Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In order to tell of you were moving towards the CMB you would need a third object in motion that both frames of reference could agree on. In your frame of reference you will always be stationary. However that is an "illusion" time conspires against you to make sure your "frame of reference" remaines consistent. However thr same thing happens in relation to the CMB looking at you its reference frame you would be in motion.Einstein said (actually, Galileo came up with this first) that there is no frame of reference that is "right." Both are correct so in space you cannot tell if you are moving or the CMB.This was the first part of the special theory of relativity - THERE IS NO PREFERRED FRAME OF REFERENCE.

PS I don't care who agrees with you I learned never doubt Einstine hes usually right.

a reply to: dragonridr
Einstein didn't know about the Cosmic Microwave Background. In any case I'm not saying it's "preferred" other than it's the reference frame of the universe so I don't see what it could be moving with respect to.

In your frame of reference you will always be stationary.

The illustration I posted of the red and blue shift of the CMB indicates we are not stationary with respect to the CMB.

a reply to: dragonridr

PS I don't care who agrees with you I learned never doubt Einstine hes usually right.

Hasn't he always been right? When it comes to relativity, I mean.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

PS I don't care who agrees with you I learned never doubt Einstine hes usually right.

Hasn't he always been right? When it comes to relativity, I mean.

Yes he has but he did make some mistakes as well.

As far as red and blue shift in CMB just shows movement it doesn't tell us which frame of reference is in motion. Or for that matter of both are. As to what it would be moving relative to havnt a clue but if relativity is right it is.

a reply to: dragonridr

If the CMB moves at all; it can be said to be moving in relation (and this is true for all things that move at all) to an abstract, perfectly incremental 3d grid. Or, the concept of pure nothing space. That which is not absolutely nothing, moves, in relation to absolutely nothing, if it can said to be truly moving at all. If a particle moves at all, we can imagine it moved some quantity of increment even if we do not know what the quantity is or even if it is impossible to measure, the very meaning of movement at all, is the meaning of an object no remaining in the same coordinates; meaning, to lay down a perfect absolutely unmoving unchanging coordinate system, and then imagine the universe evolving over this; would give your imagination some comprehension of how all the parts of the universe that truly do move, truly do move in relation to this ultimate unknowable coordinate system, while also of course, move in relation to all the parts of the universe which also move, which is what we try to know and call relative movement.




I think this point can be summarized by saying;

Lets for principles sake, imagine the material motive system of universe is the totality of matter and movement;

Imagine an entity did exist beyond the entire universe, so as how one can be beyond the surface of earth, and view the entire earth, an entity was beyond all surfaces of the universe and could view the entire universe.

If such a hypothetical entity could hypothetical see, that which are parts that exist as the universe, and the fact that these parts move (be it, cmb, or any particles)... though now I see one issue;

It would be another regression, even outside of the universe, how would such an entity know if it was actually entirely still? Perhaps by continuously monitoring its own sphere of radiation, to finding some stable balance of such, and then checking to see if there are any alterations to that stable registry? The source of the trouble being, there is most literally, nothing to anchor oneself too;

But lets imagine it is possible for such an entity, to actually, in relation to absolute nothingness, the same 3d volume of nothingness which the universe exists in, and which lets imagine extends in infinite directions for infinite lengths, when I say 'it extends' I mean, 'nothing itself.. which itself, is, nothing, extends'... which means, it is hypothetically possible, that the universe could move in relation to this nothing coordinate system, we could establish at time A the coordinate system of the universe, and then to imagine that the universe actually moves in relation to that nothing space coordinate system, suggesting the nothing space extends infinitely in all directions, would merely be to suggest that quite literally nothing would halt the universe from potentially being able to move in any direction away from that A demarcation of coordinates;

Back to the CMB;

Either the CMB is actually moving in relation to nothing, or it is actually not;

(we presume it is moving I suppose, because we presume it itself is, photons, which we presume cannot do anything else but move... but still to continue the thought of principles)

