41

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is Einstein Wrong?

« on: 14/06/2018 12:08:32 »

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/switchgear/presentations/tp_files/2010-1_Lunch_Montillet.pdf

I've not read this, and I'm not sure I intend to, but if you're interested it Einstein's mistakes, it could be a good place to start.

It's worth remembering, though, that Einstein had a disconcerting habit of being "right" even when he was "wrong"

42

New Theories / Re: Was a white hole the source of the Big Bang?

« on: 01/06/2018 21:47:56 »

  A zero energy universe requires that the sum total of energy is zero.

That’s an interesting concept.  Surely there are two interpretations of a zero energy universe.

1. A universe that contains no energy.

2. A universe which contains equal quantities of -ve and +ve energy, so the net is zero.

There must be a distinction (?)

43

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What rock did I find?

« on: 27/05/2018 19:34:11 »

Hi Lucasorun, welcome.

It's also a long time since I did any geology, and only as a hobby, so there are going to be others who can probably be of more help.

If your knife has a good quality blade and won't scratch it, you are probably right about the quartz.

Do you have reason to think the pink bits are inclusions of a different mineral?

If not, they could be rose quartz.  However, in my (limited) experience, specimens containing clear and rose quarts often do not show such well defined boundaries.
 

44

Guest Book / Re: Superb Essay Writers

« on: 25/05/2018 23:36:04 »

Our best essay team offers an in-dwelling proofreading power team

Perhaps someone should have "proofread" this post.

45

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 21/05/2018 13:03:45 »

I'm not a fast reader, in fact I'm mildly dyslexic, so reading can be slow.  As I said, time is very limited and I would want to base any comments on a thorough look at the material, so, no promises, but I will post any thoughts I might have. Just don't hold your breath.

46

Just Chat! / Re: Is Donald Trump a ventriloquist's dummy ?

« on: 21/05/2018 12:47:50 »

My wife says the Antichrist would be taller and better looking!

47

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 20/05/2018 16:25:26 »

I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.  I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.

I'm open to conversion, though.

48

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is MCRF?

« on: 17/05/2018 12:57:01 »

Not something I could help with, but in the seeming absence of informed replies, it's worth asking if you have been here.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93022/exact-definition-of-momentarily-comoving-reference-frame-mcrf

49

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we know what the time is?

« on: 12/05/2018 01:37:09 »

Can you ask me that again last week please?

I thought about that next month, but thought not.

Let’s take your last point: It must be possible to propose a universe in which nothing is happening, but in which things did happen previously.  Chocolate may have come into existence then and might still exist – doing nothing – in a universe in which nothing is happening.

Time would have existed, and had meaning, previously.  The chocolate continues to exist for a non-specific period; we have no way of knowing if that period will end; but in order to define it as a period, time must have meaning.

Ergo, chocolate and time can exist, and be defined in a universe in which nothing is happening.

50

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we know what the time is?

« on: 08/05/2018 22:28:21 »

Found this quote from Alex Vilenkin:

“Time has meaning only if something is happening in the universe............. In the absence of space and matter, time is impossible to define.”

51

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was St Augustine right?

« on: 30/04/2018 20:48:21 »

Things move. Once they have moved they no longer occupy the place where they were. It's that simple.

That's true, but when a thing has moved, the place where it was still exists and, discounting extraneous factors, it can move back to that place .  However,  it cannot, as far as we know, return to the same time/place, so in that sense, time is relevant. 

52

New Theories / Re: Can we solve the Big Bang Mystery with PREREQUISITES?

« on: 21/03/2018 14:34:49 »

"Always existed",

Do you mean that the Universe always existed, or that there is a multiverse/cosmos/bouncing universe beyond our Universe?

53

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we see space expanding?

« on: 15/03/2018 18:05:52 »

  how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for

Surely, a theory is a scientifically/mathematically constructed idea about how things might be, or might work.  If all the relevant factors were actually known; their description would be a factual account, not a theory.

