SamBridge

Do we have an actual explanation yet? It seems like a circle, like "the speed of light is always light, therefore length must contract and time dilates-'but why is it always the speed of light?' because length contracts and time dilates." You can correct me if I am wrong, but I postulate that since the speed of light is the "ultimate" speed, and there is nothing limiting how fast time may naturally flow to an observer but by our definition nothing may travel faster than light, that the ultimate rate that time "flows at" must be the speed of light, the rate at which the component of space-time, space, measures changes in events relative to an axis perpendicular to it, time, is always the speed of light, and therefore as you increase the velocity, or distance over time which is the change in distance over space divided by the change in the distance on a perpendicular axis of time, you are in effect decreasing the difference between your own measured change in distance over time and the change in distance over time of a point in time in any giving point of space-time to space. To put it more simply, if you imagine time itself as car A, and you are car B traveling at 99% the speed of light trying to catch up, then relative to time which is Car B, your velocity is 1% the speed of light, the difference the rate of the change in events of space over time to your own relative change in position over time is actually 1% the speed of light. With this in mind, I wonder if there is some way to use an axis rotation to explain this difference via the Lorentz Transformation. The only other question is then, why can't you actually accelerate to the flow rate of time? I'll take a shot at it, though it won't be a complete answer, it doesn't explain why we see the specific hyperbolic curve we see in Lorentz transformations. Because your acceleration is already based on the difference of your velocity to the flow rate of time, and if you traveled at the same rate as time, you would no longer have change in distance over change in time since from your relative view, time is not moving any faster or slower than you, like if the two cars were both moving at the same speed, one would not notice events passing differently to the other, you would in effect have a change in space over 1, so you would somehow be traveling an amount of space without time passing, which is impossible because in order to travel through space you must travel distance over a period of time. I suppose you could hypothetically teleport like a quantum particle, but that's not really "traveling". And then even if you answer that, there is still yet another question: why the exact speed that light has? Why not any other speed? My guess is that after a certain point in science in explaining the universe, you get to a point where something happens because it just can't happen any other way. A=A, but why does A=A? I don't know, that's just logically how it is, why does 1+1=2? If you mark one element as a and mark another element as b, and add a+b, you get a+b=a+b, and if a=1 and b=1, you have 1+1=1+1, and by our definition of the number two, 1+1=2, just reflexive definitions of logic that go no where ultimately, so the answer must ultimately lie in number theory, why certain constants worked out the way they did due to mathematical logic of values that exist.

There is no outside of space and time because outside of space and time their are no dimensions to constitute the existence of distance between points in any dimension. You can technically say there is an infinite amount of space outside of the universe that has 0 width, 0 height and 0 length, since that's basically what I am saying. Outside of space-time, there's nothing to create distance away from space-time.

That sounds like a slap in the face to Isaac Newton, that's not what science is about at all, and Newton hid calculus for 20 years because people thought the same thing you do and he invented it (yeah there's Leibniz but..), it's about investigating causes for our physical world based on observations.

Actually now that I read about it more, rulers should shrink. But at the same time in order to redshift, B's meter stick would have to expand in order to create a redshift like you said. Length contraction with motion is like a relativistic rotation of a coordinate system, but if the relative distance between points that observer "A" measures near B decreased, it should create a blue shift because it would create an acceleration in the amount of length that contracts between points as you get closer to the source of gravity due to the strength of gravity being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, this is getting confusing. If two objects head towards each other at .99 the speed of light, classically the measured speed should be 1.98, but it's not, and if length contracted it would make it even faster, meter sticks must be able to expand just as they can contract. If observer B would observe that as points become further from his source of gravity, that they the contraction decreases, so if B emitted to A, why wouldn't B observe A's stick being longer just as A observe's B being longer? You can try this though http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

I have a sort of possible question swansont, I looked at black body radiation and this catastrophe and it was said that Einstein used quantinization of matter and energy to explain this pattern mentioned. It did not specify how, but my guess is that if you get atoms to a high enough energy state, infra-red light will not have an energy of the proper value that is capable of interacting with a majority of atoms in that excite to higher energy state, almost like the wavelength was too large to fit what was needed. Is that right at all?

You can hypothetically bend space to accomplish the task mentioned in the first post, orbit the Earth, quantum mechanically you'd have to teleport, which is very improbable and probably won't ever happen.

