8
   

Speed of light revisited yet still again

 
 
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 06:40 pm
@Brandon9000,
I was taught that neutrinos technically move from place to place instantaneously.

Also you sound kind if dumb. Ex: If space is finite yet expands then there must be an outer limit and that outer limit must consist of something to define the outer limit. Then if light can never reach the outer limit then its rate of expansion must exceed the speed of light. So any item that makes up the outer limit must then also travel faster then the speed of light. It's a simple proof.

P.S. Mittchio Kaku is the source I stated beforehand. He is a well respected string theorist who has written dozens of respected books and published scientific research and ect. Yes I'm already predicted your comeback so no need to state it. List some of his books and I'll list as many as possible. Okay.

P.S. I am not trying to provoke you.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 06:53 pm
@somewhatsolved,
His books are based on his ideas, just like Hawking's comic books are based on his ideas. You could take the most brilliant physicist in the World, and their ideas are no better than that of a hairstylist. Hawking owes his readers a refund.
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 07:30 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Dude is not all of this the same. The entire argument is about light's speed and Relativity. Those are just "IDEAS" of Einstein and you have already confirmed your belief in him. Also theories don't become laws when they get proven. Also is E=MC^2 correct.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 08:02 pm
@somewhatsolved,
Relativity has already been proven wrong, and Hawking has admitted that his black hole nonsense, was nonsense.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 08:29 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
There is no evidence that space is expanding

And your qualification to know this is what?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 08:30 pm
@somewhatsolved,
somewhatsolved wrote:
I was taught that neutrinos technically move from place to place instantaneously.

Also you sound kind if dumb. Ex: If space is finite yet expands then there must be an outer limit and that outer limit must consist of something to define the outer limit. Then if light can never reach the outer limit then its rate of expansion must exceed the speed of light. So any item that makes up the outer limit must then also travel faster then the speed of light. It's a simple proof.

P.S. Mittchio Kaku is the source I stated beforehand. He is a well respected string theorist who has written dozens of respected books and published scientific research and ect. Yes I'm already predicted your comeback so no need to state it. List some of his books and I'll list as many as possible. Okay.

P.S. I am not trying to provoke you.

What I stated is only common knowledge. Please show any link at all which says that neutrinos move from place to place instantly. Any link at all will do.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 08:32 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
Relativity has already been proven wrong, and Hawking has admitted that his black hole nonsense, was nonsense.

Please provide one link that relativity has been proven wrong. From the whole Internet, you should be able to find one.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 08:45 pm
@Brandon9000,
Well, Brandon not too bright, strikes again. http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1454941-0

Einstein, included the static, and thus not expanding universe in relativity, then Hubbel told the hairy scary one that he was wrong, and Einstein was so totally wrong, that he admitted so, right after walking out of Mount Palomar observatory, as Hubbel giggled in the background.

Next.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:01 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Well, Brandon not too bright, strikes again. http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1454941-0

This is apparently a response to:


Einstein, included the static, and thus not expanding universe in relativity, then Hubbel told the hairy scary one that he was wrong, and Einstein was so totally wrong, that he admitted so, right after walking out of Mount Palomar observatory, as Hubbel giggled in the background.

Next.

A. The static model of the universe is not a part of the general theory of relativity. It was simply an idea of Einstein's. Both special and general relativity are accepted today by scientists all over the world and taught in college physics classes.
B. You have not provided a statement from a reputable source to the effect that special and general relativity are now regarded as incorrect theories. If this were true, it should be all over the Internet.

I'll provide a reference for you:

"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time."

This is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Here's another reference:

"General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics."

This is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Now I insist that you provide me with a link which states that these theories are no longer accepted by the scientific community, since this is what you claimed.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
A. The static model of the universe is not a part of the general theory of relativity.


Duh, but it was part of the theory of relativity until Hubbel showed Einstein the stars...... Dude, this is history, not your opinion, now go back to playing your game....

Sheesh
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:21 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Quote:
A. The static model of the universe is not a part of the general theory of relativity.


Duh, but it was part of the theory of relativity until Hubbel showed Einstein the stars...... Dude, this is history, not your opinion, now go back to playing your game....

Sheesh

It was never part of the general theory of relativity. It was simply a belief of Einstein's. Furthermore, your claim was not that one aspect of relativity was proven wrong. You have stated categorically that relativity has been proven wrong. Now, I insist that you find me a link from a reputable source which states that relativity is no longer accepted by the scientific community. If you are correct, this should be child's play. I have provided links which state that it is the accepted theory. If you cannot or will not, then it will be to clear to one and all that you have been caught in a mistake and are simply trying to bluster your way out of it.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:27 pm
@Brandon9000,
When Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativity, he thought he ran into the same problem that Newton did: his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing, yet he assumed that the universe was static. His original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static universe. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."

Give it up kid, your hero made a mistake, this is exactly what I am trying to point out, that neither you nor millions of other people have a clue.


