fly will not be too affected. Those two are related to their masses, aren't they? Did I (err, again! ) confuse "moment of inertia" with "momentum" and "inertia" ? That won't be my first time confusing these, so, appologies if I did. The main concept remains the same, though, depending upon the masses of the two objects.

How can you have an equation that contains mass in it and declare that it's independent of mass? a2=-G*Mg1/ r2 Mg1is mass. OBVIOUSLY acceleration is dependent upon it, just look at the equation.