TriggerGrinn

I don't follow.. It's posts like these that make you go huh!?

The question is a bit of an invalid question. First of all you have to try and find where the end is. Then you have to define what the end means. We are talking about location, and space-time. When you view distance objects, its possible you are viewing something behind you, or perpendicular to your forward (12 o'clock) observation. Next the distance also means time, so the long distance away is also many years away (ancient past). Yet, it is also your present moment, that you see, and the future. So in one relativistic context, its not the past. In another relativisitic context, it is the past. So as for the end of space. There isnt really any strait lines in space, and it is not certain you will arive at what you see. We can speculate and end, but if you were at that speculated end right now, you would most considerably be looking at the same question. It is so big that anything infront of you could actually be behind you (in extreme cases). As I said its all relative circumstance, and it really only begins when it reaches your mind.(but thats another topic) The question can not be asked with comman sense.. the universe doesnt work like comman sense.

He who accpets his stupidity finds much growth from his submission and obidience. Biologists developed theories that suggest their may have been a requirement for a lower gravity force in the time of which large bodied dinosaurs and other such creatures like the wolly mamoth and the giant sloth, and other legendary such creatures walked the planet. Their bones structure and suggested heart size gives strong evidence that without alternative bilogical systems like secondary hearts and the ability to breath in their bones and or have multiple stage lung systems like some birds today alot of complications would arise. Physics would suggest on the contrary that it would require a larger diameter prehistoric earth in order to develope a lower force of gravity. A scenario of which would require a hotter tempeature in the core of the earth and a thinner crust. Tests have shown that materials that heat up in free space expand dramatically, due to the fact that much of the bonding of materials is due to the chemical bonds which work in cooperation with the gravity force to hold things in a static form. With the heating of material the bonds weaken and the material expands, as it does gravity has less domination over the size of the liquid body that the earth once was, and still mostly is. The earth has actually infact shrunk in accordence to the theory at a rate which is difficult to put a date on. Expanding earth is the wrong term. Dynamic earth is well known. We just happen to live such a short period of time that it seems like a rediculous idea... But there is suggestive evidence that due to the large size of early life on the planet a lower gravity or larger earth, is a considerable postulate to consider. Also there are suggestive legends of large giants of men that walked the earth.. living long, long lives... All theories have been improved upon.. its stupidity to suggest speculation of current thesis's is stupidity.

Even so, the experiment is intended to represent that of a typical object traveling in space. One that sends out light from different locations just like the laser bouncing off of dust. If the laser is viewed to slow down.. then as such, objects we view are often as you coined, optical illusions.. this is if the logic holds true.

Is it true that in this thought experment where you shine a laser away from you in a huge dust chamber, as the laser increases distance, it will be observed to travel slower than C...? This being because the light you recieve comes from dust particles from certain locations, but as the laser trucks on, it takes greater and greater time for the light to reflect back and the laser will observe to slow down.. True?

But when you stop studying the details you return back to the oneness of things and that is unstudied living of the self. So it is a place.. but its not when you try to look where comes from other than yourself. Einstein said, I want to learn how god thinks the rest, its just details... He already answered his question.. everything is details.. to think like god thinks in the context of his proposal, is to just live happily, and know spirit is all that is and will be. Infinite possibility.

Okay let me add more to this. The universe is not a place nor a location. It is not a thing or a place. Think about how the universe can distort and change for one persons observation but not for another. Each observer forms a universe in their mind with a mental pattern. The universe itself eminates from a patternless source we know as quantum physics. At this level reason doesnt exist, it just becomes patterns in your mind when you try to understand it. It comes from Possibilites, but not absolutes. So the universe only begins from inside your mind, as you create patterns out of various smaller eminations of patterns. Each observer has their own universe. Yes the entire thing you see and experience is unique to yourself. You can see space shrink and time dilate, but I might not. So the universe and everything in it, all of space and time, is not a One object, its an independent creation formed in each observer. The only thing that is One about it is, that it all shares a possibility that eminates from the quantum realm. The most fundamental part of reality is your self, and your understanding of patterns eminating around you. The entire universe was given to you, and you alone, as it was given to me and me alone. For I did not create myself, nor did I come from a bacteria, I came from a womb. I am my cells, and my bacteria, I am my atoms and my molecules and DNA, I am my skin and me bones and my mind and my thoughts. I am thousand of levels and stages, but they all form me, a self...they are all true, but just different levels of truth, and the truth of all truths is that all truths are connected... and the this ultimate truth is a self, and how it percieves the world related to your wisdom on its designs. Gather this comprehension and you will understand that science will never lead you to the ulimate truth. It will only sepearte the oneness of things by exposing the details which lead to the loss of patterns, and tri (three) location relativistic reasoning (the loss of patterns) and know that the universe is not a place its a possibilty, One that you can never reach the end of. For light has already been all places and times.. it is the first and the last...you just access it from the state of matter, as it eminates out in patterns for the self to make reason of and sustain its multiple needs of multiple levels. So I stress again, its not one thing, this universe, its infinite things, infinite universes all blended into one, in the time scale that light came into being and the time that it leaves.

