MigL

Anytime someone posts a question about time ( happens a lot ), someone always comes along, usually within the first few posts, and claims that time doesn't exist. That we are mistaking motion for time, as we measure time using motion. And while today's prize winner, Matthew Marsden, is more eloquent than most, he is mistaken as all the rest. The big hang-up seems to be the notion that motion is needed to define time. This is totally ass-backwards, as the definition of motion needs two variables, a spatial variable X, Y, and/or Z, and a temporal variable T. Mr. Marsden would then have you believe we define time using time ????? Idon't wanna re-hash all the objections that have been made all previous times this has come up with this OP. I suggest you do a search and read some of those threads.

I guess we're at an impasse. Like you, I tend to believe the authorities on the subject ( Misner, Thorne, Wheeler ), since it seems neither of us is one. I still have this little nagging feeling in the back of my head though...

Absolutely right, equal should not have been there. I meant to say equally valid probabilities, not equal probabilities. As the deBroglie wavelength becomes infinitesimal as macroscopic levels are approached, so do all the other probabilities, in effect leaving only the one. And although your molecule through a diffraction grating is a nice example, I prefer another... A particle with only half the energy of a separating potential wall has a non-trivial, or even large, probability of being on the other side of the separating potential ( tunneling ). If I build a 15 ft high wall around you, however, the probability of you being outside is soooo trivial as to effectively be zero.

-Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. -Virtual particles exist on borrowed time and are a byproduct of the vacuum energy that drives inflation and expansion ( otherwise known as 'dark energy' ). Why/how could virtual particles arise in an expanded universe devoid of energy as you claim ? -I don't believe you understand the shell theorem and are actually using Mach's theory for inertia. If there's an asymmetry as you claim, it would show up in the gravitational redshift which you are suggesting we have mistaken for recession. -If the universe expanded ( and stopped ) before there was anything in it, how was anything ever in causal contact to explain the present isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact ? Is it just coincidence that the universe of ten billion years ago looks the same to our left as it does to our right ? How would the information have gotten there ? Not suggesting inflationary big bang theory doesn't have a few problems, but your attempt addresses and modifies valid parts of the theory (detrimentally ) instead of focusing on the few actual problems.

Superposition of states is a valid concept ONLY at the quantum level. It is only at that level that a particle can have many equal probabilities or states. As the macroscopic level is approached, all the differing probabilities geld into a single state with a probability of one. You certainly don't get a diffraction bullet 'hole' when you fire a gun through a slit. Oh, and as others have mentioned, Shroedinger's 'cat in the box' was meant to demonstrate how incongruent quantum ideas and phenomena are with 'common sense'.

It seems to make sense to compare the EM potential well of an atom to the gravitational potential well of a planet, but things are not that simple at the quantum level. A 'higher' energy electron orbital is not necessarily further away from the nucleus than a 'lower' energy one. Orbitals are probability zones and not necessarily concentric spherical distributions ( some have 'lobes' and some even have a probability of occupying the nucleus ).

Sure, but Minkowky, one of his math profs, did call him a 'lazy dog". Probably sounds even worse in German.

Followed Dr. Rocket here from the Science Forum. Have learned from, and gained respect for, a lot of people. Even those I don't agree with. Still having a good time. I thank you all. Planning to stick around.

After 40 yrs of age the problem is twofold. You realize that, not only is there so much you don't know, but also how much you're starting to forget.

Thermodynamics predicts that an EXPANDING universe with a CMB is proof of a hotter past.

And while I would have no problem whatsoever agreeing with you for a 'constant speed' situation, that is not equivalent to an accelerated situation, so I still have my doubts.

I didn't mean me but, people in general. I would say more people turn to religion in times of personal crisis than they do to science. Tell me, are more churches filled after an event like 9/11, or libraries with people doing research ? And I don't state this because I favour one or the other. But people have a right to do as they choose to seek comfort. If you are 'low' enough to make fun of someone turning to God in a time of grief, do you also make fun of little kids crying ?

As per your two criteria ( only instance of actually applying real science )... -Nothing can originate from outside the 'system' when dealing with the universe, which is by definition, 'all there is'. -Any internal forces which lead to an imbalance, cannot contribute to a net imbalance because there is nothing else to relate it to.

That's a real stretch. If I'm sick, I say " God please help me". I certainly don't ask Darwin or Einstein for help !

Sorry, I take back my conclusions. I've just finished reading 'Please Disprove This' by Jkemp ( life creates energy ?? ), and the fact that such a 'crackpottish' idea got as much play as it did, indicates that how we answer does, sometimes, lend credibility to an outlandish, unsupportable idea. A single answer by one member, along the lines of... " No, you present a hypothesis, you are the one who needs to support it or prove it " should have ended the thread. Not let it go on to a second page. To clarify, I'm not calling Jkemp a crackpot, just a little misguided, misinformed and ignorant of science/scientific method. I will be the first to admit I've been there myself and I don't think anyone has held it against me. Hopefully Jkemp learns from this and joins us on the journey to learn from each other.

