Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's no electron in that animation, just the visual of what the math looks like in a specific case.


The electron is probably the blue particle on the left arrow of A, you must not be wearing your bifocals.




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by inverslyproportional...at best yohr going to get a very bland and too dumbed down generalization, that will not he able to carry, the eesired effect.

Though I am looking forward to his explanation, as this will not be easy at all.


Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Especially since I am a white board fiend, and now no math, no drawings, no physical demonstrations by waving things around and making sound effects. I'm crippled here.

At least when I was teaching people to blow # up, I could use clay blocks and dummy fuses for props, and I did all my own sound effects...



It is too bad, I woukd really enjoy, the gestures and sound effects, maybe you should make a youtube video, then we can all enjoy it, in statling 1080p quality.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


At the present, it seems to me like the universe is infinitely scalar, and has no upward or downward limits, much like our solar system seems to be a macro version of an atom in appearance, and the galaxy a macro version of the solar system, attoms are broken down to ever smaller constituent parts, without end.

As so far, the farther we look down the hole, the more we keep finding. I would only be siuprised if we had already found the upward and downward limits, not if we didnt.

This is however always subject to change as new information becomes available. Nobody knows what tomorrow might bring.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's no electron in that animation, just the visual of what the math looks like in a specific case.


The electron is probably the blue particle on the left arrow of A, you must not be wearing your bifocals.
That's the Greek letter Lambda (λ)...not A. So it seems you are the one who needs corrective lenses.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


At the present, it seems to me like the universe is infinitely scalar, and has no upward or downward limits, much like our solar system seems to be a macro version of an atom in appearance, and the galaxy a macro version of the solar system, attoms are broken down to ever smaller constituent parts, without end.

As so far, the farther we look down the hole, the more we keep finding. I would only be siuprised if we had already found the upward and downward limits, not if we didnt.

This is however always subject to change as new information becomes available. Nobody knows what tomorrow might bring.


infinitely scaler in what way? I can imagine in time (even thought its a mind muck),like there is a dimension of time before this universe came into existence and that time was a necessary dimension o event and existence in order for this universe to casually come into existence as a part of a more overall history of histories, but I cant imagine in material ( unless you mean that the material, quarks and electrons, also must be traced back to this pre universal time, and that is a very real consequence of these quarks existence, so that time and material events which went into creating the material of this universe is related to the material of this universe.) . That is to say, atoms make up molecules, electrons, protons and neutrons make up atoms, quarks make up protons and neutrons, marks make up quarks, barks make up marks, sharks make up marks, marks make up turtles, turtles make up smaller turtles. etc. I dont think thats likely, because then for two quarks to interact, there would need to be an infinite amount of its constituents to interact all taking less amounts of time and space then the next biggest.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by kthxbai
It seems a few here are having issues differentiating time and the measurement of time.
I have to wonder if you're one of these few.


Phage has given some wonderful examples that have been presented with patience and stated in ways that everyone should be capable of understanding.
I agree, and I'm going to quote one such example I don't believe you understand yet.


Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can vary depending on what frame of reference you happen to be in. Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes. That's where relativity comes in.
This is partly true and partly false. When you say "Time doesn't change, the perception of (or measurement of) time can.." and "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down, only our perception of time changes.", what is the difference between "Time Itself" and our "measurement of time"?

How can you say "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down"? Phage said:


Originally posted by Phage
So on Jupiter you would age slower relative to Earth. On a black hole, very much slower. In fact you could probably watch the universe end from there.
He may be right about that though I would say orbiting very close to the event horizon of a black hole since I don't really know what happens inside the event horizon. How would you be able to watch the universe end from that location if time hadn't really slowed down in that location? You wouldn't have to be measuring time to watch the universe end so it's not just a measurement issue.


I understand it just fine sweetie


Aging is a measurement of time and is dependent upon the frame of reference. Instead of a mechanical object, your own body is the "clock"



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Time doesn't change

I'm being told it does and not by nutters but by members whose info I typically feel I can take to the bank. This isn't easy for me to disagree like this.


The measurement of time changes. Time itself doesn't change. The measurement of time can be done by a clock, by the body, by cells, etc. Time is time and it's there, the passing of time (the measurement of it) is what you are thinking of here.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Time itself doesn't change.

It does.
Either time changes or the speed of light does. It has nothing to do with how time is measured. Show that the speed of light changes and you might have something. If not, you're going to run into problems.
edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Question for you dude.


If light is passing a black hole and gets sucked in does it go faster towards the black hole?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

No. It can't. So it gains energy and thus decreases its wavelength.

Red light turns blue, then becomes ultraviolet. I'm not sure if it gets that far but it might make to gamma before reaching the event horizon.
edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Cheers dude I wish I was interested in physics at school but I just liked the girls

Great thing about ATS I learn something new everyday

Cheers again you wise old monkey



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I'm no monkey boy!

(obscure reference related to my avatar)
edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Term of endearment
It is a great privilege to be accepted as a wise old monkey in my monkey world



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Time itself doesn't change.

It does.
Either time changes or the speed of light does. It has nothing to do with how time is measured. Show that the speed of light changes and you might have something. If not, you're going to run into problems.
edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


It's not "time" that's changing, it's the "passage of time" that is changing. "Time" is only the cardinal ordering of events, and the cardinal ordering remains the same. The passage of time is what most think of as "time" but it's actually only the measurement of time, not time itself. Whether that passage of time is measured in seconds, in cycles, in the aging of the body or whatever other characteristics we think of, it's still the passage of time that is being looked at, not the cardinal ordering that determines time.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 

Fine. The passage of time then. So what?

If you want to play with definitions my favorite is: time is what keeps everything from happening at the same time.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kthxbai
 

Fine. The passage of time then. So what?

If you want to play with definitions my favorite is: time is what keeps everything from happening at the same time.


I'm on your side


Just wanted to distinguish the difference in Time and the Passage of Time for the others


I feel that there will be much more concentration on that difference to come in the Theoretical Physics area. I look forward to seeing how it unfolds


...Time in the passage of time, if you will


ETA: and I particularly enjoy planting the seeds of thought in the minds of others and watching it flourish




edit on 4-3-2013 by kthxbai because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Just wanted to distinguish the difference in Time and the Passage of Time for the others

OK, go ahead.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Just wanted to distinguish the difference in Time and the Passage of Time for the others

OK, go ahead.


I "done did"



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
I understand it just fine sweetie
Sorry sweetie, I'm afraid not.


Originally posted by kthxbai
It's not "time" that's changing, it's the "passage of time" that is changing. "Time" is only the cardinal ordering of events, and the cardinal ordering remains the same.
No, it does not, according to special relativity. This may seem somewhat bizarre, but infact the cardinal ordering of events doesn't necessarily remain the same, unless there is some causality link between them. In the case of a car crash in London and one in New York, the ordering of these events may depend on your frame of reference:

Relativity of simultaneity

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space, such as a car crash in London and another in New York. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first.
edit on 4-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


I see a distinction without a difference. I don't think time is something that CAN be.measured. The passing of time is all we can measure. An improperly calibrated clock does not indicate a change in time anymore than turning a clock back is time travel.





top topics
 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join