For a entity within the universe system, amidst the CMB, we can easily see how the notion of relativity is what it is;

If the CMB is actually moving in relation to nothing; and entity in the universe, who we can never be certain is entirely actually still or not (compared to absolutely nothing); Such an entity likewise would not be able to determine whether the CMB is actually moving or not;

If the entity is actually not moving at all in the universe, and detects that the CMB is not moving at all, it would appear it would not have sufficient cause to declare that it and the CMB are actually not moving at all, because I suppose there would be the possibility they were both moving in tangent;

Regardless, to return to the outer entity;

If this entity is hypothetically actually motionless, and it is observing the universe as a total system, which we might and/or must agree contains at least some real movement at all;

If that entity could see every part of the total system; and that entity could pose a coordinate system, which is perfectly incremental, and cannot be adjusted in any way, and extends past the universe as a whole; it would see all the movements of all the parts of the universe, moving in relation to the perfect incrementals of nothing space;

It would see how the parts move relative to one another; it would see the entities and how they move as parts in the system, and it would understand how the entities struggle to grapple with the relative movements of the parts; and comprehend the impossibility of knowing an ultimate reference frame.

originally posted by: Phage
Hasn't he always been right? When it comes to relativity, I mean.

I have a hard time finding physicists who really believe what relativity says about the singularity at the center of a black hole, so that part of relativity is almost certainly wrong, or the best you can say is dividing by zero is undefined, but as I said earlier relativity seems to works great in most cases outside of a black hole. Einstein didn't believe in black holes but it appears they do exist.

I don't agree with dragonridr's inference that Einstein had some kind of position on the CMB as a reference frame when Einstein didn't even know about the CMB. So I don't think we can infer that he would have agreed or disagreed with the physicists I cited as the CMB was unknown to him.

If the CMB was moving with respect to something else, I think it would have to be something like another universe outside ours, meaning it would still make a good reference for our universe, which is the one we should care about, since I'm not convinced we can observe any others. So it's almost like a moot point if someone says the CMB could be moving with respect to another universe, if this can't be confirmed by any conceivable observation.

Or to put this in the perspective of the Copernican principle, that the Earth has no special place in the universe, what can we say about the CMB? It DOES have a special place in the universe as it's the signature of the creation of the universe.

originally posted by: moebius

Okay, so a 'physical material' is not absolutely nothing. Not an exactly useful definition, but I can live with it.

But you need to work on your "touching" definition. Touching is when something has to actually definitely touch something is somewhat circular. Isn't it?

Touching: When not absolutely nothing contacts not absolutely nothing.

Btw are you aware of the Geiger–Marsden experiments (aka gold foil experiments) that demonstrated about 100 years ago that matter is mostly empty space (or as you would probably call it, absolutely nothing)?

When you look at the night sky, at that large volume of blackness, it might appear to be mostly empty space, or appear to the intuition to be purely empty space, as it is quite black and you cannot see anything but black and one might think that the pure blackness is empty space;

But really, that volume is full of the suns light, which is just not directioned to enter your eye, some of the light of which even if it were directioned to enter your eye, you still could not detect;

There is also in that black volume, the invisible gravity material which forces the phenomenon of gravity to occur, as well as potential proposed things like higgs, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam, and potentially more;

I do not so hastily presume a potential related circumstance is not the case in regards to the proposed declaration you have suggested.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Can you clarify what relativity (or more specific to this mini-discussion, Einstein) says about the singularity? I was under the impression it was, more or less, "I dunno."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I presume infinities might arise because math used which believes that there are truly infinite decimals between two numbers, and then uses that rule of math to attempt to describe aspects of reality;

and/or the failure to consider limits, bounds?

the singularity or infinities may be representatives of the fact of potential perpetual increasing of quantity; but we know for certain this is not the type of infinity like "the totality of all numbers"; If there is a conceptual error it can and should be able and desired to be fixed.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: moebius

Okay, so a 'physical material' is not absolutely nothing. Not an exactly useful definition, but I can live with it.