Further to what Elfmotat states, this constant energy density that fills all space ( scalar field ) is theorized to be a false zero vacuum energy state. Consider dropping a pencil so that it lands on its tip. This is a false zero energy state, perfectly symmetric, but very unstable. As soon as the pencil falls over on its side, it reaches its true zero energy state, but rotational symmetry has been lost. It is this symmetry breaking and its associated 'fall' to lower energy states which has fueled inflation ( once or multiple times ) in the past. Our universe could still be slowly falling to a lower state currently ( at a very slow rate ) to account for the expansion. The problem is that we don't have a good handle on vacuum energy, or whether we are in a true/false, zero or non-zero energy state. Any simple calculation ( that I've seen, anyway ) involving harmonic oscillators at every point in space, and a suitable cut-off energy, gives a value for the vacuum energy that is over 100 orders of magnitude higher than expected. See also StringJunky's link.

You are looking at the super nova globally, i.e. a distant frame, so it seems fairly symmetric. But here's another viewpoint... Consider the edge of the giant star, say about 10x the size of the Sun, about to go super nova, facing us. Now put the observer in a local frame and let the show begin. A large amount of mass will fall away ( almost at free fall ) and then it will rebound outwards with great acceleration. This has the effect of deforming the local gravitational field ( gravitational potential will reduce and then increase, I believe ), and this deformation of the extant gravitational field will propagate outwards at the speed of light. Now consider the far side of the star. While the 'estabilished' gravitational field is perfectly symmetric as you have noted, the deformation that the field experiences has to travel outwards at the speed limit c, and by necessity, will reach the near side position of the ( original ) star almost a minute later. This near one minute difference in phase will still be there when this deformation reaches us so, many light years away. GR invalidates the concept of simultaneity, and any symmetries based on events, since an event that changes information has to propagate at a finite spe I could be wrong in all this, but if not, then the question remains... Does this 'step' deformation constitute a gravity wave or not ? Or maybe we're both missing something, and someone else can jump in and point it out ???

Thanks for the info, CharonY.

I should state that while fairly familiar with QM from University, my knowledge of GR has been 'picked up' in the years since then, and is not on particularily solid ground. That being said, I have always found Elfmotat to be, not only knowledgeable in the field, but also very willing to share that knowledge without abusing us less gifted. To be fair, Dr. Rocket, the person who 'brought' me over to this forum, who I learned an awful lot from, and who I consider one of the most knowledgeable in the field of GR, was also very abusive ( did not suffer fools, to put it nicely ) and ended up quitting this forum after numerous reprimands. I have managed to learn from both types. So I would say that a crank is not produced by the responses given by members as Michel123456 thinks

A super nova is not just a 'symmetric transformation of local mass into emitted light and neutrinos'. The radiation pressure of the emitted light and neutrinos ( not so much ), results in a sizeable portion of the star's outer mass being blown away. This acceleration of mass should result in a changing gravity field, and since the change in gravity field propagates at c, the change in potential from the near side will arrive before the change in potential from the far side of the star, i.e. not symmetric. Mow Misner, Thorne and Wheeler say this propagating potential step is NOT a gravitational wave. While the three authors of the article you linked say it IS ( again last paragraph ). Personally I'd be inclined to trust Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, but I'm bringing this up for the sake of discussion

Most religions also have guidelines about wealth and its attainment ( difficult to pass anything through the eye of a needle ). The fact that religion is easily corrupted away from a well intended meaning is par for the course. Any organization, well meaning or not, which is given some power, is easy to corrupt. Do I need to bring up the example of politics and democracy ? And what is it we say ... 'Its not a perfect system, but its the best we have'

Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units. Not that it would make any difference. In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?). In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ).

So just how infectious is it CharonY ? Do you need exposure to blood, or is it possible from other fluids ? Can it be contracted through skin tissue or does it need contact with mucous or moist membranes ? Can it be contracted by being sneezed on ? From everything I've read, it isn't nearly as contagious as a flu or the common cold. ( But the results are a lot more serious ) I've also read of a Canadian developed vaccine which is in testing right now, not for efficiency, but for side effects. How close is a vaccine ? Or is it like HIV, where although no vaccine, quality of life can be provided with drugs so that its not a death sentence anymore ?

When the first groups of our ancestors started banding together, one of the first things introduced was not science, nor the arts, it was religion. It provided them with, what we would now call, ideals and a moral compass. The animals that we descended from had instinct based behavior, and this might-is-right mentality is incompatible with large groups or an organized society. And although some animals have a pack mentality, they often sacrifice their sick or infirm to predators, they don't honor their dead with storytelling ( A mechanism for passing on information ), or display other non-instinctual behavior. As an example the dominant male in a pack ( wolves, lions, gorillas, what have you ) will mate with any female he chooses. How would that work in our society ? Because I'm bigger and stronger than Brad Pitt, I get to sleep with Angelina ? ( I wish ! ) No, religion gives us morals which are counter-instinctual, and tells us " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" So , I would argue that one benefit of religion, whether Diety based or not, is that it has allowed for civilization and ordered societies.

You do realize, Strange, that you are using logic and scientific methodology to disprove a belief or faith, which by definition has no requirement for proof. Just bang your head against the wall. It'll be less painful and more useful. Not that I have a problem with people of faith.