It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's no electron in that animation, just the visual of what the math looks like in a specific case.
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...
That's the Greek letter Lambda (λ)...not A. So it seems you are the one who needs corrective lenses.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have to wonder if you're one of these few.
Originally posted by kthxbai
It seems a few here are having issues differentiating time and the measurement of time.
I agree, and I'm going to quote one such example I don't believe you understand yet.
Phage has given some wonderful examples that have been presented with patience and stated in ways that everyone should be capable of understanding.
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"?
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.
How can you say "Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down"? Phage said:
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.
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.
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.
Time itself doesn't change.
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)
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.
Just wanted to distinguish the difference in Time and the Passage of Time for the others
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.
Sorry sweetie, I'm afraid not.
Originally posted by kthxbai
I understand it just fine sweetie
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:
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.
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.