Ugh, I'm sick of that Dr. Quantum stuff and blatant misinterpretations. Look, pluck a wave on a string. Find the exact location of the wave...oh wait you can't, the wave exists in more than one place, in fact it mathematically exists along the whole string as soon as you pluck it. A subatomic particle isn't only a wave, but many of it's weird properties come from a particle's existence unexpectedly behaving like a wave. With properties like this, particles can have nodal surfaces, form wave packets and have amplitudes that can form constructive and destructive interference like you see in waves on a string. With this in mind, this uncertainty in position due to it's wave nature also applies to energy states. A particle doesn't only have multiple positions due to its wave nature, but multiple energy states as well. It's still important to know that particles themselves are not completely waves, properties of particles that are not like waves is that they can go from being in an indefinite state to being in a definite state with an exact position or momentum which if you read above is something waves don't do, rather, imagine the probability of a marble or ball, waving.

The universe can be older than 13.8 billion years if you think it can expand at the speed of light or is indefinite in size, we keep discovering the universe to be bigger and bigger and bigger as we develop stronger telescopes and we observe no consistent curvature predicted by the spherical Milne model, we really don't have enough info to determine enough of what the big bang was, or how long ago it happened, all we know is that in our observations of our own observable universe, the observable universe seems to get hotter and denser as you go back in time, and then we run out of info on what the really early observable universe was like. If the observable could only expand at the speed of light then it could easily be 24 billion years old, there's even a star calculated to be around 14 billion years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283. What if the universe was indefinitely large? This whole "big bang" wouldn't matter and could just be a purely local event. I all honesty I don't see why scientists think they can even say "there was a beginning", we just don't have enough info, and such an assertion conflicts with our very elementary topological properties we have defined (see dimensions), I like the idea of being able to find almost exactly when the observable universe was created, but we can't jump ahead of ourselves.

Hydrogen freezes? It doesn't have to go into a state of degeneracy to become a solid? I've only seen liquid hydrogen at most, it takes miles and miles of pressure of Jupiter's atmosphere to make hydrogen a solid.

Wow, I haven't been on this forum for like 4 months and this is still going? For the love of whatever you believe in, stop!

Religion can be heavily impacted upon childhood, but more than that it has to do with how connected it is in your life. If it plays a large role in your lifestyle you might end up believing it simply because you're use to a religious lifestyle.

There likely would be ethical issues brought up with reproducing a fully mechanized version of the human brain as there is with human cloning, I can't say it's impossible it wouldn't be able to analyze itself in a conscious seeming way, but as said before it wouldn't have "emotions", it would remain neutral about just about everything that happened to it just as a graphing calculator does. I guess though it doesn't seem particularly ethical to create a possibly conscious thing for one's own personal use even if it is for science.

You're half right studiot. When you are doing basic algebra and solving via "undoing" method, you actually use plus or minus 4. BUT, when you are dealing with coordinates on a function or coefficients of a function you you described, you are correct, because using both roots would not create a function in a Cartesian plane, vertical line test fail.

All these controversies with Darwin and Marx are overrated, they are nothing more than misinterpretations laced with misplacement of emotions. The DNA of a species changes slightly over time via chance in an ever fluctuating environment possibly killing those off not suited for that environment, not a basis for all of history but rather it just explains why there are specific species of animals. People can try communism if they want, the US and Britain made more enemies trying to prevent communism and not living by their own words rather than letting a country try it out if it wanted, and it's not totally wrong either, every time a government is destroyed, one or two more are build in their place, there's a reason for that, governments exists and it's because their purpose is to help it's members, plus we aren't going to stop a giant meteor from hitting Earth or explore space if we're very fragmented. This doesn't all necessarily pertain to the topic but I've seen many debates pertaining to those things and how they seemingly conflict but don't actually have much to do with each other.

But the inexplicable ones don't have predictable patterns, which means they are random objects. Some are disks and maneuver well, some are tubed shaped and speed by, some are diamonds that drop chemicals, or some are glowing balls, the only consistency is that they are objects in the air, otherwise there is no concise pattern. It's like investigating which side will turn up on a die, it's just random. If you were talking about investigating the government's involvement with aerial technology, you could go for it, but you better have killer hacking skills. Otherwise, you will just have to wait either for leaks to possibly come out, people to admit to hoaxes, or for aliens to say "here we are". Stephan Hawking doesn't http://voices.yahoo.com/et-go-home-stephen-hawking-warns-us-stay-away-from-5913574.html

