« Last post by Pecos_Bill on 29/08/2015 21:04:24 »
I think that is, perhaps, the 14th time you have repeated that. Maybe you could try rhyming it next time.
The rest of the world and I will try to soldier on despite our inability to perceive the value of this very, very British example of "science".
For example this "scientific" article was self published in "PLOS ONE" [1.] which advertises itself as, "PLOS ONE takes the hard work out of publishing. There's no stress waiting to find out if your article meets subjective acceptance criteria." Yep, that's some powerful scientific stuff they do there in Britain, alright, Bub.
My apology for any disrespect. We benighted colonials often find it difficult to maintain a straight face -to say nothing of a properly reverent demeanor - when confronted with supercilious British wisdom.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 29/08/2015 20:54:30 »
Nope, I'm not confusing these relativity/space time related considerations of proper time or co-ordinate time. I do have my own ideas on time - but this thread is not my thread, nor is it in the new theories section...therefore for the purposes of this conversation I think it within the remit of accepted physics to say that we have time as a measurement and, as a separate issue, that we observe the occurrence of the phenomenon of time... and that this time is subject to change in the rate of its occurrence due to changes in the gravity field.
This is very clear reasoning and is what established physics says.
Of course my post/posts are entirely speculative, :) , is there something wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with speculation. However to convert this to theory can be a challenge.
IF we can view gravity fields on a smaller scale, as in our own personal gravity field, ie: if we get fatter we feel heavier, if we go to the moon we feel lighter... on the basis that a black hole will change the rate of time fairly drastically, 'maybe' the gravity fields of the quantum world are 'differently oriented' in relation to to time dilation.
This was one of you interesting points. The idea of a differently oriented field.
The smallest quantum package is delivered at an unbelievably small fraction of a 'second'. Clearly Planck has used a time measurement factor in the derivation of this constant... But IF the quantum world is operating within a time structure that is different, ie not occurring at the same rate as our own, the time measurement that Planck has used to derive these units of Planck time as constant would be rendered inadequate in measuring the entirety of the quantum world. The gaps between the quantum leaps being the point of relevance here.
This relates to the granularity of the universe at extremely small scales. While interesting it is also difficult.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 29/08/2015 20:34:58 »
Actually Jeff, it would seem that your post is no longer missing and has returned to its former place as post 50 in reply to post 49.
I am reviewing post #50 now and will try to let you know what I meant.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 29/08/2015 20:29:30 »
So where is the highest energy flux then?
That I can't answer. I have never really thought about it. It is likely in the voids between galaxies.
∞/∞ is not necessarily 1
If you had stated instead:
then you would have a difference and be reformulating the equation in terms that could ultimately become complex and therefore amenable to quantum mechanics.
Which surely equates to multiplying 2 by unity.
∞/∞ is not necessarily 1
lim 2n = 2
If we take any quantity and divide it by itself it is obviously unity. As in . If we consider infinity as a quantity then we can formulate the abstract algebraic formula . We can then decompose this unity to arrive at . Here the left hand side is zero and the right hand side has an infinite radial value. These values are imposed upon the equation forcing a particular result but show the relationship of the gravitational field to infinity.
However, we can also formulate the equation thus, . This then relates to an infinite mass energy. Such as that required to escape a black hole. Here radial distance from the source has no effect on the strength of force. This is because by implication there is no point outside the source across an infinite distance. This result indicates that if there were an infinite amount of matter it would have to occupy an infinite amount of space. Thus there cannot be an infinite amount of matter in the universe.
« Last post by Bored chemist on 29/08/2015 19:37:22 »
The stats show that the effect is not an outlier. An dth e difference between the two sorts of twins is the essence of the study so it's just plain silly to suggest throwing it out.
this is yet another strawman
"As to your assertion that my quote of T.S. Elliot constitutes a personal slur to you and Merrie Olde England --"
Nobody said that.
This is indeed a forum (though I think you will find the word is Latin, rather than Greek).
And the forum was a place to discuss things, not to preach.
So, you not only have to put forward your point of view, you have to defend it.
in particular, you must answer criticisms of your point of view.
I have given you plenty of opportunities to address the criticism that your point of view simply doesn't explain the facts.
you have not done so.
I presume that is because you can't.
you are unable to meaningfully explain away the actual data without accepting that it is really due to a genetic component to exam scores.
You can't face the truth so you keep posting nonsense about poets, and pointless straw men.
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does Expanding of space affecting the distance between the universes« Last post by Bill S on 29/08/2015 18:35:20 »
There may be a lot of opinions expressed in this thread, but I think the important thing to remember is that the only real answer to your questions is: “don’t know”.
To give any definitive answer we would have to establish the “reality” of eternal inflation, the multiverse and the nature and dynamics of anything that might, or might not, be outside our observable Universe.
Having said that, bring on the opinions!
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.