Wow, nfq, that was some pretty illogical ranting.
The problem might be the terminology you're using, though. In most everyday usage, "X moves away from Y" is usually the same thing as "X becomes further away from Y", but it is not necessarily the same.
Also, the universe might not actually be 'infinite' as you expect. I seem to remember learning some stuff about closed loops or 'infinite with a boundary', as odd as that sounds, at college.
To go back to the balloon metaphor for a moment, let's say that instead of there being drawn dots on the balloon, instead there is a single molecule of ink attached to a single molecule of balloon-rubber. That ink is not moving relative to the rubber it's on, but it is moving relative to the other side of the balloon. Again, important distinction but a subtle one.
To go back to the balloon metaphor for a moment, let's say that instead of there being drawn dots on the balloon, instead there is a single molecule of ink attached to a single molecule of balloon-rubber. That ink is not moving relative to the rubber it's on, but it is moving relative to the other side of the balloon.
Doesn't that take us back to theories of "ether"? As in, there's something tangible in the space which could be used as a an absolute reference point…
(Yeah this message is somewhat a slippery slope to nowhere.)
roflmao. ok, first of all... most of einsteins theories and big bang are illogical nonsense without any real evidence
Without any real evidence? There is plenty of evidence, starting from the motion of planets (Mercury being the most prominent example; search Vulcan in wikipedia for an interesting story) to GPS. Did you know that if GPS calculations didn't have the non-Newtonian relativity corrections they would give wrong results? Gravity lensing is another good example: It simply happens, it works exactly as predicted by general relativity, it works nothing like Newtonian mechanics predicts, and it cannot be explained by anything else.
Just because you don't believe in the experiments and measurements doesn't mean they are not real.
and third: the universe is infinite
And you have proof of this?
Raiscan wrote:
Basically so long as you have mass, no matter what energy you have, you'll never get as fast as light. :(
maybe according to relativity, but not according to reality. there's no evidence that mass increases as you come closer to lightspeed.
Just because you don't believe in the experiments which demonstrate the phenomenon doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist or that the experiments aren't valid.
If you only believe in what you see, then explain me how electricity works. Don't start any BS about electrons. I can't see any electrons. I don't believe you.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Warp wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
As in, there's something tangible in the space which could be used as a an absolute reference point…
Any non-accelerating reference point is as valid as any.
Non-accelerating in reference to what? We're all accelerating due to the spin of the earth and rotation of the solar system in the galaxy, etc. I don't think there is anything that can be described as an absolute reference point.
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
Relativity comes into play every single day. Those GPS devices we all love so much? The whole network depends on incredibly precise time measurements. The satellites are whizzing around 12,600 miles up at ludicrous speed. If the engineers hadn't taken relativity into account, the whole network would have fallen on its face.
re: Bisqwit
Yeah, that's exactly why we need relativity so much, absolute position/velocity etc. is too hard (at least, for us) to pin down. Also, relative measurements are often useful enough to do calculations and such on.
I don't believe in ether. It's good for restoring MP, though.
Acceleration doesn't need a reference point because acceleration can be measured. Acceleration causes a force and this force can be measured. An observer in a non-accelerating state can measure that it's not accelerating.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Warp wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
Non-accelerating in reference to what?
Acceleration doesn't need a reference point because acceleration can be measured. Acceleration causes a force and this force can be measured. An observer in a non-accelerating state can measure that it's not accelerating.
The object and observer may not be accelerating when compared to each other, but not when thought of in absolute terms. I'm currently not accelerating in reference to my laptop, but what about in reference to Jupiter? Or Alpha Centari? I have different accelerations when compared to all these things, it just happens that we usually think of acceleration in the confines of the earth and its atmosphere and its gravity (which is always producing a constant acceleration, since, as you said, it produces a measurable force). Velocity also cannot be measured without reference, because of the vector component, whereas absolute displacement can. Any time a vector measurement is made, it needs to be in reference to another object, so I still maintain that there sin't one single stable reference point in the universe.
The object and observer may not be accelerating when compared to each other, but not when thought of in absolute terms. I'm currently not accelerating in reference to my laptop, but what about in reference to Jupiter? Or Alpha Centari?
I don't think you understand. An inertial frame of reference is one which is not accelerating, and this state can be determined and measured without the need to compare to anything else in the universe. The observer in the inertial frame of reference can measure whether his own frame of reference is indeed inertial or accelerating. That's because if it's accelerating there would be a measurable force acting in the opposite direction of the acceleration. You don't need anything else to measure whether you are accelerating or not.