A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat'. A static infinite universe was first proposed by Giordano Bruno.

In contrast to this model, Albert Einstein proposed a temporally infinite but spatially finite model as his preferred cosmology in 1917, in his paper Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity.

After the discovery of the redshift-distance relationship (deduced by the inverse correlation of galactic brightness to redshift) by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble, the Roman Catholic priest Georges LeMaitre interpreted the redshift as proof of universal expansion and thus a Big Bang, whereas Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. Zwicky's proposal would come to be called 'tired light'- a term coined by the leading Big Bang proponent Richard Tolman.


Now go to bed already.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:44 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
You said, "Relativity has already been proven wrong." I have provided references indicating that the theory of relativity is the accepted model today. I have asked you clearly to provide a link which states that the scientific community now regards it as an incorrect theory. Pretending you didn't see the request won't help you. If you are correct it should take just moments to provide such a link. Provide a link which states that the scientific community regards relativity as a disproven theory or everyone reading this will understand clearly that you have been caught in a mistake.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:51 pm
@Brandon9000,
Einstein changed relativity after he visited Hubbel, now get over it......

Einstein's Greatest Blunder

The Cosmological Constant

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life.
-- George Gamow, My World Line, 1970 [1]
Einstein's remark has become part of the folklore of physics, but was he right? He certainly had cause to feel rueful about the cosmological constant; he had introduced it into his general theory of relativity in 1917, as a last resort, to force the equations to yield a static universe. Even at the time, he apologized for doing so, because it spoiled the elegant simplicity of the field equations that he had struggled so hard to find. Of course the universe is not static, just as his original equations were trying to tell him; his blindness lost him the chance to make one of the great predictions in physics. Even worse, a little more analysis would have shown that his static universe was not stable, and would have started to expand or contract if its perfect equilibrium was disturbed in any way.
The most banal reason for Einstein's blunder might have been a simple failure to think through the consequences of his own ideas (in itself, very unusual for Einstein, but he was mentally and physically exhausted at this time). His 1917 paper finishes with the following:

It is to be emphasized, however, that a positive curvature of space is given by our results, even if the supplementary term [cosmological constant] is not introduced. That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars.
So Einstein was aware that his equations had non-static solutions, but he had convinced himself they were irrelevant because the stars were known to move very slowly compared to the speed of light. He seems to have missed the possibility of a coherent large-scale expansion or contraction, in which the motions of the stars near any observer would be negligible. If we can make this excuse in 1917, it fails in the 1920s when Einstein read and commented on the work by both Friedman and Lemaître which explicitly demonstrated the expanding solutions. Although Einstein originally thought there was an error in Friedman's paper, he was soon convinced that it was mathematically correct; but his comments on both papers were that the physics was "tout à fait abominable" (as he told Lemaître in person!).

http://www.christianitydisproved.com/images/hubbleslawdiagram.gif
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 09:57 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
You said, "Relativity has already been proven wrong." This is false. The special and general theories of relativity are completely accepted by the scientific community.

I have provided references indicating that the theory of relativity is the accepted model today. You want more?

"The theory of relativity is perhaps the most successful development in the history of science in terms of its agreement with experimental results and its ability to predict new phenomena - only quantum mechanics can claim to compete with its success."

Found at: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php


"Special relativity is a theory in physics that concerns the relationship between space and time, and says that they're two sides of the same coin -- spacetime. Like all scientific theories, it is backed by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted as being accurate"

Found at: http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/theory-of-special-relativity-definition-equation-quiz.html


I have asked you over and over to provide a link which states that the scientific community now regards it as an incorrect theory. Provide a link which states that the scientific community regards relativity as a disproven theory or admit that you're wrong.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2014 10:35 pm
I almost forgot:

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
There is no evidence that space is expanding


Wrong again:


"As bizarre as it may seem, space itself is expanding - specifically, the vast regions of space between galaxies."

Found at: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm


"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes."

Found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space


"The only thing expanding is space itself."

Found at: http://www.universetoday.com/107142/is-everything-in-the-universe-expanding/

roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2014 02:28 am
@Brandon9000,
I appreciate Ros' and your explanations, but don't think I'll ever be quite ready for them.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2014 05:17 am
@Brandon9000,
In the quantum world, it might well seem, as though you are arguing this question with me. However, time being what it is, your actual argument is with history, so pretend that it never happened. The fabric of time, will be bent not by your neural disbelief.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2014 05:20 am
@Brandon9000,
Space is not expanding, the galaxies are moving apart, increasing the areas of space between the galaxies. Your analogy is just like saying that the highway was expanding, if two cars drove away from each other on that highway. It's nonsense.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2014 05:21 am
@roger,
Then you are ready, as it's only fools who believe all at face value.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL - Question by Setanta
THIS PLACE SUCKS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
wasteful nasa - Question by hater
Whats the deal with Jgoldman10? - Question by MorganBieber
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Does this chair make my butt look fat? - Question by Professor Gumbus
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 06:41:27