Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

@layman,

Those other theories were dropped because they have trouble explaining the results of Michelson Morley and other experiments of the time. This is why Relativity was accepted by the physics community.

As I said there have since been many confirmations of relativity that break the earlier theories. There is no other theory that matches the mathematical results found by experiment or observation.

By the way, the so-called "twin paradox" has been confirmed by experiment (using two atomic clocks). This actually happens as predicted by the theory.

Sorry, now you can have the last word if you want ...

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Those other theories were dropped because they have trouble explaining the results of Michelson Morley and other experiments of the time.

Completely wrong, Max, sorry. Do some research.

Quote:

There is no other theory that matches the mathematical results found by experiment or observation.

Completely wrong again. Do some research. I could point you to it, if you asked, but you haven't so....

Quote:

By the way, the so-called "twin paradox" has been confirmed by experiment (using two atomic clocks). This actually happens as predicted by the theory.

Have no idea what you even mean here. Lorentz's theory reaches the exact same conclusion, it's just that there is no "paradox" to resolve.

0 Replies

Just curious: Does anybody else see a serious problem here?

The basic proposition is that, theoretically at least, a space ship can go 13.7 billion light years in 23 years and never travel faster than the speed of light.

What assumptions underlie such a claim? How would carrying those same assumptions over to other areas of physics mandate a reassessment of our "knowledge" in those other areas?

1 Reply

@layman,

The link I posted explained the academic science view. I would show you that the mathematics works out correctly from any frame of reference, but I don't think that will mean anything to you since you don't believe in mathematics.

By the way, we actually observe this experimentally with pi-mesons. It isn't just trusting the mathematics... we actually see this happen with real particles.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I would show you that the mathematics works out correctly from any frame of reference

I haven't questioned that, Max. I've already said the math "adds up" just fine. You really don't see the issue here at all. You never have.

If I had 1 million dollars in 10 different bank accounts, how much would I have? 10 million. This answer can't be disputed. But, somehow, I don't have $10 million dollars in the bank. How is that even possible?

Quote:

since you don't believe in mathematics

I guess I don't "believe in" mathematics. I couldn't even ask such a question if I did, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

It can go 13.7 billions light years in just 23 years, or so it says:

Quote:
After experiencing the passage of twenty-three years, the astronauts would actually pass the edge of the universe currently observable from Earth, but 13.7 billion years would have elapsed in the reference frame of a long-dead Earth.

When you're constantly changing standards for MEASURING space and time, then there is no standard whatsoever. There are no limits whatsoever.

So if we say we "see" light from 13.7 billions years ago, that could only be 23 years in "reality." Which means we could never know how far away it "really" is (how far it really travelled), because whatever speed it's travelling at (how much distance it has covered in how much time) has NOTHING to do with how we measure it. We will measure it as always being the same (186,000 miles per second), regardless.

Note also that using the word "see" here means nothing. It is not something we "see" with our eyes. It is a mental conclusion strictly deduced mathematically from presupposed premises.

It is not easy to understand. Plus, there was inflation immediately after Big Bang, in which space itself was expanding at a speed far greater than speed of light.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I would show you that the mathematics works out correctly from any frame of reference

Interesting term, there, Max. "Frame of reference." I would suggest that you might begin by critically analyzing just exactly what that term entails, theoretically.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

.... there was inflation immediately after Big Bang, in which space itself was expanding at a speed far greater than speed of light.

So some say, Oris. Believe it if you want.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
.... there was inflation immediately after Big Bang, in which space itself was expanding at a speed far greater than speed of light.

So some say, Oris. Believe it if you want.

Thanks.
And I have right to leave room for reasonable questions, as Richard Feynman once pointed out.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

...space itself was expanding...

Space itself, eh? Hmmm.

Ya know, physicists has a problem when it was observed that distant galaxies appeared to be receding from us at a speed greater than light. Why is that a problem? Because, as every damn fool knows for an absolute fact, no material object can ever exceed the speed of light, that's why!

So, how can you resolve this problem?