If primordial soup theory is so outdated, why are so many accepted models based off of it? It obviously has relevance in the present. How else would you think life could develop on so many planets? Well the article says primordial soup theory was not created for religious purposes, it was created to explain how original life originated. That's weird because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens "It reached Saturn's moon Titan on January 14, 2005, when it entered Titan's atmosphere and descended to the surface. It successfully returned data to Earth, using the orbiter as a relay." It or it's components didn't exit titan as I had previously suspected, but it was able to successfully give astronomers an idea of what it's like on Titan. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20100511.html "Other instruments will also be collecting data," "The composite infrared spectrometer, for instance," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens "The VIMS is a remote sensing instrument that captures images using visible and infrared light to learn more about the composition of moon surfaces" It had many instruments to analyze it's environment. Hopefully NASA will get to working on the warp drive soon.

I remember reading an article about that on yahoo, didn't mention aliens, I remember reading it was missiles, which seems to match up with wikipedia to some extent as well. "Both events had the expected visual features of failed flights of Russian SLBM RSM-56 Bulava missiles"

But lightning strikes are still an instance using primordial soup theory, which as it's stated is "one of the most accepted models of the origin of life.".You can't say it's outdated crap without calling primordial soup theory outdated crap, unless you had specified that specifically lightning made it out dated, which I doubt you have evidence for. So even though the text didn't change, one hour it's clear, and the next it isn't? Or maybe you were not justified to relate it to religious creationism. Cassini successfully landed on Titan and returned with sampling data of the atmosphere and surface. The spectrometers used to analyze the atmosphere and "soil" would surely show impurities of complex chemicals that would seem odd to have naturally occurred, if life had formed long enough ago and adapted to it for it to spread. Then it's settled. At this point, we cannot 100% confirm life is either rare or common.

Didn't you say the Roswell thing was fake? Even though the people among the government speculated it could be aliens? How unpredictable, a UFO crashed and no evidence of aliens? But many are professionally thought to not be alien crafts, you can't tell from a photo if a shiny and noisy disk as man-made or not, but you can say since many don't exist and we haven't ran into any aliens that have said "yep that's ours", seems more likely it's man made, regardless of the distance it may have. I bet I could make a shiny disk and launch it into the air, perhaps small enough to remote control it like a remote control helicopter, which is pretty maneuverable. They had radio technology back then. Just out of curiosity why only in 1947 and later was there some leap in UFO interest? Sure there were maybe a couple religious photos from hundreds of years ago with disk-like objects, even though halos were depicted then as well, but that's still a pretty large gap of time. No, it doesn't "always" leak out. We definitely don't know every single thing the Greek government did even though we've had over 3000 years to investigate it.

If there's an infinite number of points, theoretically they can constitute a physical object can't they? Kind of like how an infinite number of infinitely small boxes can give you the exact integral.

Perhaps eventually it does, but usually not while it is being worked on, not in these recent times. You would need to have some level of espionage to find it. Experiments that show little progress or are based off of design patented through some public patenting office could have easily been seen by any civilian or talked about among military officials and civilians once they returned, but ideas that originate from within the military are often kept secret for at least a good while, unless again there's large espionage depending on the level of it's secrecy. And what did they recover? Alien bodies? New technology? Don't tell me it was conveniently completely destroyed. Photo analysis doesn't have unlimited power, world banks can be fooled by counterfeit money even, that's why I asked you to cite it. If there's some blurry oval there's no way to tell just from that if it's man made or not, people are obviously capable of making large objects or small ones. So the government can hide or dilute the truth about it's findings or discoveries...interesting

