Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Relativity.
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 67 of 129 (250607)
10-10-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by simple
10-10-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Light and Energy
simple
Energy is an abstract thing that is related to the notion that if you have an event in nature in which a change occurs and you add up all the different phenomena produced by that change it is found to be the same value as before the event. This is the reason for the principle of conservation of energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 9:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 11:41 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 81 of 129 (251017)
10-12-2005 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by simple
10-10-2005 11:41 PM


Re: Light and Energy
simple
I do not know if you have Adobe Reader installed or not but if you do download this article from http://www.fccps.k12.va.us/...En...2_5_Energy_Intro_1098.pdf - 21 KB
It is from the feynman lectures on physics and may well help you to get a better understanding. Let me know either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 11:41 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by simple, posted 10-12-2005 3:44 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 83 of 129 (251084)
10-12-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by simple
10-12-2005 3:44 AM


Re: Light and Energy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by simple, posted 10-12-2005 3:44 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 10-14-2005 2:54 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 87 of 129 (252160)
10-16-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by simple
10-14-2005 2:54 PM


Re: Light and Energy
simple
Of course we do not know everything but we are hardly clueless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 10-14-2005 2:54 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 10:32 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 92 of 129 (252361)
10-17-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by simple
10-16-2005 10:32 PM


Re: Light and Energy
14gipper
If there was a whole lot more than the physical universe, and we hardly have a grip on what's going on here, that would be comparitively clueless.
Why do you always reference to something other than the physical universe as though that had any meaning? What does you mean by not physical my friend?
If not, and the unknowns that abound are really just around the corner, if we follow the carrot on the stick, then, it is true, we have some good clues now, after all. But which of these best applies, we really don't know, and indeed, in that respect are clueless indeed.
Science operates in the region between known and unknown and has found physical explanations for all the questions of how the world operates when we can properly use experiments to test the models from which we learn. That we have different possible scenarios for further study of leading edge physics is not as result of being clueless but because of the difficulty of producing the conditions necessary to test the modles we do have. However, without the different models we cannot have any idea about which direction to put effort to best secure further study.

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 10:32 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:57 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 98 of 129 (252738)
10-18-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by simple
10-17-2005 10:57 PM


Re: limiting claims
simple
Not all. Not what was before the big bang, or what caused the somethin from nothin. Not where life from nonlife appeared. Not for sure whether this physical universe is infinite or finite. Not whether there are ghosts or not. I would expect there would be 'physical explanations' for things in a physical universe, but not beyond. Beyond doesn't just mean far away, but long ago, or in the future.
First off before the big bang is a wrong question since "before" is a temporal term and has no meaning when there is no spacetime in which a before can have logical placement.That something came from nothing is not the likely case either.The universe most likely has existence at a level that is not consistent with the universe we experience since we are constituents of the universe as it is in spacetime.
The background vacuum energy which is a consequence of the principle of uncertainty allows for the "existence" of particles that constantly fluctuate with energy as long as they vanish within a brief enough time period that they do not violate conservation of energy in the universe.
Infinite or finite is far more difficult because a vast enough finite universe is,for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a truly infinite one.
As for ghosts we can say with pretty good confidence that they are not at all likely.
This is important, in other words we have definite limits.
These are limits imposed by nature as to what is possible given what we already know about the universe
I understand, make the best with what you do have, and the limits under which you must do this
I am not sure you do. The limits are a consequence of the structure that we study not a limit on what we can discover. It is true that there are things we can also never know about the universe since properties such as the speed of light limit prevent any information from reaching us from certain places in the universe.
That does not mean that we fill the gap with anything that takes our fancy since if we do not know about those regions we cannot say anything at all about them for any idea is just as valid as another.

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 10:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by simple, posted 10-20-2005 2:11 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 106 of 129 (254356)
10-24-2005 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by simple
10-20-2005 2:11 AM


Re: limiting claims
simple
Same can be said of the merge idea, and who knows what else. Space time as we know it only applies to this universe after it came into being, whether created, of from the tiny universe you suggest
What is the merge idea? Spaceime is what we find ourselves in and the ability of the physical laws to descibe that spacetime operate down to the Planck time of 10 ^ -43 sec. that is 1/10^ 43 power or in longhand 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec which is a staggeringly tiny amount.The temperature of the universe is at that point 10 ^ 32 Kelvin which is a situation in which the forces of nature themselves are indistinguishable one from the other.
Well, since you really don't know, we could say that, or something else for that matter!
Yes but anything else must account for the physics as nature operates in regardless of what that model is. The dilemma is the same for any idea you would consider.
So there may be a part of the universe we don't really see, or are uncertain about, but when it comes to vanishing and appearing things, like ghosts, your theorries as to the real explanation are only as good as your imagination.
No the theories are only as good as the evidence they are supported by. In the case of vacuum energy we can measure the predicted work exerted by these virtual particles under the right conditions. and the measurements fall within the predicted amounts within the level of error of the experiment. If you wish to say there are ghosts then it is you that must show how they occur and produce the evidence to accompany your model for the phenomena.
I would openly delight in you being able to do so because it would mean something new and exciting. But you must pass muster on the skepticism people have. If the phenomena are real they will stand on the evidence not on the person making the claim or the number of letters after their name.
Speculation. You don't know the limits we can discover.
That is incorrect sir, as there are limitations imposed on us by the structure of the universe. We cannot with absolute accuracy predict the splashing of random water drops from a fountain ever. The structure of the universe does not allow for infinite accuracy by its very nature. Due to the limit on the speed of light we cannot ever have immediate information about an event at the spacetime it occurs.
These unknowns also may affect the knowns, and there is no way we can say, then, that there may this other dimension beyond these admitted limits.
Certainly there may. But mays are endless in their profusion. It may be that the world is run by labrats who are actually performing an experiment on us while disguised as terrstrial creatures.
This is a good description of what is being attempted with having things like a microscopic universe just appear on the scene, or life from non life.
But no one claims the universe just appeared on the scene and if they do you also have the right to ask for evidence. Life from non life though seems a natural progression and quite reasonable given what we do know.Try defining life yourself and see how difficult it is.

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by simple, posted 10-20-2005 2:11 AM simple has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024