Easy. Let's say this: We aren't "moving" one inch. Neither are the distant galaxies. Nothing's "moving" here. They just appear to be moving because the space between them is expanding. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Who knew? When I think I'm moving into my kitchen to get a beer out of my refrigerator, I haven't moved at all. Neither has the fridge. The space between us just shrunk, that's all.

What is "space?" How, exactly, can "space" expand?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
...space itself was expanding...

Space itself, eh? Hmmm.

Ya know, physicists has a problem when it was observed that distant galaxies appeared to be receding from us at a speed greater than light. Why is that a problem? Because, as every damn fool knows for an absolute fact, no material object can ever exceed the speed of light, that's why!

So, how can you resolve this problem?

Easy. Let's say this: We aren't "moving" one inch. Neither are the distant galaxies. Nothing's "moving" here. They just appear to be moving because the space between them is expanding. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Who knew? When I think I'm moving into my kitchen to get a beer out of my refrigerator, I haven't moved at all. Neither has the fridge. The space between us just shrunk, that's all.

What is "space?" How, exactly, can "space" expand?

I recommend you to read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. This reply of yours reminds me of that you might not have read it - it is a masterpiece, though small in size. Cheers.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

I recommend you to read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking...you might not have read it

You're right, Oris, I haven't. Does he say anything on this topic that you can summarize?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If I had 1 million dollars in 10 different bank accounts, how much would I have? 10 million. This answer can't be disputed. But, somehow, I don't have $10 million dollars in the bank. How is that even possible?

I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Max, but now I'm asking you literally. How is that even possible?

The answer is obvious, but I'd like to see you articulate it, due to all your past arguments on these kinds of issues--which is always about how the math works out.

It's like you trying to argue that 10 x 1 REALLY IS 10, and if I'm stupid enough to not know it, then I need to take some grade school arithmetic class.

That sort of "counter-argument" completely misunderstands the question.

1 Reply

@layman,

It's a ridiculous question Layman. There are lots of mathematical functions that are used for lots of different purposes. There is the one (rather simple) function you are describing for dollars in an account. There is another one to describe the time of sunset and sunrise for a given time and location on Earth. There is another one to describe the time experienced in a spaceship travelling at high speed compared to the time experienced by an observer on Earth.

I don't know why you think one function has to be the same as another function that describes a completely different, and unrelated situation. The SR functions explain experiments dealing with high speed particles or very accurate clocks that match with observation in a way that no other set of functions can do.

I keep saying that you can have the last word. If you stop referring to me by name with these silly claims then I will let you have it.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

It's a ridiculous question Layman.

It's a question you appear to be unable to answer, Max. Your response just (incorrectly) tells me what I think, and does so in a way that demonstrates that you still don't understand the question. You say:

Quote:

I don't know why you think one function has to be the same as another function that describes a completely different, and unrelated situation.

Can you answer the question?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maybe it's best to break this down a little and just take it one step at a time, eh?

Is this a true statement?

If I had 1 million dollars in 10 different bank accounts (and no more), then my bank accounts would total $10 million.

True, or false?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I recommend you to read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking...you might not have read it

You're right, Oris, I haven't. Does he say anything on this topic that you can summarize?

In the book, Hawking indicates that space expansion is not subject to the limitation of the speed of light. The speed of inflation after Big Bang is speculated to be million times faster than light.

1 Reply

Here is some good point from a newly published article in Scientific American:

In everyday life, distance and location are mundane absolutes. Yet physics now suggests that at the most fundamental level, the universe is nonlocal—there is no such thing as place or distance.
Initially Isaac Newton's conception of gravity seemed to imply the phenomenon of nonlocality because the attractive force between masses appeared to act magically across expanses.
Albert Einstein's general relativity instead ascribed gravity to the curvature of spacetime. Yet it introduced a deeper sense of nonlocality by showing that spacetime positions have no intrinsic meaning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

0 Replies

@layman,

yes

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Let's cut to the chase... just to show you that things don't always just add up (the way you are trying to make them add up). A simple testable example...

I live in Boston. My Brother lives in Rochester, NY.

For me, New York City is 190 miles away (as the crow flies).
For my brother, Boston (where I live) is 337 moles away (also as the crow flies).

How far away is New York City for my brother in Rochester (as the crow flies)?

2 Replies

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know