100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A physcis question of light | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 01/13/14 11:37 AM
|
|
Moe you have to understand.Science doesn't actually have to see the big bang but the evidence they have observed and what was proposed has now been confirmed leads to a conclusion based on facts by the majority of mainstream scientist. Is it a fact?No it isn't but by what physicist do know based on data,experiments and hypothesis that have been verified...etc.Right now it's the strongest theory. I myself am not really to convinced either but it is what it is. i can't see anyone saying it as fact, we haven't even been to another planet yet, but confirming the big bag bang? remember tommy lee jones in men in black? "we knew the earth was the center of the universe 1000 years ago, we knew the earth was flat 400 years ago, what will we know tomorrow?" once we actually go somewhere instead of looking at it threw a glass, maybe i could get on board, but it's a big universe, and there is a lot to learn... it's just guessing when we decide the order of the universe from our little corner and make guesses... it's like a botanist learning about plants by looking at a picture, never touching, taking samples, or even seeing them up close, all he could do is make guesses... No. What it is like is someone saying "All scientific evidence indicates an explosion then someone seeing the explosion which, in effect, is the cosmic background radiation. This is called "verification". only verifies that there is background radiation... what caused it is a guess, nothing more... billions or trillions of years worth of universal history and scientists thing they figured it out in a few hundred years? not buying it yet... it might verify they could be on the right path, or that it goes along with the data they already have, but hardly verifies "the" big bang happened... wouldn't multiple big bangs do the same thing? No, just the opposite. It verifies that there was only one. If there were more, there would be overlapping waves of radiation just like overlapping waves in a body of water with waves going in the opposite direction. The distribution of radiation matches a big bang amount of radiation of the type that was created. i don't doubt you, i just can't see it... i'll read up on it more and see if i can get it... but my whole train of thought is that it is all based on math... math is right, but not if your doing the wrong math |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and distance are independent of conceptualization because they are physical dimensions, meaning an objective reality, or that which can be measured by any system, expressed in any language, and by more than one observer. If you are simply using a different language than another for the same expression or measurement, then you are simply speaking different languages, not independently speaking about nothing worth hearing. Yes, this whole "distance isn't real because the units are arbitrary" argument makes no sense to me. Distance is real. The units are arbitrary. The two have nothing to do with each other. The fact that *any* system of units can be consistently applied is evidence that distance is real. The same is true for time. Time is real, and has little to do with the way measurements of time are expressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and distance are independent of conceptualization because they are physical dimensions, meaning an objective reality, or that which can be measured by any system, expressed in any language, and by more than one observer. If you are simply using a different language than another for the same expression or measurement, then you are simply speaking different languages, not independently speaking about nothing worth hearing. Yes, this whole "distance isn't real because the units are arbitrary" argument makes no sense to me. Distance is real. The units are arbitrary. The two have nothing to do with each other. The fact that *any* system of units can be consistently applied is evidence that distance is real. The same is true for time. Time is real, and has little to do with the way measurements of time are expressed. aka Time Dilation 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moe you have to understand.Science doesn't actually have to see the big bang but the evidence they have observed and what was proposed has now been confirmed leads to a conclusion based on facts by the majority of mainstream scientist. Is it a fact?No it isn't but by what physicist do know based on data,experiments and hypothesis that have been verified...etc.Right now it's the strongest theory. I myself am not really to convinced either but it is what it is. i can't see anyone saying it as fact, we haven't even been to another planet yet, but confirming the big bag bang? remember tommy lee jones in men in black? "we knew the earth was the center of the universe 1000 years ago, we knew the earth was flat 400 years ago, what will we know tomorrow?" once we actually go somewhere instead of looking at it threw a glass, maybe i could get on board, but it's a big universe, and there is a lot to learn... it's just guessing when we decide the order of the universe from our little corner and make guesses... it's like a botanist learning about plants by looking at a picture, never touching, taking samples, or even seeing them up close, all he could do is make guesses... No. What it is like is someone saying "All scientific evidence indicates an explosion then someone seeing the explosion which, in effect, is the cosmic background radiation. This is called "verification". only verifies that there is background radiation... what caused it is a guess, nothing more... billions or trillions of years worth of universal history and scientists thing they figured it out in a few hundred years? not buying it yet... it might verify they could be on the right path, or that it goes along with the data they already have, but hardly verifies "the" big bang happened... wouldn't multiple big bangs do the same thing? No, just the opposite. It verifies that there was only one. If there were more, there would be overlapping waves of radiation just like overlapping waves in a body of water with waves going in the opposite direction. The distribution of radiation matches a big bang amount of radiation of the type that was created. i don't doubt you, i just can't see it... i'll read up on it more and see if i can get it... but my whole train of thought is that it is all based on math... math is right, but not if your doing the wrong math The following isn't math. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
vanaheim
on
Wed 01/15/14 01:01 AM
|
|
nice post metalwing, perfectly illustrative.
