8
   

einstein's clock tower

 
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 09:02 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. Did you say something?
Why aren't you listening?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 09:07 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Nicely put.
Oh yeah. well your mother wears army boots. Wink
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 09:09 pm
@brianjakub,
So what? She's in the army.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 07:27 am
@TomTomBinks,
TomTom, I am not ignoring your very good questions... it is just that I am traveling and you are asking me to do math homework... you are going to get me to draw a Minkowski diagram.

I am also going to simplify the problem to (incorrectly) assume that the Earth and Alpha
-Centuari aren't moving relative to each other (which is important)


The relative speed of the two space ships (as measured of either one by the other) will be

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/b768805e3446e8a5976c85b0a5e4b1501de73c9f


(where c = 1 and v and u are both .99)


Which will be very close to .99c

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 07:43 am
@brianjakub,
Speculation beyond current models in physics will NOT be tolerated!

Or hadn't you noticed?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:56 am
@roger,
Would you thank her for her service for me please.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Speculation beyond current models in physics will NOT be tolerated!

Or hadn't you noticed?
There is nothing in my paragraph long reply to rosborne that isn't already in the current model of physics, or already being speculated by mainstream physicists. See entropic gravityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity. That one is starting to get personal as seen at the end of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomGtZCsmI .

I am just tying the math to physical reality. People will tolerate speculation. Even in physics they do it all the time. They just don't want reality to mess with a certain world view. In physics, a certain world view seems to have precedence over reality, even when you are just speculating. Too bad. There are a lot of answers in other world views that aren't even being considered.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:59 am
@brianjakub,
I know you aren't contradicting mainstream physics basic data but you are applying it in speculative ways which I think is fine (and done all the time by physicists).

But many here will not give any thought to it unless it comes from a recognized authority, Which makes for boring conversations. The 'accepted physics' fans just accuse you of invoking unicorns or making word salad. Lots of people do that too but it takes more effort to weed out the wimsey from reason than most are willing to give.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:11 pm
@maxdancona,
Your patience is phenomenal. You were probably a good teacher.
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:56 pm
@maxdancona,
Found the Minkowski Diagram Wiki. Will respond in just a few years.
I really wish I had taken more math. What year in school would a physics student be learning this material?
Thank you for your patience.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 11:29 pm
@TomTomBinks,
TomTomBinks wrote:
Found the Minkowski Diagram Wiki. Will respond in just a few years.
I really wish I had taken more math. What year in school would a physics student be learning this material?
Thank you for your patience.

A college physics major would get an initial introduction in the freshman year.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 08:11 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
But many here will not give any thought to it unless it comes from a recognized authority, Which makes for boring conversations. The 'accepted physics' fans just accuse you of invoking unicorns or making word salad. Lots of people do that too but it takes more effort to weed out the wimsey from reason than most are willing to give.
When data about the entropy of the pre Big Bang universe is impossible to obtain but necessary to unify physics, solutions are hard to come by. At least physicists are making some of the right assumptions with entropic gravity. But the entropy they are going to need to make the math work will be too small of a number to happen by chance. Hawking, Kaku and others have already realized this.
Quote:
Without getting into the physics, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence.

"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

So does this mean Kaku now believes in God? Yes and no. Nowhere does he endorse an particular religious philosophy. Instead, he may be referring to Spinosa's God, a sort of deification of the laws of the universe themselves. Einstein came to a similar conclusion.
Maybe I just need to get in the same room as an accepted authority with an open mind.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 08:25 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Maybe I just need to get in the same room as an accepted authority with an open mind.

Those are as hard to find as hens teeth :-)

