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 Moduli
I've always been intrigued by the interelatedness of time and space. In your opinion is it possible for one to exist without the other?
There's no problem at all with this, they can certainly exist without each other. The way the laws of physics work, they are related to each other, though. But there was no reason it could not have been different.
1. Given that entropy flows only forward, why is it that some people who accept entropy as a working model of time believe in predetermination, as in effect-cause, rather than cause-effect. Is it possible that entropy flows in the opposite direction, in the case of effect-cause. If so, do we not perceive it because our minds can only conceptualize why we make of our observations? Does this become paradoxical?
2. Does the existence of black energy affect the speed of light? If dark energy is pushing outward, does light opposing it have to travel against an opposing energy force? Does this affect how we understand the speed of light?
3. Is dark matter a medium in which friction exists? Or is it spatially different from the matter we know?
4. String theory accepts that reality consists of 11 dimensions. Most people know of the 4 that we can observe. Given that the only models (at least that I can seem to find) are mathematical, is there any way that these other dimensions can be explained in layman's terms? Is there a model which exists in which the average person can interpret?
5. In quantum physics, what limits nature to the Planck Measurements?
If a black hole is supposedly a point of infinite density (I find this ridiculously hard to believe as the mathematical concepts of 'point' and 'infinity' do not seem to fit in a physical world), how can it have an edge and be in this physical universe?
Originally posted by Moduli
Originally posted by CLPrime
The bigger question is actually why other particles do have mass. Mass is another word for inertia, which is how resistant an object is to being accelerated. We have no idea what the source of inertia is.
This is completely incorrect. There is no dichotomy (or any other division) between mass and inertia in modern physics. You don't even need relativity do deal with this issue, good 'ol 1800s Lagrangian mechanics will settle this issue. There is only mass, and the way things move under a force is dictated by the Euler-Lagrange equations.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Ironically, if gravitons exist, then they, too, produce their own gravitational field. And, then, each graviton in that field would produce its own gravitational field. And each graviton in each of those fields would produce its own gravitational field. And so on.
This is not ironic, this is the opposite of ironic. Expected, we would call it.
Forgive me for asking some basic/nonsensical questions.