oh should add, due to work on mapping the (regionally isotropic) CMBR in which an acquaintence at the UNSW has been modelling (cosmology professor, astrophysics dept., his wife does black hole models he does CMBR mapping), the "photon veil" is in fact at 10^(-32), successfully mapped and corroberated everything from that moment. Looks like a 'big bang' but even proper CMBR mapping shows isotropic variation (it's not a uniform field), which matches computer models for an Inflation Theory, but not a "big bang" one. Inflation Theory really stipulates due to GR that entropy forms a black hole universe irrespective of content, it's kind of sweeping that way. To be different, the universe would have to be an M-Brane Theory model. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice post metalwing, perfectly illustrative. oh should add, due to work on mapping the (regionally isotropic) CMBR in which an acquaintence at the UNSW has been modelling (cosmology professor, astrophysics dept., his wife does black hole models he does CMBR mapping), the "photon veil" is in fact at 10^(-32), successfully mapped and corroberated everything from that moment. Looks like a 'big bang' but even proper CMBR mapping shows isotropic variation (it's not a uniform field), which matches computer models for an Inflation Theory, but not a "big bang" one. Inflation Theory really stipulates due to GR that entropy forms a black hole universe irrespective of content, it's kind of sweeping that way. To be different, the universe would have to be an M-Brane Theory model. Very astute. For the past seven years I have made a number (call that a lot) of posts explaining M-theory here on mingle. The concept of a singularity exploding into the universe doesn't give a reason "why". Two branes undulating in hyperspace and bumping into each other at least gives a mechanism of action. It gives a possibility of repeated behavior (science doesn't like unique events). And it jibes with current expansions of string theory. It also starts the universal expansion with a pressure wave from a brane "bruise" instead of a singularity which could explain the isotropic variation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice post metalwing, perfectly illustrative. oh should add, due to work on mapping the (regionally isotropic) CMBR in which an acquaintence at the UNSW has been modelling (cosmology professor, astrophysics dept., his wife does black hole models he does CMBR mapping), the "photon veil" is in fact at 10^(-32), successfully mapped and corroberated everything from that moment. Looks like a 'big bang' but even proper CMBR mapping shows isotropic variation (it's not a uniform field), which matches computer models for an Inflation Theory, but not a "big bang" one. Inflation Theory really stipulates due to GR that entropy forms a black hole universe irrespective of content, it's kind of sweeping that way. To be different, the universe would have to be an M-Brane Theory model. Very astute. For the past seven years I have made a number (call that a lot) of posts explaining M-theory here on mingle. The concept of a singularity exploding into the universe doesn't give a reason "why". Two branes undulating in hyperspace and bumping into each other at least gives a mechanism of action. It gives a possibility of repeated behavior (science doesn't like unique events). And it jibes with current expansions of string theory. It also starts the universal expansion with a pressure wave from a brane "bruise" instead of a singularity which could explain the isotropic variation. makes more sense than than a god snapping his fingers or everything coming from nothing... we only have a limited field of view, can't really say whats beyond that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice post metalwing, perfectly illustrative. oh should add, due to work on mapping the (regionally isotropic) CMBR in which an acquaintence at the UNSW has been modelling (cosmology professor, astrophysics dept., his wife does black hole models he does CMBR mapping), the "photon veil" is in fact at 10^(-32), successfully mapped and corroberated everything from that moment. Looks like a 'big bang' but even proper CMBR mapping shows isotropic variation (it's not a uniform field), which matches computer models for an Inflation Theory, but not a "big bang" one. Inflation Theory really stipulates due to GR that entropy forms a black hole universe irrespective of content, it's kind of sweeping that way. To be different, the universe would have to be an M-Brane Theory model. Very astute. For the past seven years I have made a number (call that a lot) of posts explaining M-theory here on mingle. The concept of a singularity exploding into the universe doesn't give a reason "why". Two branes undulating in hyperspace and bumping into each other at least gives a mechanism of action. It gives a possibility of repeated behavior (science doesn't like unique events). And it jibes with current expansions of string theory. It also starts the universal expansion with a pressure wave from a brane "bruise" instead of a singularity which could explain the isotropic variation. makes more sense than than a god snapping his fingers or everything coming from nothing... we only have a limited field of view, can't really say whats beyond