-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
That isn't the reason. The reason is that there is no information transferred.
-
Engineering of the FIU pedestrian bridge, which collapsed
Strange replied to Peter Dow's topic in Engineering
Oh god. Don't encourage him. Please. -
Can you clarify what you mean by ESP. It may be something I am not familiar with based on the context of your comments.
-
I wondered if that was supposed to be relevant. But it doesn't appear to say anything about "signalling" or ESP.
-
Your level of ignorance is almost unbelievable. It is not Doppler shift. I don’t believe you know what is, based on the evidence of this thread. So you agree we observe expansion? No one thinks the universe began with a singularity. No. It means the universe was once hot and dense. And it has cooled since then as space has expanded. Correct. Correct. (Although any disagreement will be far less than the accuracy of any measurements) And they can agree on a particular clocks age
-
Are you saying it is impossible to measure time, even with a clock? All of physics appears show that is wrong. So, just perhaps, if one chooses a particular clock, one can use it to measure time in a consistent and well defined way. What? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. These demonstrations of ignorance (and lack of logical thinking) are rather embarrassing. There doesn't need to be a universal reference frame (there isn't). You just need to define whose clock you are using when you calculate the age. Time is not relative for a single clock. A clock always experiences the same time. You are trying to use concepts from a theory you barely understand to try and discredit that same theory. Guess what: that isn't going to work. See every single post of your in this thread. They are full of wilful ignorance, self-contradictory statements and arguments from incredulity. And yet it is the spatial dimensions in the mathematical model that expand. And that model makes predictions that are consistent with observation. You really don't have a clue how science works, do you. Not if it doesn't actually make a difference. It is like writing the equation green ink instead of blue. It makes no difference. As you are unable to articulate what difference this will make to cosmology, I can only assume that either you don't know (in which case the suggestion is pointless) or it is unmeasurable (in which case it isn't science). As clocks can measure time this is obviously ignorant nonsense.
-
A lot of people would agree with this. space-time is a mathematical model. Whether it matches "reality" is a philosophical question that cannot be answered. (As you would know if you knew anything about philosophy.) However, we can make observations and compare them with the mathematics of space-time. Are you saying that this observations do not agree with the model? That doesn't make much sense. (Like most of your posts.) One of the dimensions of space-time is time. So how can it not have "time properties" (whatever that means)? Wow. I bet no one ever thought of that before. (That is sarcasm, by the way.) I think what you mean is: "you can't understand the age of the universe if you don't understand the model." If I can attempt to summarise your incoherent ramblings: 1. You accept GR and the existing cosmological model. 2. For reasons you are unable to explain, you dislike the word "universe" when referring to expansion but (for equally incomprehensible reasons) you don't mind the word "space". 3. you claim that "the mind" must be included in physical theories but are unable to say why or what difference it will make. 4. You don't know how the age of the universe is calculated but you think it must be wrong.
-
That is only half the answer. How do you define "expansion of the universe"? What actual difference will this make? How will this change the results of cosmology? How will it change the mathematics of GR? How will it change the observed red-shift? In short: what difference will it make? No. I am asking you to explain exactly how it is different. Minds are obviously part of physics because it is minds that do physics. But you haven't explained how this would make any difference to science, so it seems a completely pointless statement.
-
No one is expecting you to make a breakthrough. Making sense would be enough. You say that "expansion of space" is different from "expansion of the universe" even though these mean exactly the same thing. You are unable to define what you mean by either of these phrases. You are unable to define what is different between them. You are unable to show that GR is wrong. In fact, you seem to base your entire argument on it being correct. And yet you claim it is wrong. This is totally irrational. And what difference would it make if they did? You haven't yet shown that anything is wrong with current physics. And yet this is what you are claiming about modern cosmology: it is correct if describe with one word and wrong if described by a different word. And yet it is the same theory. It can be both right and wrong.
-
But you just said it doesn't make any difference. So what difference does it make? How does "mind" make a difference between "expansion of the universe" (i.e. the metric expansion of space) and "space expansion" (i.e. the metric expansion of space)? They are exactly the same thing. This is like saying that if you measure a how fast your car goes, you know "how many kilometres it travels in one hour" but you don't know "the speed it is going". They are exactly the same thing.
-
And how is this different from "expansion of the universe"? (Because everyone else on the planet thinks they mean the same thing.) You have replaced GR with GR + invisible pink unicorns. Apparently you have never heard of Occam's razor? How can your version be more complete if it doesn't make any difference?
-
How does this change the mathematics or the predicted results? In other words, what observations could be used to test your idea and distinguish it from standard cosmology? And why won't you answer this: What, exactly, do you mean by "space expansion"? And what exactly do you mean by "expansion of the universe"? And how are these different?
-
You haven't answered the question: What, exactly, do you mean by "space expansion"? And what exactly do you mean by "expansion of the universe"? And how are these different? I guess you can't answer because ... what? You don't know what you are talking about? Yep. This is standard physics. You seem to be endlessly parroting standard concepts (as if you thought of them) and then denying the conclusions.