Research these 3 areas and you will find yourself a satisfactory answer. (i)The behavior and source of light (electromagnetic radiation) (ii)The behavior and source of matter or mass (quantum physics) (iii)The behavior and source of consciousness and/or self-awareness and the perceptions intwined with it. These are the 3 main catagories of existence in relation to observablilites that I have found. If there are others please mention. If not, seek in these to find your truth.

What is a bundle of energy without geometry..... is it a string? what really is a string? The strings we know that we can hold in our hand are made of mass and energy. I know they say it creates some accurate measurements.. but I am just skeptical that when you apply a geometry to ANYTHING you can find it creating accuracy. Or you can apply any kind of geometry to create some accurate results. Take a ball (sphere) for example. You can apply all kinds of geometry to it. Geomertry: Cone, helicoil, sphere, flat, cylender, toroid, Differential geometry, Topology and geometry, Axiomatic and open development. Anyway, I was working with a concept to transform angular momentum (circular) physics into square physics. I was postulate this is posible on one principle. The Energy it takes to turn a mass (of m) moving with a velocity (of v) 90 degrees is exactly equal to the energy required to stop the object. So by turning an object 90 degrees, Such as dropping a ball down a pipe with a quick turn at the bottom, a force is generated by the ball when it hits the bottom. But if we exclude friction we can say as long as the pipe does not move (distance) the energy of the ball will remain conserved relative to the frame of the pipe. So this means that all energy is relative to a square of its velocity. Let me further this postulate. A direct colision is also a "Square collision". Square on. ------>| That is, at perpendicular or 'right' angles. And I attemped to display a diagram of this. Could this geometry create accurate results? I prepose yes it could in some areas... And with a string, I am sure I could work out some incredible complex equation to explain the same event. I dont know for sure, its just my interpratation.

The same as we don't go backward in it. Time travels all directions at once (light) Time travels linearly (in the mind with thought)

I found some websites that have physics software. Where you can perform some of your experiments virtually. Intell software overview >>http://www.intel.com/cd/corporate/education/emea/eng/ireland/sitesupport/intel_education/news_archive/326592.htm main site >>>>>>>>>>http://www.skoool.ie physics related section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.skoool.ie/homeworkzone_sc.asp?id=2651 I am sure there is physics tool sets you can buy online, that come in a box. Or software that can help out alot of stuff?

I have been looking around the internet for something that could display what pi variations look like on a sphere. Most specifically 4pi & 4pi^2 and 8pi & 8pi^2 One source produced these such images. (quantum aether dynamics) 4[math]\pi ^2[/math] I do not fully understand if this would be accurate. Can anyone help me out. Are these shapes added correct? Must the curvature remained fixed?

they use (math) (/math) here with [math] brackets [\math] so you said: [math]v=at/\sqrt{1+a^2t^2}[/math]

I've been working with geometric expressions of special relativity. In this process and version of illustration I have found some interesting conclusions and would like to recieve some peer input. Please note I am not arguing against relativity. I am just working with results aquired in this version of expression. If I may I would prefer to link the original thread for simplicity. Please respond on this thread. Animation example Work and conclusion example

Will you elaborate on what you are going to be doing precisely? GCSE physics: what does this stand for, and what level is this ? It might help us offer some ideas...

At nearly the velocity of C, does this geometry seem correct for the path of one photon? The faster the source moves at this perpendicular moment, the smaller the angle (theta) gets. Where as, The slower the source moves, the larger the angle opens, when we arrange it so the photon traveling at C from the source meets up with the observer, at a given distance. Say 1 light second. In this way to develope a basic foundation to work with. The angle has a limitation from some 89 to 33 degrees?

awesome... just like string theory imaginative and unproveable.. *wink* jk.