that... More space? hahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice post metalwing, perfectly illustrative. oh should add, due to work on mapping the (regionally isotropic) CMBR in which an acquaintence at the UNSW has been modelling (cosmology professor, astrophysics dept., his wife does black hole models he does CMBR mapping), the "photon veil" is in fact at 10^(-32), successfully mapped and corroberated everything from that moment. Looks like a 'big bang' but even proper CMBR mapping shows isotropic variation (it's not a uniform field), which matches computer models for an Inflation Theory, but not a "big bang" one. Inflation Theory really stipulates due to GR that entropy forms a black hole universe irrespective of content, it's kind of sweeping that way. To be different, the universe would have to be an M-Brane Theory model. Very astute. For the past seven years I have made a number (call that a lot) of posts explaining M-theory here on mingle. The concept of a singularity exploding into the universe doesn't give a reason "why". Two branes undulating in hyperspace and bumping into each other at least gives a mechanism of action. It gives a possibility of repeated behavior (science doesn't like unique events). And it jibes with current expansions of string theory. It also starts the universal expansion with a pressure wave from a brane "bruise" instead of a singularity which could explain the isotropic variation. makes more sense than than a god snapping his fingers or everything coming from nothing... we only have a limited field of view, can't really say whats beyond that... More space? hahaha or another universe... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I myself am no believer in an absolute vacuum or a day without muffin. Inflation - if you are a believer in that codswallop, and remember tis just the current in vogue theory for fiddling bumf with gaping black holes in them. Then, erm, empty space, or is it a vacuumâ¦moved faster than the speed of light (depending on your view point and frame of no reference). FTL - who knows ;) but given all of above contradicts itself who am I to say ye or nae Most everywhere is a perfect vacuum at the Plank scale. The discovery of inflation by Hubble (the guy the telescope is named after) is what began the field of modern cosmology. When he realized the red shift of galaxies meant they were speeding away due to inflation, the universe no longer consisted of just the Milky Way. This FACT lead to the inescapable conclusion that, in reverse, the universe came from a big bang. The big bang was later verified by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the explosion. All the current in vogue theories deal with what caused the big bang and began the inflation. *Smiles* Planck length. Theory; no-one can comprehend it either, well except perhaps max plankee...however you will find the closer they look at the scale the more noise, not vacuum, fills it. And don’t be silly there is no such thingy as a vacuum. Inflation has not been proven, merely conjectured…personally its 99.99dot% pants. Hubble discovered “red shift” -what’s that got to do with inflation or the price of cheese and it actually wasn’t Hubble who conjectured it…twere Vera Rubin ( outrageous you never got the Nobel – I and my kind are ashamed). If you wish to be more pedantic then it was a chap called Fritz Zwicky There was no big bang tuts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I myself am no believer in an absolute vacuum or a day without muffin. Inflation - if you are a believer in that codswallop, and remember tis just the current in vogue theory for fiddling bumf with gaping black holes in them. Then, erm, empty space, or is it a vacuumâ¦moved faster than the speed of light (depending on your view point and frame of no reference). FTL - who knows ;) but given all of above contradicts itself who am I to say ye or nae Most everywhere is a perfect vacuum at the Plank scale. The discovery of inflation by Hubble (the guy the telescope is named after) is what began the field of modern cosmology. When he realized the red shift of galaxies meant they were speeding away due to inflation, the universe no longer consisted of just the Milky Way. This FACT lead to the inescapable conclusion that, in reverse, the universe came from a big bang. The big bang was later verified by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the explosion. All the current in vogue theories deal with what caused the big bang and began the inflation. *Smiles* Planck length. Theory; no-one can comprehend it either, well except perhaps max plankee...however you will find the closer they look at the scale the more noise, not vacuum, fills it. And don’t be silly there is no such thingy as a vacuum. Inflation has not been proven, merely conjectured…personally its 99.99dot% pants. Hubble discovered “red shift” -what’s that got to do with inflation or the price of cheese and it actually wasn’t Hubble who conjectured it…twere Vera Rubin ( outrageous you never got the Nobel – I and my kind are ashamed). If you wish to be more pedantic then it was a chap called Fritz Zwicky There was no big bang tuts. Hubble discovered inflation. That's why the space telescope is named for him. Quantum physics sets the world of quanta ... which exist independently at the planck scale. Everything else is vacuum till a quanta, of sorts, magically appears. Noise, at the planck scale is not noise, it is quanta. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and distance are independent of conceptualization because they are physical dimensions, meaning an objective reality, or that which can be measured by any system, expressed in any language, and by more than one observer. If you are simply using a different language than another for the same expression or measurement, then you are simply speaking different languages, not independently speaking about nothing worth hearing. Yes, this whole "distance isn't real because the units are arbitrary" argument makes no sense to me. Distance is real. The units are arbitrary. The two have nothing to do with each other. The fact that *any* system of units can be consistently applied is evidence that distance is real. The same is true for time. Time is real, and has little to do with the way measurements of time are expressed. just because any system can be used doesn't make it any more of a real thing... there is no substance to any of it, just a mathematical value.... nothing else so, how do you dilate something that does not have a physical form or properties? only thing that gets dilated is some values they assigned to it on a computer, as far as we know so far... and people keep talking like things are a proven fact, and NOTHING has been proven... math is not always right, ans no one has been to a black hole to see what happens, so until they do, it's a theory... a better statement to make would be the math says this will happen... thats the only true statement anyone can make about time and whether it speeds up or slows down... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain something to me of which i cannot understand as i am not an intelligent...
Lets assume theres two trains on a track heading towards each other,one north and the other south. If these trains collided with each other at 100mph then the collective speed would be 200mph. Then lets consider the same scenario but instead of two trains,lets substitute two laser beams of light travelling towards each other. Wouldnt the combined speed be twice the speed of light on impact? kev from the uk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain something to me of which i cannot understand as i am not an intelligent... Lets assume theres two trains on a track heading towards each other,one north and the other south. If these trains collided with each other at 100mph then the collective speed would be 200mph. Then lets consider the same scenario but instead of two trains,lets substitute two laser beams of light travelling towards each other. Wouldnt the combined speed be twice the speed of light on impact? kev from the uk no, math so it aint so... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain something to me of which i cannot understand as i am not an intelligent... Lets assume theres two trains on a track heading towards each other,one north and the other south. If these trains collided with each other at 100mph then the collective speed would be 200mph. Then lets consider the same scenario but instead of two trains,lets substitute two laser beams of light travelling towards each other. Wouldnt the combined speed be twice the speed of light on impact? kev from the uk Your question isn't very clear. Yes, from the point of view of one photon of light to the oncoming ones, they are approaching each other at twice the speed of light. However, they don't really collide, per se. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain something to me of which i cannot understand as i am not an intelligent... Lets assume theres two trains on a track heading towards each other,one north and the other south. If these trains collided with each other at 100mph then the collective speed would be 200mph. Then lets consider the same scenario but instead of two trains,lets substitute two laser beams of light travelling towards each other. Wouldnt the combined speed be twice the speed of light on impact? kev from the uk Your question isn't very clear. Yes, from the point of view of one photon of light to the oncoming ones, they are approaching each other at twice the speed of light. However, they don't really collide, per se. actually, they do collide... http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11354.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and distance are independent of conceptualization because they are physical dimensions, meaning an objective reality, or that which can be measured by any system, expressed in any language, and by more than one observer. If you are simply using a different language than another for the same expression or measurement, then you are simply speaking different languages, not independently speaking about nothing worth hearing. Yes, this whole "distance isn't real because the units are arbitrary" argument makes no sense to me. Distance is real. The units are arbitrary. The two have nothing to do with each other. The fact that *any* system of units can be consistently applied is evidence that distance is real. The same is true for time. Time is real, and has little to do with the way measurements of time are expressed. just because