But you need to work on your "touching" definition. Touching is when something has to actually definitely touch something is somewhat circular. Isn't it?

Touching: When not absolutely nothing contacts not absolutely nothing.

Now you are simply using a different word for touching. But you still haven't defined what it (touching/contact) means in your 'absolutely nothing' and 'not absolutely nothing' concept.

When you look at the night sky, at that large volume of blackness, it might appear to be mostly empty space, or appear to the intuition to be purely empty space, as it is quite black and you cannot see anything but black and one might think that the pure blackness is empty space;

But really, that volume is full of the suns light, which is just not directioned to enter your eye, some of the light of which even if it were directioned to enter your eye, you still could not detect;

There is also in that black volume, the invisible gravity material which forces the phenomenon of gravity to occur, as well as potential proposed things like higgs, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam, and potentially more;

I do not so hastily presume a potential related circumstance is not the case in regards to the proposed declaration you have suggested.

How do you explain the gold foil experiments in the context of your 'absolutely nothing' and 'not absolutely nothing' concept.

What are the observable/measurable attributes of 'not absolutely nothing', how does it differ from 'absolutely nothing?

So far all you have provided are empty definitions that are absolutely useless.

originally posted by: moebius

Now you are simply using a different word for touching. But you still haven't defined what it (touching/contact) means in your 'absolutely nothing' and 'not absolutely nothing' concept.

Touching: When there is not nothing in between not nothing and not nothing.

How do you explain the gold foil experiments in the context of your 'absolutely nothing' and 'not absolutely nothing' concept.

What needs to be explained? You think a resulting belief of the experiment, involves no causes and no touching of object (material/energy)?

What are the observable/measurable attributes of 'not absolutely nothing', how does it differ from 'absolutely nothing?

All I stated in regards to your proposition, was that what you think the experiments revealed about 'pure empty space', must be a misconception, because there really must exist 'not nothing' amidst what you refer to as empty space.

Absolute nothing has no attributes, infinite 3d volume, the lack of material, the lack of energy... imagine if something existed and that was all that existed, and then imagine if absolutely nothing existed instead... and then imagine that absolutely nothing always exists, whether something else exists or not... then imagine that something does exist... and then imagine that something must exist amidst absolutely nothing... absolutely nothing does not exist, but it also cannot not exist, it is just a truism, that 'that which is something' is able to move at all, and in order for any thing to actual move, it must 'take up' real 'nothingness' space. For you to hold your hand out, it takes up a graphic space, for you to move your hand, takes up a larger graphic space. If only your moveable hand existed, and you moved it, you would comprehend that it was moving amidst a nothing space. There is no reason to presume that nothing space does not always exist (as non existence) and no reason to presume it is not infinite in all directions. Something exists, that something exists amidst the nothing space, and that something is absolutely entirely distinctive ultimately from pure nothing.

Conceptual distinction, can be made, just as I can say 'conceptual distinction of the totality of hydrogen atoms to ever exist, or the totality of apples, or the totality of stars, or conceptual distinction to consider the totality of humans', conceptual distinction to consider the totality of 'that which is not nothing';

Either the system we refer to as universe, is the totality of 'that which is not nothing' (which you may be so kind to allow me to refer to as; material, now that I have defined my understanding of the term you originally asked for) or it is not;

Lets at least start and continue this discussion, considering that the system we refer to as universe, is the totality of matter.

Imagine infinite 3d volume of pure nothingness, no attributes, besides the attributes, of the fact, that matter is able to move from imaginary point a to imaginary point b, which is real distance.

There exists a finite quantity at any/all given moment (just as there must exist a finite quantity at any given moment, of apples, people, cars) of matter; the totality of all matter; it cannot be created or destroyed, it can only move and interact with itself as various parts.

About measurable attributes; I follow largely the history of science, I have just responded the way I had, because you attempted to deny my claim regarding the nature of material and touching/contact/true interaction;

The points I last made were quite clear and fine, I dont know how and why you did not comprehend the point, regarding how one might easily call the darkness out there 'empty space', and that you are likely making the same mistake when you look 'down or in there' microly;

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Can you clarify what relativity (or more specific to this mini-discussion, Einstein) says about the singularity? I was under the impression it was, more or less, "I dunno."

Yes, I'd say divide by zero=undefined = "I dunno" so it's a failure of the theory to make any useful predictions in that circumstance, unless one tries to go beyond "undefined" and say the density is infinite at the singularity which is a dubious prediction that a theory of quantum gravity, if there can be such a thing, might resolve into something which is not "undefined" or not "infinite density".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What in the theory results in the dividing by zero?

Back tracking from that point, what about the theory, leads into that point of dividing by zero?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What in the theory results in the dividing by zero?

Back tracking from that point, what about the theory, leads into that point of dividing by zero?

I posted a longer version of this earlier in the thread on page 158, the video titled:

Michio Kaku on black holes and Einstein's equations deep flaw

If you didn't watch it when I posted it, you missed your chance, looks like it's since been blocked. Here's a snippet from it but they cut Michio Kaku off in mid sentence so it's a strange edit:

Physics - black holes infinity, singularity and the universe by Michio kaku.

You can still see part of the math but they cut him off before he gets to the divide by zero part. If you watched the version on page 158 he explained everything.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you remember what the dividing by 0 physically means in the theory?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you remember what the dividing by 0 physically means in the theory?

Yes of course, the radius of matter in the black hole is zero, so the volume is zero, which is why it's called a "singularity". When you calculate density it's mass per unit volume, so mass divided by zero volume gives you the density of the mass in the black hole singularity. Michio Kaku had some harsh words to say about that, such as he thinks it must be a faulty prediction or something to that effect.

The radius of the event horizon is of course much larger and you can calculate the "average density" inside that radius too, but we're fairly confident that's not an expression of the mass distribution, it's based on the horizon beyond which light can't escape.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Michio Kaku had some harsh words to say about that, such as he thinks it must be a faulty prediction or something to that effect.

In lieu of any other reason, I suppose "a faulty prediction or something" will suffice. It worked for those who denied that the Earth moves, for a while. Though this is a bit different. "I don't know why but it just can't be right."

Side note; I have never been impressed by anything from that man.

a reply to: Phage
He said his mom wasn't very impressed with him when he tried to build a particle accelerator in the garage and it overloaded their electrical system and they had to keep resetting all the tripped circuit breakers.

I must admit I flat out disagree with some of the things he says. Sure the Fukushima accident was a major disaster which I don't deny but some of his alarmist statements on that were over the top in my opinion.

However there were several other physicists in that documentary who echoed Kaku's comment about black hole singularity predictions being problematic, I think Max Tegmark was one and I don't remember the others. So while I disagree with some of what Kaku says, I think his comments about the singularity were fairly mainstream, as is this commentary from the University of Cambridge:

Black Holes and Quantum Gravity

The presence of a singularity in the classical theory also means that once we go sufficiently far into the black hole, we can no longer predict what will happen. It is hoped that this failure of the classical theory can be cured by quantising gravity as well.

So this "failure of the theory" comment in a black hole is something I see from many other sources besides Kaku.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
In other words, they really don't like saying "I dunno."

Seriously though. I understand the problem and the desire to find away around it.

I have a question. If it was already asked in the past 230 pages please point to the post

IF gravity is the result of space-time bending (As I understand the explanation in the SM ) and not a force, then why is there a need for a graviton ? Would that not imply that gravity is in fact a force and the graviton is the force carrier, like the gluon bosons or photon ? Or am I missing something, which probably is the case