As you pointed out, there are some who are open minded but most stop short of finding a God they can get close to. Which is ironic because that is the same thing that people who approach God from the religious end do. God remains in the realm of 'nature' or something we have no hope of comprehending.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 01:41 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It is an accepted fact in physics that mass causes a distortion in the fabric of space/time. I conjectured from that fact that on a black hole, time would stop altogether which I believe ros (a pretty sharp guy on physics) agreed with. (Let me know if you don't) Note that this requires no additional points of view, the black hole sits there in virtual isolation and yet the velocity of time has been radically altered.
The distortion of space and time by gravity is represented by the amount of dark energy and dark matter per a given volume of space. (Call it spatial density if you want) Gravity lowers the spatial density by introducing more entropy. Relativity describes the specific volume space (Higgs field) between the frames of reference that are interacting with each other by comparing velocities and clocks. The Higgs field is giving both pieces of matter some of their mass by interacting with matter through the Higgs mechanism. For this reason, the more dark energy per a given volume of the Higgs field the more energy the Higgs field can pass on to the matter embedded in it. This can be pictured like this, if the Higgs field was made up of a matrix of gyroscopes and matter was made up of gyroscopes, where they come into contact with each other and transfer their energy is represented by the math of the Higgs mechanism. The rest of the energy of an atom is kinetic energy stored as potential energy similar to energy stored in a flywheel. Because of centrifugal energy the fly wheel wants to expand and take up more space. The pressure of the surrounding Higgs field holding the flywheel together accounts for the rest of energy in the atom, and is represented by dark matter. As matter moves through or is accelerated through the Higgs field by gravity or some other force including another piece of matter, this increases the spatial density of the Higgs field on one side of the matter compared to the other side causing it to pick up mass and accelerate, because as I said earlier spatial density increases in the Higgs field are passed on to the matter interacting with it.
Quote:
NOW we can introduce another POV, that of absolute zero velocity. We presume from our observations that there is no point in the known universe where objects have zero mass so that second POV has to be outside the known universe. Therefore, the entire universe must be traveling at some speed X in order to give everything in it mass if velocity/Higgs is the thing that gives matter mass.
The universe isn't traveling, the Higgs field is dark energy stored as dark matter in the Higgs field. The Higgs field is then interacting with matter through a mechanism represented by the math of the Higgs mechanism. The question is where did the Higgs field get its dark energy, and how is it being contained in the dark matter of our universe, so that it can interact with matter to keep it stable and give it the mass we observe and measure? We don't need to get outside the universe to see how the universe moving. We need to get outside to see three things. 1. Who pulled the string to get the tops spinning. 2. What's keeping them spinning. and 3. What's providing the pressure to keep the top from flying apart from its own centrifugal force. But before we can do that we have to admit the hypothetical tops(Higgs bosons(and here's a hint: each Higgs boson is actually a 2 dimensional field)) exist in a matrix(the Higgs field), and are more than likely contained in a closed universe. One step at a time. Meanwhile, I'll wait outside looking at the string, holding a scooby snack trying to coax a physicist to come out and join me.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 02:47 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is what happens when you combine a physics dictionary with a blender.



I dun'no. This just seemed worthy of quoting again.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 03:23 pm
@roger,
Quote:
This is what happens when you combine a physics dictionary with a blender.



I dun'no. This just seemed worthy of quoting again.
Show me where I didn't use a word according to its definition.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2016 06:58 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
One step at a time. Meanwhile, I'll wait outside looking at the string, holding a scooby snack trying to coax a physicist to come out and join me.
Asking questions or providing an argument is what this forum is for. We are talking about a complex universe. Can somebody point out something that is wrong in my response to leadfoot. All I get is lets talk vector calculus, or I through the dictionary in a blender. I can talk about what vector calculus is telling us, and I can use the dictionary, so let's go. Can anyone tell me why superstring theory requires 11 dimensions, while bosonic string theory requires 26 dimensions? Why do we have gravity? What is warping of space?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2016 06:33 am
@brianjakub,
The problem with your response is that is not tailored to the general non-specialist audience on this forum. And given that physical paradigms are continuously evolving, any technically specific statement of the form 'X is Y', or any question of the form 'Why do some say X is Y, but others say X is Z' is spurious in an evolving paradigm scenario, especially when those issues go far beyond the OP about Einstein's Clock Tower.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2016 07:07 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Can anyone tell me why superstring theory requires 11 dimensions, while bosonic string theory requires 26 dimensions? Why do we have gravity? What is warping of space?
I would like to offer an answer to these questions for discussion.

Bosonic string theory is the math describing what happens when 11 two dimensional higgs bosons are interacting with a 3 dimensional atom in a gravtational field. Thus 11 two dimensional bosons plus the 3 dimensional atom plus the time dimension gives us 26 dimensions.

Superstring theory is the math describing how a two dimensional higgs boson interacts a three dimensional atom, and then uses quantum tunneling through a three dimensional proton electron pair that is made up of a two two-dimensional bosons. All this is relative to time, thus 11 dimensions.

Bosonic string theory describes the warping of space more as a difference in spatial energy density, while superstring theory is more of a warping as the result of torque.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2016 07:35 am
@brianjakub,
Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 07:02:13