any system can be used doesn't make it any more of a real thing... You and another saying 'time isn't real' are the ones who brought up differing measurement systems. The point here is that the measurement system doesn't matter. there is no substance to any of it Do you believe that you exist? so, how do you dilate something that does not have a physical form or properties? Yes, how do you? Because we know that time can dilate. If you think that dilation requires physical properties, then you've just concluded that time has physical properties. no one has been to a black hole to see what happens We don't need to go to a black hole to see relativistic effects in action. a better statement to make would be the math says this will happen... thats the only true statement anyone can make about time and whether it speeds up or slows down... No, we observe it happening every day with our GPS system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because any system can be used doesn't make it any more of a real thing... You and another saying 'time isn't real' are the ones who brought up differing measurement systems. The point here is that the measurement system doesn't matter. i didn't bring it up because i agree with you here there is no substance to any of it Do you believe that you exist? i have substance, a physical presence...time does not so, how do you dilate something that does not have a physical form or properties? Yes, how do you? Because we know that time can dilate. If you think that dilation requires physical properties, then you've just concluded that time has physical properties. we don't know that, something is happening, they don't know what it is no one has been to a black hole to see what happens We don't need to go to a black hole to see relativistic effects in action. i disagree, looking at something trillions of miles away leaves out some things.. a better statement to make would be the math says this will happen... thats the only true statement anyone can make about time and whether it speeds up or slows down... No, we observe it happening every day with our GPS system they observe something, no one is quite sure what it is yet... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because any system can be used doesn't make it any more of a real thing... You and another saying 'time isn't real' are the ones who brought up differing measurement systems. The point here is that the measurement system doesn't matter. i didn't bring it up because i agree with you here Are you saying that: You agree that this fact (that measurement systems (for distance, time, mass, etc) are generally arbitrary human creations) doesn't invalidate the claim that the things measured are real? Do you believe that you exist? i have substance, a physical presence... How do you know? How do you know that you have substance? How do you know that you have physical presence? so, how do you dilate something that does not have a physical form or properties? Yes, how do you? Because we know that time can dilate. If you think that dilation requires physical properties, then you've just concluded that time has physical properties. we don't know that, something is happening, they don't know what it is Humanity has been dealing with the underlying reality of relativity for a century. We've incorporated it into everyday engineering, when necessary. We have a good grasp on the fact that time dilation happens. Who are you to declare that 'they' don't know this? Have you finished your PhD in physics yet? If not, that might be a good first step before you make such a broad and absolutely declaration of the limitations of others' understandings. Could it be that some people do understand it, and some people don't, and those that don't understand it simply insist that the others cannot understand it, while the naysayers simply don't know enough to make that evaluation? no one has been to a black hole to see what happens We don't need to go to a black hole to see relativistic effects in action. i disagree, looking at something trillions of miles away leaves out some things.. That's a non sequitur. I didn't say anything about trillions of miles, I assert that we don't need to go to a black hole to see relativistic effects in action. We don't need to look at black holes at all to do this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..... If these trains collided with each other ...... Your question isn't very clear. Yes, from the point of view of one photon of light to the oncoming ones, they are approaching each other at twice the speed of light. However, they don't really collide, per se. actually, they do collide... http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11354.html Equivocation. Metalwing was correct to point out that light does NOT 'collide' with light, especially not in the same sense that the word was used when discussing trains. kev posted about matter-matter interactions and asked about light-light interactions. Your link is about light-matter interactions. As far as I know, there are no true light-light interactions. I could definitely be wrong (I've heard speculation about using light to bend space, and causing other light to bend...). If there are, they certainly are not 'collisions' in the sense of matter-matter interactions. |
|
|
|
|
