geordief

Suppose we have a body that is accelerated from point A to point B (and ,why not decelerated ,reaccellerated and returned to point A although this may not be necessary) My understanding is that the body as a whole will lose mass in order to maintain the acceleration and eventually if the acceleration is continued there will eventually be nothing left. I am wondering as to how this loss of mass is distributed through the body. Is is evenly distributed so long as every part of the body is accelerated? So ,if there is a timekeeping device on the body does this timekeeping device similarly lose mass and fade away to nothingness eventually?

I thought I had come across the idea that the electrical wave and the magnetic wave (or fields?) "piggy backed" each other and that this allowed them to move across a vacuum. Is that what disarray is thinking of and was my description accurate?

That rings true in the current political climate *shudder* Of course we are all mix and match in that regard to a degree,I guess.

I would have thought Trump in particular was pretty easy to fathom without the need for "expert" evaluation http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36935175 Anyone still unsure may need to take the test themselves.

What? Well I suppose that is better than Macdonalds. http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/09/20/more-evidence-that-everyone-ha/ I can relate to that ,even though I would be on the "minimallly significant" end of the scale.

It's genius comedy.

thanks. I will need to look into that

Well the reason I asked is that I had heard many times that there is nothing to prevent the BH collapsing on itself into the singularity (I don't take "singularity" to have any defined meaning) and so I wondered if the objects inside the BH would somehow prevent an uncontrolled collapse by virtue of their increasing density. Is there really nothing in the particles (also what kinds of fields are there?) to counteract the pull towards the "centre". And do the particles/fields exert a gravitational force on each other? Or do they not continue to deform space time in a decentralized way so that some particles are actually being pulled up towards the event horizon even if they cannot escape it?

Would they exert pressure on each other , so that we could think about them as some kind of a pressure cooker? (from your answer, Iit seems my idea (well I did hear it from somewhere else that a BH was simply a deformation in SpaceTime was wrong)

Is the BH filled with anything? I have heard that it is better described as a deformation in Space Time . Is that true ? Are there no objects " floating about " or gravitating towards the "centre". I think I have also heard that ,for a large BH an object would not notice anything as it passed through the event horizon and would continue all the way to the "singularity" (I personally understand the "singularity" to be the physical equivalent or counterpart to a mathematically undefined term) That might imply that there are objects inside a BH Does the fact that gravitational waves were so successfully and accurately predicted from the recent Binary BH merger say anything about the understanding of the internal working of Black Holes? Was anything confirmed in that regard. as a result of that successful observation ? Just as an observation in the dark (an uninformed guess),is it possible that in a BH ,as in the universe per se the "centre is everywhere" ? Would that ,if it was true have any relevance to the problem with the singularity?

I would say that subjective realities and objective realities are linked (anything that can be observed is part of reality) but that the link is vanishingly small. But I would say that every single thought we have must have a physical manifestation somehow if we were only able to observe it. For that physical manifestation to have a widespread physical consequences seems far fetched. Its influence would be limited to its immediate environment. Even if that environment was the other end of the universe as I think entanglement may imply then that is still a vanishingly small environment. and so of no practical consequence.

There seems to be a relationship between these two ...... (can't find the word that describes them both -"actors"? ) It is commonly said that the latter causes the former to bend and the former causes the latter to move. Are there any theories that describe( or aim to describe) both as one thing rather than two? (emergent properties ,would that be the term?) Is there any property of both Space and Energy (shorthand terms perhaps ) that is conserved,perhaps as the Universe evolves? That would imply that at the moment close to the Big Bang that this quantity (whatever it might be) be be the same as it is at this moment and at all other moments Would that be a good way of looking for this possible common property behind what to me look like very separate phenomena?

Is there anything in the idea (hope "idea" is not too grandiose ) that 1: mass/energy and space (or space-time?) are 2 sides of the same thing 2: The thing that is the amalgam just posited is a conserved quantity and so as mass/energy decreases space increases (and vice versa) 3: this shows up as curvature of spacetime Is that "idea" worth pursuing? Is it obviously wrong ? Is it obviously unuseful?

I don't suppose Virgin Galactic will be going there in the near future Anything beyond the Physical Universe? The Metaphysical Universe? (I will get my coat)

If you include absolutely everything from the smallest to the largest (up to stars and maybe even black holes) could you then say that space was made of that--ie could you make a case for space and matter being 2 emergent sides of the same thing? Or is distance the same thing as space?

If objects had surfaces ,what would the surface look like? Smooth? Pitted? Symmetrical? Let's say "fractal" while we are at it. Is there such a thing ,by the way as a discontinuous field?

What does the boundary between Space and NOTHING look like ?

To nitpick ,it depends on your definition of "evidence" (there was a recentish thread on another forum I don't think you were involved in on that topic). http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-evidence.156337/ "Evidence" could be taken as "supporting evidence" or ""confirming evidence".** I think you might have been using it as "overwhelmingly supporting evidence" ** that might be the layman's "definition"

Is there a more general definition of "touch" ? If we send any signal to an object and the signal bounces back and is received at the source would that be called "touch"? Or if we simply receive a signal from any source ,can we say we have "been in contact " with it?

No, I didn't have a clear idea myself of what I was getting at.

Great name. If I hadn't checked I would have said it was made up. The description seems to fit. Can there be such a (useful) thing as an inverse model where you start with a reality and create sub realities? Is that perhaps what art is ? If Quantum mechanics and Relativity could be unified ,I would be happy to see it called a "Theory of Everything" (even if it was literally hyperbole) since ,at this point of time it would probably feel worthy of the name.

geordief, on 21 Jul 2016 - 11:35 AM, said: So ,if we cannot model ( or visualize) the entirety of the universe, then this is not a failure but a realization (that realization itself being a holding position too) ? disarray: A question here might be, for example, do we need a unified theory of everything....that is, would such a theory be of much use or something that would just satisfy our Laplacean or Faustian desire to be, for lack of a better word, omniscient? ...Apart from making a personalized license plate out of some definitive equation. Just on that point. Such an understanding (unachievable in my eyes but...) would replace flawed (well they would then seem flawed although they may have been correct for their time and place) theories. On that basis it is laudable to look for more and more complete theories (apart from the possible material benefits such a theory might bring. But I believe that it may well be that a theory that encompasses "everything" is a tautology and the supposed TOE was ,I am guessing so named tongue in cheek (TIC?)

Is it an argument to say that it is "logically" (intuitively?) impossible to model "everything"? That a model ,by definition almost models parts of things ? So ,if we cannot model ( or visualize) the entirety of the universe, then this is not a failure but a realization (that realization itself being a holding position too) ? Is knowledge of this subject always going to be (in part ) like using a flashlight in the dark and we just need to get used to it ? Is the itch to understand how the universe in its entirety a valuable motivation but also a hangup we have to get past?

Is there any way that that example allows us to visualize the (expansion) of the universe? Or is it meant to be understood in a mathematical way only? I have heard about the expanding cake with raisins in it . Is that the closest analogy we can get? And is that analogy also imperfect? Are we condemned to partial analogies by virtue of being ourselves a part of the thing we (well I am anyway) are trying to visualize? Or is it the visualization process itself that is condemned to only partially represent the universe .? To me the phrase" seeing is believing" has always been a touchstone of my understandings. Have I been mislead by this "false friend"?

I am never sure if that balloon is intended just as an analogy.. If it can be taken literally is the universe to be found in the skin of the balloon? Does that skin have thickness?