From two different observers which see each other as accelerating, if one of them is actually not, it can be measured which one. It's the one which has no external force applied to (and this can be measured).
(Of course gravity, according to GR, is a complicated twist to this, as it causes apparent acceleration even though there isn't one. A free-falling object appears to be accelerating, but this seems so only because we see a limited 3D slice of the universe. It's the same type of illusion as seeing the rails of a railroad converge in a photo even though they are in reality parallel.)
I have different accelerations when compared to all these things, it just happens that we usually think of acceleration in the confines of the earth and its atmosphere and its gravity (which is always producing a constant acceleration, since, as you said, it produces a measurable force).
Inertiality can be measured, and from two objects which accelerate with respect to each other, if one of them is in an inertial frame of reference, it can be measured which one, as I said above.
A point on the surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, indeed, but that doesn't mean inertial frames of references don't exist.
Velocity also cannot be measured without reference
Velocity is different from acceleration. There's no absolute velocity (except perhaps in relation to the center of the universe or something like that, but in principle there isn't). An isolated observer cannot measure his own velocity. However, an isolated observer can measure his own acceleration.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well your understanding of physics is more than likely greater than mine Warp, so I'll take your word for it. I guess I never really saw inertia and acceleration as connected before.
Did you know that if GPS calculations didn't have the non-Newtonian relativity corrections they would give wrong results?
the problem i have with these theories is not the mathematics, but the interpretation. einstein claims that time slows down in gravity, which is illogical because time is a mental thing.
i know that einstein probably wasn't serious about spacetime curvature and all that, but there are so many people who take it literally as if it was fact.
And you have proof of this?
if you think logically, you can realize that a finite universe is illogical. for example, according to scientists space is made of nothing, so it can't be curved, so the space can't be limited. there can't be an absence of space other than matter because space is absence of matter.
there's no evidence of a finite universe, not even logical evidence.
If you only believe in what you see, then explain me how electricity works.
what do you want me to explain about it specifically? what you're asking is kinda like: explain how the universe works? too broad question.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Yeah, that Einstein was one sarcastic son of a bitch huh? Always the prankster, that Einstein. Ya know, e=mc2 was really just acme spelled backwards, with the a kinda looking like a 2. Al least that's what Animaniacs told me
einstein claims that time slows down in gravity, which is illogical because time is a mental thing.
Yes! There was no Big Bang because time couldn't have advanced from the Bang if there was no one there to observe it!
nfq wrote:
which is illogical ... if you think logically ... a finite universe is illogical ... not even logical evidence.
Just because there's (seemingly) no logic doesn't mean it's not true.
nfq wrote:
if you think logically, you can realize that a finite universe is illogical. for example, according to scientists space is made of nothing, so it can't be curved, so the space can't be limited.
By the way, your logic sucks.
nfq wrote:
what do you want me to explain about it specifically? what you're asking is kinda like: explain how the universe works? too broad question.
You just said that the generally accepted version of the universe sucks, but then in the same post you say that the question's too broad? Doesn't that make your "logical disproval" not-so-logical?
nfq wrote:
i know that einstein probably wasn't serious about spacetime curvature and all that, but there are so many people who take it literally as if it was fact.
Yes, I'm sure he was just kidding around. But you say "as if it was a fact". Can you prove to me that it isn't a fact?
the problem i have with these theories is not the mathematics, but the interpretation. einstein claims that time slows down in gravity, which is illogical because time is a mental thing.
A mental thing which can be accurately measured and compared? That's like saying that distance is just a mental thing and thus making any statements about distances is illogical.
i know that einstein probably wasn't serious about spacetime curvature and all that
You *know*? And exactly how do you *know* this? Do you have some information everyone else lacks?
And you have proof of this?
if you think logically
Unfortunately nature doesn't always work like the limited logic of a given person would predict. Besides, what you are referring to sounds more like intuition than logic, and intuition differs a lot from person to person. Is your intuition (or, as you call it, "logic") better than other people's?
Many phenomena which may at first seem illogical usually become quite clear when it's explained.
you can realize that a finite universe is illogical.
According to whose logic? Yours? Mine?
That's like saying that an Earth of finite size is illogical. It just makes no sense.
for example, according to scientists space is made of nothing
Do you have some kind of reference of this?
so it can't be curved
By the same logic there can't be any distances in space because, after all, space is made of "nothing" and thus there can't be anything there, for example, distances.
there can't be an absence of space other than matter because space is absence of matter.
Yeah, things like heat, light and radio waves do not exist because the only thing which is not "nothing" is matter.
there's no evidence of a finite universe, not even logical evidence.
