« Last post by puppypower on Today at 12:03:15 »
There is than one way to get the same apparent expansion in space-time.
Say we started with mass M confined to a given volume V. If I was to explode that mass so the volume doubles; mass density halves, space-time will expand around the mass due to GR. On the other hand, if we started with M confined to volume V, and expanded space-time, so the apparent volume doubles, it would look like the mass is expanding. Both scenarios look the same, but cause and effect is opposite in each case.
We can expand a mass; bomb, to make local space-time expand in the lab. But has anyone done the opposite and expand space-time in the lab, first, to show it is possible for this to lead the mass? We do this on paper with dark energy, but dark energy has not been seen in the lab to prove it is real and not just a placeholder.
Say we had a uniform cloud of water vapor, that occupies volume V. Next, we cool the cloud and allow the water vapor in the cloud to condense into millions of little water droplets. This will alter the space-time profile of the cloud. Space-time will contract, at each water droplet, compared to the original uniform cloud due to increases mass density. While space-time will expand the space, between each droplet compared to the original cloud, due to lowered mass density in the dead space.
Interesting points all.
You misunderstand my points.
Misunderstandings can be fun. Perhaps not. I must admit I understand not half of what is said on this forum. Poetry is my thing and I just might be one of the greatest poets of the 21st century because competition isn't much. No offense to other poets. Sometimes I am curious about the universe just as my cat is about a box. It's just that I've one life instead of nine so I guess I should be more careful as I explore the universe.
The name "Hydrogen" described the most startling property seen, back when this gas was first discovered:
- Hydro: Water
- Gen: maker
- Hydrogen makes water
Hydrogen makes water when it burns, by reacting with the oxygen in the air.
Water is what happens after the fire goes out - it is already 100% burned, and can't burn any more.
In more detail:
- Oxygen has two sites that can join onto another atom
- Hydrogen has one site that can join onto another atom
- The chemical formula of water is H2O, with 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom
- In Water, Oxygen has its two binding sites joined to a Hydrogen
- In water, each Hydrogen has its single binding site joined to an Oxygen
- The resulting Water is chemically very stable.
The only way it will burn is if you add another chemical that grabs the oxygen or Hydrogen even more strongly than they grab each other.
- One such chemical is the extremely reactive metal Sodium
- Sodium grabs the Oxygen atom out of the water, liberating the Hydrogen, which immediately catches fire, producing water again.
« Last post by Nilak on Today at 10:45:51 »
The only way I can see this is that the universe which contains entities and information has a certain size and a shape close to a sphere. Everything within the limits of the Universe moves folowing the internal geomety. Outside of it there is space to expand into. This space has no geometry until it is occupied.
If we imagine another universe near ours, then the space between them could have for example a flat geometry. This scenario is too complex and less likely. Flat geometry, would allow infinite relative speeds between universes. Another possibility is that space between them is the same geometry outside and inside the universe.
SYKES Mitchell (SYK0006) asked the Naked Scientists:
Dear Naked Scientists.
This has always baffled me, water. It is made of two of the three things that you need to make a fire, fuel(hydrogen) and oxygen. And yet it does not burn. My Mum says that it is because it is wet, yet oil, petrol and many other wet liquids burn. WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN!! Please answer!
Love the show!
Mitchell Sykes, Australia
What do you think?
Rather than creating the complex universe we see today, it is more likely that he only created spacetime, matter and pushed some energy in and then the big bang happened. If all was compressed to a singularity them god only needed to be in one place. However, this scenario in which an entity creates the Big Bang, leads to a more complicated world and there is absolutely no evidence for it. You can take the scenario into consideration, but then you need to test
it and find some clues. Also information about anything beyond this world cannot be found. Vague theories can't be proven right or wrong.
Yes, the model has issues with relativity.
Also, photons mean energy into the system, and that affects the space. The wave can't propagate without affecting the space it is traveling through, which involves mass.
« Last post by huho426 on Today at 07:45:01 »
LoL, i will become a big innovation!
« Last post by oshznim on Today at 07:25:02 »
Recently, I am performing a cultivation experiment that requires large volume of medium per sample.
However, I am concerned about whether cultivation medium loss will affect experimental results or not.
I'm not sure which strategy is better to reduce(minimize sampling loss) or increase(maximize data point) sampling number.
If you have any idea or related paper, please help me.
In general you have to produce theories which are close to what the scientists believe.
I can understand why you might think that. I could care less about what other scientists believe. My focus was and continues to be reverse engineering relativity. I created a system that matches relativity observations and would like others to find fault with mechanical relativity as I describe relativity. Other scientists are burdened with the subjective teachings of others who have not fully understood the real meaning to Relativity's postulates. I am a realest with the tools to create relativity's mechanics. Multi verse, virtual photons, entanglement, gravity, magnetism and issues with the dual slit experiment are naturally explained. Other scientists ignore the tools needed for an explanation.
You have millions of physicists in the world trying to understand the universe and produce theories.
When you are climbing the tree of knowledge what test do you have to know you are not out on a limb? Science today no longer questions its position on the tree. Our limb does not provide the tools necessary to understand gravity, magnetism or even what is described as a charge. Labels fix our thoughts to fail exploration. We give ourselves our limitations. Non repeatable experiments are subjective opinion no matter how much you respect the source.
How does your machine produce random chance?
It doesn't. Only life produces random chance and I am less sure of that every day. Quantum mechanics create relativity. Macro world is controlled by the micro world.
The gravitational fields and the electromagnetic fields have a great deal of freedom and random chance.
Not understanding the cause of gravity might make you think that way. I once thought that.
You have a unique viewpoint for sure. But this necessitates space acting like a machine.
It is a machine and not just acting like one. When you understand that you can have the tools to understand the machine.
I reverse engineered Relativity to follow Relativistic observations mechanically. This may or may not be the mechanics of Relativity but the mechanics will follow relativity.
Magnetism, the entire spectrum, gravity and motion is the energy of space and not mass. Macro Mass has no energy not given to it from friction of space (fundamental energy).
SMFAds for Free Forums
© 2000–2016 - 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.