Yah thanks I am no pro at organizing the mathmatics.. but I will work to back up the verbal statements

nm

Now that I learned from this thread, I would agree continuous math is going to be lost. I beleive continuous came from the misinterpratation that things can obtain qualities (example energy) independently. This is obviously not so, there must be two, or that is, a compound action for any ONE measurement to be formed for each of the frames involved in that system. This is exactly the thread I was looking for at this moment. It informed me with things that I needed to know. I know it sounds rediculous but I a am very sure I understand how to connect relativity to quantum mechanics, and in that process expand on how quantum mechanics must behave discrete. Hopefully, taking the weirdness out of it, with a few general acceptances. Now I completely suck at math so I had not known about discrete verus continuous. but, yes, continuous math is dead, because relativity can be shown how it also infact works with QM, which all connects to classical. It all has to do with momentum,inertia,time,and velocity What occurs is duality. At which there is, two types of every one thing. Two types of Ke, two types of momentum, two types of time. For now I'll take the licks untill I can learn how to express what I see in logic.

But, don't trust me on the mathmatics just yet, someone with better experience, will have to double check my work.

About velocity and squaring. Also Energy and Velocity: When you refer to energy of an object you are talking about how much work it can do before it stops relative to the reciever. Somewhere between zero energy(rest) and some energy (motion) there is two absolutely different states occuring, you either got motion or you don't. Now, when we consider that, any moving object already contains energy. (x) kinetic energy. So therefore if you double its speed, you have added energy to it that it already had. So at double the speed it has double the energy previous + the previous energy + the slower previous energy of that + plust the slower energy of that + so on and so forth untill its at 'rest'. Because it deals with the 'stopping' of things... we end up required to square velocities, and this is worked out through as I understand [math] work = fd = mad = m a v' t [/math] = [math]m a (\frac {V_0 + V_f}{2}) t = m \frac {V_f}{t} \frac {V_f}{2}t = \frac {1}{2} mv^2 = K_e = Kinetic Energy[/math] which is also, and may help for you understanding: [math]K_e = \frac {p^2}{2m} = \frac{(m*v)(m*v)}{m+m}[/math] However, for mass, a massive object can only deliver a limited value of energy to another massive object in space, and that limited value is entirely dependant on the particular velocity. That particular 'value' is figured out as: [math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] or but we don't need to get into that as it gets too complex. The object that gets hit must be equal to or greater than the moving object in order for full momentum to be exchanged, in variable free conditions. (variable free, meaning IE: perfect billiard balls) Which directly goes on to mean that full energy can not be extracted from objects, for a relative observer, if the observers frames mass is considerably less than the moving object with low velocity. That may have sounded confusing, but think about this. On earth we use friction attatched to the earth and when we attatch ourself to the earth we make earth and ourselves OUR frame of rest. The mass of the earth is so great, it does not move noticelably from a small moving object, so a small moving object can attain a high amount of energy, at relatively low velocity. Now lets see what velocity has to do with this. However if you consider yourself in space and an object comes at you near the speed of light, and when it whizzes right beside you, you hook up a perfect elastic band that is attatched to your frame. Lets consider both your masses are equal. You will be able to get a certain amount of energy out of it, but as you use it, you are also getting pulled along with that object and in result, stripping velocity away from the object as you both begin to chug along, one losing velocity while the other gains velocity, and both effecting the capable energy to be extracted. As you see the faster you slow down the object, the greater the energy its going to deliver to your frame, before you being moving. And of course, the slower it slows down, the less energy you are going to get out of it, because of the more time involved in the energy exchange. Your inertia is tied in with the rate of acceleration. The 'time' it takes to get to [math]V_f[/math] velocity final. Now if we exclude the elastic band and have two objects collide, we see that when things collide the time of momentum exchange is nearly instantanious. So the less time invovled the greater the energy that can be put to use. Now finally, we move onto light. It has no mass. So for light, when it exchanges energy, it does it so quickly, that is, a high velocity, the fastest velocity [math]c[/math] that all energy can be put into use, as described before. So We end up with [math]K_e=\frac {1}{2} mv^2[/math] turning into [math]E=mv^2[/math] where V happens to be the speed of light, and this is symbolised as C. ANd finally we look at [math]E = MC^2[/math]

Rough description of what I'm trying to illustrate in above post. Assume the moving object (grey ball) is moving fast enough to allow for this illustration to occur. The red line represents the path of the photon for the moving observer. (strait away from itself like a laser) The Yellow line represents the path of the photon for the observer at rest (blue ball), and the position it is representing of moving object.

Thank you for the response. I would have to agree with the way you explained it as the accepted theory, and it is not that I disbelieve it is possible, I just wonder if there is any other way to explain it. Matter is also a wave correct? For example, at extremely low tempeatures matter can stop behaving particle like and act entirely wavelike, correct? As I am able to understand, photons do not drift with their source relative to a rest observer. Although, the matter of course does drift and it is a wave-particle material. I understand experiments show accurate measurements to the SR predictions, but are we certain these small values of change are being properly interpreted. Yes, there is rigourous testing, and alot of talented minds involved. In my opinion, for the following experiment: In terms of testing special relativity, Would it not of been better science to run the test also with a flight simulartor to exclude varibles? By flight simulator I mean a device on the ground that replicates the accelerations and bumps the clock on the actual plane experienced and then compare, the flight clocks the rest ground clock, and the simulator clock. I can understand gravity time dilation having an effect -not that what I think matters, but it would seem to me to be an important addition to include when we consider the very small values of dilations occuring at human capable speeds. Lastly, and back to the topic of matter. I am not well educated on how matter acts when it acts wave-like but would it be consitent to replace the photon's drift, with the matter? I understand light can also be considered matter (wave-particle) duality. Because of this, it is reasonable to say, whats the difference between using light (wave-particle) versus matter (wave-particle) when they are both forms of Electromagnetic forces (correct?) But reason I investigate is because of this simple example; If there is an intertial moving object, and you turn on your observing device while it is motion. At that particular instant the device is turned on, it is viewing an image of a specific "past" position. However, when we include the consideration of consecutive and almost imediate data following behind that first "particular instant", signal after signal (light wave after light wave) we have a high probability of observing where the object is and where it is going. But even still, each wave front of light if you will, comes from, and represents a stationary point/position. In terms of the light being a photon, the photon has travelled in a strait line from its origin, to your position at velocity C. Now relative to the an observer in that fast moving object, the moment it emmits this particular photon of concirn, it has two options. 1) does it drift with the inerital moving object and squiggle away creating distance at a the required velocity to fill in and up to 'C'. Or, 2)does the photon leave from its origin point, and contain no drift velocity, but a direct course towards the observer at rest. According to observer at rest, #2 is the occuring event. In respect to my previous statements. According to observer in motion (which can assume it is at rest) The light/photons should contain all drift with the ship, as if the ship is at rest. Therefore it should claim the #1 option. What I see, is yes this makes sense. The 'moving' observer will expect to see the photon shoot strait out from the ship like a laser, as any observer would, considering they asume they are at rest, and the drift, or at least the observed drift (motion) of the 'rest' observer will meet that photon like a baseball player running to catch a line drive baseball.(if we allow it to be setup in those circumstances). (when catching the ball it being alike perpendicular moment of relative motion between the two frames, I hope you see how I am invisioning this) The 'rest' observer will expect to see the photon move in a strait line towards himself from its origin, also going C, however on an angle with respect to the direction of the moving body. When he 'catches' the photon, and it with it he observes where the ship(moving frame) is, at that same moment, the ship is claiming he is at perpindicular situation of velocity. Now we repeat the same explaination from this point of perpendicular motion, and we explain that, this next photon, will not be able to travel in a strait line from the ship and reach the rest observer, as the rest observer will drift away. However, when we switch observers, that same photon WILL travel in a strait line from the perpendicular moment and reach the observer. So if you followed thus far, Do we conclude each observers are NOT viewing the same positions in repsect to eachother, and thus all time dilation is obseravtaion ONLY phenomina, affecting neither actual clock OR physics of either considered frame.

Before quantum computers take over, I think there is going to be alot of major upgrades in electronic computers. Recently they have been developing systems that use both the charge of electrons and the magnetic properties to do computation. I know very little about it, but the result is that they can develope much much faster computers.. A full on quantum computer is just going to be insane.. We're talking storing entire documents on photons, compared to breaking it into bits... nutso!