There's plenty of evidence. Claiming there's no evidence means that you would have to explain all the existing evidence as false. Can you do that?
If you only believe in what you see, then explain me how electricity works.
what do you want me to explain about it specifically? what you're asking is kinda like: explain how the universe works? too broad question.
It's not a broad question. Just explain me, for example, why a LED emits light when it's connected to a battery. And don't start with any electrons or similar because we are now dealing with your view of the world, where we don't believe anything we can't see and experience first-hand. I can't see electrons, so they don't exist. They are illogical.
Baxter wrote:
Too bad there isn't a single particle in universe that moves inertially.
You mean because of spin? But the total spin of an object can be made to be zero. (While it may not be possible to cancel total angular momentum, you can make the angular momentum of part of the system, the part which we want to be an inertial reference, to have a total zero angular momentum by applying external forces to it.)
That doesn't matter. Total angular momentum is always conserved. A (sub)system cannot gain (or lose) angular momentum without any external forces. If its total angular momentum is 0, it will stay like that no matter how much it changes internally, unless an external force is applied. (The only way for a system to "change" its angular momentum is by ejecting part of itself, and only if after that we forget that ejected part and only examine what is left as the new system.)
It is not a force in the generally accepted sense of the word, like magnetism or the strong atomic force.
in reality there is only one force: magnetism. the strong atomic force and gravity are forms of magnetism. everything is a part of the EM spectrum. even sound and thoughts.
Warp wrote:
That's like saying that distance is just a mental thing and thus making any statements about distances is illogical.
what i mean is that how fast time goes depends on our emotions and thoughts, so it can't be affected by gravity or acceleration like einstein says. physical devices like clocks can of course mess up. clocks don't always measure time accurately. if an atomic clock loses a couple of nanoseconds, it doesn't mean that time itself has slowed down.
Is your intuition (or, as you call it, "logic") better than other people's?
sometimes. for example if you think that the earth is flat, you're wrong.
According to whose logic? Yours? Mine?
true logic. god's logic.
according to this universal logic, the universe is actually both infinite and finite.
Yeah, things like heat, light and radio waves do not exist because the only thing which is not "nothing" is matter.
scientists say that even matter is nothing (illusion) because they say that 99.9% of matter is empty space.
There's plenty of evidence. Claiming there's no evidence means that you would have to explain all the existing evidence as false. Can you do that?
of course.
It's not a broad question. Just explain me, for example, why a LED emits light when it's connected to a battery.
good, that is a more specific question. LED emits light when connected to a battery because the electricity is drawn there because of magnetic attraction.
It's not a broad question. Just explain me, for example, why a LED emits light when it's connected to a battery.
good, that is a more specific question. LED emits light when connected to a battery because the electricity is drawn there because of magnetic attraction.
Uhh... wow. First of all, there is nothing magnetic about this. If you want to explain something if electrons don't exist, explain to me why I can't hook up a battery to my penis, and make it light up? Why does it have to work with doped semiconductor materials?
An LED lights up because of recombination of hole and electron pairs due to a bandgap that is intrinsically part of a semiconductor properties. In laymans terms, electrons are quantized to two "bands" (rather than bands, it's probably something that's fermi-distribution-like), the conduction and valence band.
When you forward bias the LED (which in it's simplest form in a pn junction), you "bend the bands" and your majority carriers (electrons in the conduction band, and holes in the valence) recombine to emit photons.
Simple diagram (there might be some minor error since this is going to 1 year of device physics)
Edit: Shit, I forgot to mention that the red circles are holes, and the blue e-'s are electrons.
Sound in its simplest form is vibrations (changes in pressure) through a medium. Usually, this medium is air, but sound can be transmitted and recieved through anything, except a pure vacuum. Yes, it travels in a wave-like form, sure it has a period, frequency, wavenlength, and intensity. Yes, it acts very much like a wave. However, I would love it if you can point out to me where on this diagram sound waves should lie. If the location is not on the diagram, give me the frequency and wavelenth ranges that it should correspond to. You can't, can you?
And please tell me how you can detect/measure the electrical or magnetic component of sound (or thoughts) if they are forms of electromagnetic radiation (which is what defines the electromagnetic spectrum in the first place).
Edit: Shit, I forgot to mention that the red circles are holes, and the blue e-'s are electrons.
And please tell me how you can detect/measure the electrical or magnetic component of sound (or thoughts) if they are forms of electromagnetic radiation (which is what defines the electromagnetic spectrum in the first place).