-
WHAT is the difference? What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the "expansion of space"? In standard cosmology these two phrases refer to exactly the same thing. So how are you using them differently? So, how do YOU define "space expansion"? And how do YOU define "expansion of the universe"? The trouble is you are saying that you accept the Big Bang model using one form or words but reject exactly the same thing when described with a different set of words. Do you see how little sense this makes?
-
That is what "expansion of the universe" means. What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the expansion of space? Who is this "we"? Are you referring to yourself? Did you somehow "forget" (or never learn) this? You only know this because of the same theory that tells us that space is expanding. You argument seems to be tat because GR is right it must be wrong. Did your philosophy course omit basic logic? You should ask for your money back.
-
So you accept General Relativity, and the local observation of the curvature of time and space. You just reject one particular solution to the Einstein Field Equations, is that right? (This one: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-most-important-equation-in-the-universe-9153947e399) But that is mathematics. And as a "philosopher" you must know that the solution to an equation can be proved to be correct. This puts you in a difficult position. You accept the mathematics of GR (e.g. time dilation in GPS). But you reject one solution of the equations (and the evidence that shows the solution applies to the universe). Which suggests you are saying that mathematics is fundamentally broken. Or (more plausibly) you are letting your quasi-religious beliefs blind you to the inevitable scientific and philosophical conclusion that Einstein's Field Equations do, in fact, provide a valid description of the universe. Exactly. We see time dilation in the distant universe. Or were you unaware of that? Is your disagreement based on ignorance as well as religious beliefs? Do you think that "expanding space" and "expansion of the universe" are different things?
-
They can't. Because they are virtual (short-lived, transient) particles. Why would space be full of radiation because of them? The answer hasn't changed. We have a theory explaining why. So what is the point of trying to make up another one (that ins't based on physics)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy (Do you have short/medium term memory problems? Or am I hallucinating the fact that we have been round this loop half a dozen times, at least. Is this Groundhog Physics?) There is (still) no evidence for this. Because they are virtual particles. They have no real existence except as a temporary fluctuation allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can think of them "borrowing" some energy from the vacuum as long as they pay it back almost instantly. The more massive they are, the less time they have the loan for.
-
Well, it is part of general relativity. And confirmed by experiment. (We observe distortions of both space and time. Because they are inseparable.) We do. We call it "gravity". We can also measure smaller effects, such as gravitational time dilation, locally. Except the measurements would be the same if they were made by robots. But, yes, you are right that Relativity is a theory of comparing measurements made by different observers. What those measurements "mean" is a matter of philosophy (and irrelevant to the correctness of the theory). You don't know that. It is a belief. (But you are revealing how much you know about philosophy ... )
-
Do you have any evidence that contradicts it? Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what your (religious) beliefs are. As you so astutely note (1) time and space are inextricably linked. This means that it cannot be just due to a difference in clocks, there must be a related difference in space. The observed expansion is due to a difference in scale factor between the source and us. This is normally described in terms of a scaling of spatial dimensions. It is possible to describe exactly the same thing in terms of changes in time measured in the two frames of reference. This is not normally done because it is less intuitive (for most people) and results in extra complications, such as a changing speed of light. Perhaps you don't disagree with the Big Bang but with the coordinate choice used when describing it? (1) Which implies you accept relativity, but somehow deny it can be applied to the universe as a whole.
-
Are they? (I don't know. I don't even know if entanglement means anything for virtual particles. But it seems plausible that they would be.) I assume so. Although, there will be an uncernatityw in their position, inversely proportional to the uncertainty in momentum. It is a function of the non-zero energy of the vacuum. I don't know how or if that is related to the density of matter around - I assume not as it is the energy of the vacuum. There is a difference between the energy in a plasma (which is evenly distributed and the same anywhere) and the energy in a laser, which is highly collimated, coherent, single-frequency source. And, in all cases, the anti-particle will soon annihilate with a particle to produce two photons. You are not magically creating "new matter" doing this.
-
No. Do you have any evidence of this?
-
Yep. As investors like to say (or are forced to say by regulators) "past performance is not a guide to future performance." Similarly, most explanations for market movements are post-hoc justifications based on trying to find something (anything!) in the news that could correlate with the changes. There are exceptions where there are real justifications for a change: a company launches a new product that is expected to be successful; a restaurant chain has dozens of cases of food poisoning; a national bank announces interest rate rises; etc.
-
Using a strong electric field, maybe? Or a laser: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19327-lasers-could-make-virtual-particles-real/ I don't know if Unruh radiation can be thought of as being created from the energy that provides the acceleration. Rather like Hawking radiation can be described in terms of the gravitational energy of the black hole separating virtual particle pairs. Although it isn't clear (to me) if that is an accurate analogy or not. Well, they would annihilate to create a pair of photons, if that is what you mean. Surely, being closer together would make them more likely to annihilate one another?
-
It would be a useful exercise for you to work out how much mass it loses that way. And how many years it would take for it to make any difference