54

Just Chat! / Re: I might be gone for some time...

« on: 14/03/2018 18:35:30 »

Anyways, I might even be able to continue using the Internet for a while.

I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping you can.  Good luck, whatever happens.

55

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would we calculate the time left to contact with an EH?

« on: 14/03/2018 14:42:34 »

Thanks Evan.  I wouldn't know if you murdered the maths, or not, the essential thing, for me, is that it made sense.

So many Pop Sci explanations give the impression that the entire accretion history of a black hole, since the formation of its event horizon, should be visible to any observer whose technology allows him or her to manoeuvre into the right position. 

When I was thinking about this originally, I came up with a possible alternative that seemed reasonable to me.

I saw it as an example of asymptotic decay, in which the infalling object was not simply stuck for ever in the same state, but was gradually vanishing, with its progress being recorded by an asymptotic curve,  in theory, it would never actually vanish, but in reality, it would come to a conclusion.  In other words, it would vanish.  This seemed to be the simplest explanation, but yours has the benefit of mathematical backing.         

56

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we see space expanding?

« on: 13/03/2018 22:46:03 »

.....what would be the current rate of expansion?

I understand t the expansion rate of the Universe is reckoned to be 67.3 kilometres per second per megaparsec.  You probably know that a megaparsec is defined as a distance equal to 3.26 million light years. 

57

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the truth about tachyons, baryonic string theory, and quantum mechanics?

« on: 24/02/2018 18:00:03 »

I’m certainly no expert, but here are some thoughts about the tachyon, just to set the ball rolling.

The tachyon is a theoretical particle that always travels faster than light.  It is never accelerated from subluminal to superluminal speed, so it doesn’t contravene the rules of SR, but it does travel backwards through time, relative to us, which raises some interesting thoughts.

You may have seen the quote from John Gribbin at:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72229.0

“So if a tachyon were created in some violent event in space, it would radiate energy away furiously…..and go faster and faster, until it had zero energy ……and was travelling at infinite speed”.

To detect a tachyon, one would have to look for an event, the cause of which had not yet happened.

The prospect of looking for something that may be travelling at infinite speed, may be undetectable and, in any case, has not been formed yet, does seem to be quite a daunting task. 

58

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 14/02/2018 20:11:45 »

 As far as I am aware, s channel scattering is a feature of Mandelstam/Bhabha scattering.   I found the maths involved here totally off-putting, so an idiot-level explanation of how s channel scattering relates to this topic would be much appreciated.

59

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 14/02/2018 19:24:38 »

I suppose it is possible that light from these boundary objects will never reach us, considering that Sol only has 7,600,000,000 years until it swallows the Earth.

They might also fail to reach us if the distance between them and us is increasing at superluminal speed.

60

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 14/02/2018 19:20:05 »

This also echoes what bill said:  And so is everything/everywhere else in the Universe.

There was no intention of invoking quantum entanglement here.

At risk of trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, I’ll use the balloon analogy to show how I understand the situation. 

Imagine an uninflated balloon on which you mark a small dot.  As you inflate the balloon, the dot grows.  Now, ask yourself where, within that enlarged patch, you might find your original mark.  Obviously, the answer must be “everywhere”.  The same can be said of the Big Bang.  At the instant of “creation” it encompassed the entire Universe, and as the Universe has expanded it has continued to do that; it has not left behind some original Big Bang site. 

Having said, and perhaps accepted, all this; if we return to the balloon analogy, there must always be a feeling that because the mark expanded evenly in every direction from the centre, that must be its spreading centre.  I suspect that it is this feeling, rather than an inability to accept that the Big Bang happened everywhere, that is the hitch-hiker’s chief difficulty.  Obviously your original dot has expanded, but has it spread across the balloon?  The answer has to be “no”, because the material of the balloon has expanded, carrying your mark with it.  It is tempting to think that your spot was made in the centre of the extended mark, but such is not the reality, either in the case of your dot, or the Universe.