What I was referring to was obviously primordial soup theory. You said it was outdated crap, then not only did you contradict yourself by saying that no one said anything against it, there was a wikipedia article stating it's one of the most accepted models of the original of life. Why does it matter if they "sound" creationist if you can so clearly tell the difference? Yes I am familiar with silicon based life forms. However, many "organic" bonds are unstable at high temperatures, they simply break down, it needs some more testing in the first place. We've seen a few microbes that have replaced phosphorous with arsenic in their environment, perhaps it is possible to replace carbon with silicon and conduct experiments on those microbes, but even then, tungsten carbide has it's limits when it comes to the complexity of how it can bond. Boron and nitrogen are possible, however as it says it is more limited in it's capabilities which would make it even more rare than possible organic life. With regards to Mars, scientists still used evidence that microbes were organic, though if you look at titan, it is made of many organic molecules, mainly methane, but the devices that landed on it did not find life, it's also very cold there as well. We simply don't have enough evidence that life is common. If we find life on mars and titan or w/e other planet in out solar system I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Read the top of post #27 But we can still confirm that many of the compounds that we know of, which are found on other planets do not support self-organizing systems or complex chemicals. Even if there's 100,000 unknown chemicals, not only can we predict properties, but if we know about chemical x, and that once it combines with chemical y to form the solid compound chemical z, which does not dissolve in water, we know it takes "d" joules to break the bonds, something that cannot be done on a cellular level without destroying other tissue and chemicals. There's things like that which define some of the limitations. You can't make life by throwing any random elements together. I'm pretty sure most creationists believe god created life, not life spontaneously created itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis This goes over multiple views of the subject. The later part might sound confusing, so I will clear it up. The spontaneous generation refers to the old philosophical assumptions that "rats are created from hey stacks" and "maggos are created in meat". Louis Pasteure's work obviously proved this wrong, however in relation to the original of life on Earth, " Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis." which is the primordial soup theory, which is different than the spontaneous generation of animals from inanimate matter. Perhaps titan could contain life, we will have to investigate it more though, it has heat and complex chemicals created through ocean vents that mimic terrestrial conditions, we will have to wait and see about it. Life doesn't have to exist as we know it, but that doesn't mean there aren't limitations to the interactions of chemicals. Carbon and Silicon are the only elements capable efficiently of bonding with themselves many tims in a row to form complex chemicals that store energy which can later be broken down by interactions with simple chemicals, other elements are not capable of doing this except for silicon and possibly an element or two like Molybdenum and titanium which can form bonds greater than 4 in very rare circumstances, and silicon does not even store as much energy as carbon, and it weighs more, it takes more energy to reproduce, if you double the mass of carbon in you're body you'd definitely weigh more, that limits how much movement can be done for a single unit of energy. So if we know a planet has a surface of mostly copper, and has hardly any atmosphere even, we can say that it likely does not contain any organism that would fit under out definition of life.

NASA sent people to the moon, that doesn't mean it has to build moon cities. If you're talking about highly maneuverable aircrafts, why would you want to public to have access to it? If any enemy got a hold of it, it could be reverse engineered and used against them once someone else figured out how it worked. I didn't say they couldn't be alien crafts, I said any given UFO likely isn't. However, I still think that an experimental air craft of some nation or group is more likely than extra-terrestrial life developing then creating space technology then finding Earth. http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2010/08/06/the-foo-fighters-of-world-war-two/ There are weird experiments of other nations as well. Ion mercury plasma balls? Who woulda thought. Given that My Lai wasn't even known throughout the military itself until many many years later, I think there's room for secrets. It doesn't rule out that the objects were man made. I could put a thin solar panel on a weather balloon in the shape of a disk to provide electricity for small measuring equipment on the weather balloon or some type of atmospheric device, and the picture could be taken from someone who I didn't think was watching because I was out in the plains and never bothered to correct it because I don't usually pay attention to UFO news. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1995/30/image/a/ The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda galaxy, since this galaxy is not the Andromeda galaxy, it must be further away. How much further I don't know, but at least twice as far given the size of our galactic cluster. Radio telescopes and devices could definitely pick something up from within our own galaxy. Anyway, after looking at articles like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident Even though the official report states what was uncovered was possibly a weather balloon, or that the corpses were not alien but rather dummies or mutations, I'll say you convinced me it's a little more likely, but I certainly don't expect things to be like Men in Black.

That's weird, I would argue that the only reason alien UFOs gained any traction after 1947 is because of mass media, perhaps the government doesn't support the notion of alien UFOs because some of those "UFOs" are the military experiments. That's because what I was saying isn't that UFOs are a particular thing, it's that they aren't a particular thing, that thing being aliens. Citation? A picture doesn't show speed, we don't know if it's moving or in which direction, someone could have made a fancy weather balloon for some of the UFO cases. In a few of them, that's what it was. Yet astronomers haven't found a good radio source. They can tell if something is a pulsar or a quasar or a star if you just look at radio maps of telescopes. There's astronomers right now looking for intelligent life using radio signals, so far nothing, it's like the reverse of the movie contact. A planet capable of supporting life doesn't necessarily mean it has life either, to keep in mind, we really don't know what processes are necessary to form life, but we can rule out the many we have done in our various experiments of chemicals. Well I am not saying they are impossible, there has to be life somewhere else if the universe is infinitely large, but we will have to agree to disagree. Jase, don't ruin this.