The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How fast did early light travel?
« Last post by Bill S on Today at 15:32:27 »
Hi Stephen. My, very amateur,  understanding is that the Universe inflated faster than light very briefly,  and has been expanding at sub-light speed ever since.  I wrestled for some time with the idea that light from the BB would have passed us by now,  but you need to think that the BB happened everywhere,  so light from it is travelling from everywhere to everywhere all the time. 
22
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is information physical?
« Last post by Bill S on Today at 15:07:47 »
Thanks Pete, that's what I thought,  but 3 weeks in hospital have given me some time for reading,  and the idea that information is physically real is something I've met in a few places,  and find bothersome.
23
Brad, I think you have to be clear what you mean by a singularity,  before you can make a comparison between two.
24
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / None
« Last post by Jason Lee on Today at 14:59:15 »
Magnets are quantum,  therefore they're energy is from a quantum source. Quantum energy is in the ether everywhere..quantum energy is of a push-pull nature... We ourselves have a quantum molecule in our DNA yet to be discovered. This enables us to change physics and do miracle things when this molecule is activated. Consciousness of a higher vibration is the key... Magnets will pave the way to amazing quantum inventions in the near future..... Believe, and become great, of that what we are!  :)
25
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does time work?
« Last post by Bill S on Today at 14:53:03 »
Nilak you are obviously aware that a snapshot of the Universe is a physical impossibility,  but it is something that is frequently used by experts,  notably by Barbour and Deutsch. That's fine as long as we always remember it's only an analogy. So is PP's motion blur, beautiful as his picture may be.
26
I've tweaked the op. Any thoughts?
27
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does time work?
« Last post by Nilak on Today at 14:27:27 »
Yes, Puppypower, I understand your point. However the blurr increases as the time interval increases. If dt is infinitesimal you should get no blurr.
The snapshot I am taking about is in principle thus it is a mathematical, imaginary idea. For example in a 2 d space of coordinates, if t is the time axis and x is the length axis, a snapshot will mean a slice through t axis. This slice will be a line of infinitesimal dt width. It will contain umidimensional points. It is a mathematical line. The line is a unidimensional space made of unidimensional points. The idea of infnite and infinitesiamal dimensions is not very clear and it is only imagiantion. It is interesting in the 2d spacetime,  time axis looks just as x axis, thus a point in spacetime contains both space and time dimensions. This seems to be only because of the mathematical construction.

I am aware of the uncertainty principle, but I think it is more of measurement problem rather than the reality itself.
SR also has problems with snapshots because there is no universally moment that can be thought as not. Here I again think it is a weakness of SR and not the reality.

Quantum mechanics also has problems with this because of the superposition principle. Thus if two identical universes were to be taken a snapshot at the same absolute time (presumably it is real) the two snapshots would be always different because of probability amplitudes techniques. However these snapshots would be equally valid. It only means the future cannot be predicted by any means but the probability of an outcome can be known for certain. These probabilities can only be verified after multiple measurements or after multiple imaginary snapshots.
28
New Theories / Re: My model of a cyclic universe...
« Last post by Colin2B on Today at 14:14:20 »
In this thread concerning part 1 of what Colin reckons isn't a very well thought out thought experiment

What I said was that it was unclear and probably in the description.
This makes it clearer:

Colin - if the car makes 100 marks in lane 1, then in lane 2 if we do not reset the second that the car makes marks at, then the car will make 110 marks with the extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2.  If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.
The distance the car travels in lane 2 will then be the same as it was in lane 1, because the car is travelling at constant speed per elongated second.

In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.
In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.

Let's start with some clarification.
“ frequency per second is 10 metres per second”
If you use incorrect terminology people will judge you and your theory accordingly and dismiss both.
I'm sure Alan has already said this, but frequency already incorporates /s so frequency/s would be used to describe a rate of change of frequency.
To describe frequency you need a plain number or count eg marks/s rather than a distance eg metres. This will also help to avoid some confusion in your experiment.

For example:
“In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.” I'll restate this as f=10 marks/s
OK, I agree this.

“In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.”
How do you get this?
The journey in lane 2 took 11 lane 1 seconds and made 110 marks so f=10 marks/s (lane 1 seconds)

Also, “If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.”
Agreed, as long as we all understand that they are 1.1 lane 1 metres.


29
New Theories / Re: Proof
« Last post by GoC on Today at 14:06:41 »
Alex

Quote
Now being practical:
We do observe an aleatory galaxy and we do observe and assume that it is moving away from us

Quote
Why do you personally believe the universe is expanding and not steady state?

Most of us believe because of others which we assign greater knowledge say it is so. We can follow some of the associations and convince ourselves of its proof. The changes in the BB since its inception has been more fantastic with each derivative. The Universe is like being on the surface of a balloon for the current interpretation. The space we once occupied is no longer space as we currently understand. We can no longer get to that space. We need to create a worm hole to traverse the center of the balloon to another surface of the balloon. The latest balloon interpretation was because of the fully formed galaxies 13 billion light years away. This violates Relativity to the point of being ridiculous. Space is dilated in the presence of macro mass. For the most part space between galaxies is somewhat flat not curved in one direction as a whole as the balloon example suggests.

There is SR and GR red shifts. Astronomers only use SR red shift for acceleration away from our position. Currently galactic accumulative dilation (we view as lensing) is not figured into the departing speed. So we measure the GR and SR combined as just SR. One astronomer pointed this out when he claimed two galaxies of different sizes were in the same group with different red shifts. He was ignored because it did not fit the current model.

Science cannot afford to throw away results that do not fit the current model. They are not true scientists.

There are only size dimensions and no proof of other dimensions. Invoking non observable issues beyond size dimensions is fantasy not reality. Mathematicians are not overly concerned with mechanical reality in my experience. We need more engineers looking at relativity the math follows the observations


thebox

While every part of the universe exists in real time as you correctly point out, no observation is in real time. All observations are from the past positions. Even your screen display. Our relative ability to perceive a difference is so insignificant as to be indistinguishable from real time locally.
30
Chemistry / Re: Why doesn't water burn?
« Last post by ProjectSailor on Today at 14:03:33 »
Sorry, I work at sea, and there is a chance that if our boilers are leaking and emitting too much water vapour through the stack that we have fires caused by this water, which we call hydrogen fires. which as you point out is NOT the same as hydrogen flame.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums