Is it or is it not science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2012, 09:08 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 12:05 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I find it comical that people would call the theory bullshit when as far as I know, no one here has enough of a physics background to do so.

I'm calling bullshit straight up, I'm saying "it sounds like bullshit so prove me wrong".


I'm not saying scientist don't have the prove or can't get it, but it just seems, IMO, that they get something they can't explain and "oh, must be alternate dimensions". I just think scientists if they don't know should just say that they don't know. Afterall, is that not how God came about, "can't explain XX must be a god".
But if they have proof well that's obviously a different story.

Quote:GPS satellites need to explicitly adjust for the dilation of time at speed and at the greater distance from the earth's gravity well than those of us on the surface enjoy. Time dilation effects are certain. We know they happen, and all observations to date are consistent with the predictions of relativity.

However, that might not be the right way to think of it. Some people prefer to describe this behaviour of time as follows: You have an object. At rest it occupies the three spacial dimensions as you would expect. However, when it moves its relative speed makes it effectively rotate into a fourth dimension from our perspective. Its length is shorter because some of that length has shifted into the fourth dimension. Likewise its time appears to dilate due to its changed orientation in those four dimensions.

Personally I don't have a clear mental model that I am confident aligns to the mathematics. Smarter people than I struggle with this. The way the mathematics works says that it is incorrect to try and apply euclidean geometry in a straightforward way to space and time.

As for photons - they have no mass, thus they travel at the maximum possible speed. That's the theory. Time is not related to light, but light travels at the maximum possible speed there is - so the speed of light is an accurate measure of what that maximum speed is. The properties of light don't cause an relativistic effects. Instead, relativistic effects determine that property of light - its speed. For photons no time passes between their being emitted and being absorbed, no matter how much distance they cover. To the rest of the universe this looks a lot like 3x10^8 m/s.

It's funny, I just saw by chance a doco last night on gravity and spacetime.
They mentioned satellites too, they actually went to the GPS place. If they don't adjust the satellites they can be off by around 10-12km's per day.

I dunno, I really just can't get my head around time be an actual thing, like something to be distorted and shaped.
In fact I'm still not 100% convinced (don't bother, I suspect I never will be, I'm being an effing moron about it). I was laying in bed last night thinking about it. Perhaps it's the way they measure, perhaps that is distorted, so the actual time on the satellite is correct but when we measure it the signal is somehow distorted to make it appear like it's off.
I think we need to learn more. Like gravity for example, that is possibly the most important force in our universe yet me know next to nothing about it. If photons are like a form of boson (being that they carry energy and they have no weight), then would that not mean that these gravitons if we can find them carry gravitational energy would travel faster then the speed of light? That is if they are emited like light. But looking at pretty much any force in the universe it's created from something so I don't see a reason why gravity can't be emited from particles like say a magnet field from a magnet. I dunno, again, I'm basing this off like nothing and have nothing to back it up.
All shall be revealed in due time my dear watson.

Quote:Yep, I was right...
Heart you are pretty dang cute. Wink

[Image: awesome_face.jpg]

Pay attention gentlemen, this is how you get all the ladies. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 09:10 PM
Is it or is it not science?
And I still find it comical. Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
12-08-2012, 12:08 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
I understand maybe half of this, but this might be a good introduction to at least where the complexity is at in relativity, and how much we know or don't know:



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 12:19 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 04:18 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(11-08-2012 03:47 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I agree, but until they are verified I'd take that theory is a possibility rather than a fact.

Agreed...but doesn't that cover a lot of what we call Science? Particularly in the areas of astronomy and physics?

Yes, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done in those areas too!Thumbsup

Until they narrow things down a bit more, it's fun to explore the different explanations.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
12-08-2012, 02:05 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 09:10 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  And I still find it comical. Tongue

Actually, so do I.
Considering he's calling something straight up bullshit because "it sounds like bullshit", while at the same time, musing in depth about another part of the same "bullshit". They are parts of related theories, by the way... making it even more comical. Dodgy

******
At least Muffs, if you were thinking something about neutrinos which are actually known to exist as opposed to gravitons which are extremely hypothetical particles. Well then, you still would probably be referring to the same or similar "bullshit".

How many dimensions are needed to describe the universe is still an open question, but the existence of more than four dimensions only make a difference at the subatomic level. Where gravitons will be found... if they exist.

Now, wrap your head around spacetime and prove yourself deserving of that oversized noggin. Thumbsup

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
12-08-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(12-08-2012 12:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I understand maybe half of this, but this might be a good introduction to at least where the complexity is at in relativity, and how much we know or don't know:



That example at 8 I think best shows what I'm trying to say.
It 'APPEARS' different. Time is not actually diluted, it just appears that way.

Like if you were traveling at the speed of light time wouldn't be zero, it would just appear as if time stands still.
Put it this way, photons and light is how we see the world yes? Like for example a blind man see's nothing but black. I think light can be described like that of a film reel with all the tiny little pictures and just like a movie it's shown at speed to give the imprecation of real time and movement etc.. So like if I move my hand right now I can see it moving. But what I'm saying is that what I am seeing is trillions upon trillions of "pictures" of it. Like a film with say 24frames per second but with a few more frames per second (even though I believe the eye can only pick up on 24 anything more makes no different).
So now we have this film reel like thing, say this film reel is shot out from earth (in the form of light) at the speed of light. You then travel straight out in the same direction along this film reel. Once you get to the speed of light all you are going to see is that reel standing still, so time will appear to be zero, but it's not zero it's ticking over as usual.
Theoretically if you even spend up faster then the speed of light you could continue along that film reel and view into the past, but that doesn't mean you can actually go back in time but rather just view into the past.

It's like how they say when we look out into space we are looking at light thousands of years old. The stars we could be looking at could be dead for all we know at this current point in time, but to us they appear to be still burning brightly.

Things like speed or acceleration or measurement can all be done. Like for example I can accelerate my bike to 100kmsph then keep it at that speed for 10kms. But no matter what I do I can't go to like 8pm tonight. The same for not doing those things. I can just stay infront of my computer here not accelerating, not moving at any speed and not going any distance of length. But in turn I can't stay at this current time, no matter what I do in a minute it's gonna be 8:28am. That's what I'm saying, time is not a measurable changeable thing, it just... 'is'.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
12-08-2012, 02:45 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
You've gotta be suspicious of understanding things in terms of your experience. You can't imagine these weird time characteristics... neither can I, but the guys in the know can do what people call "developing intuition" by long familiarity with the intricacies of such stuff. Relativity and the weird properties of time dilation are well attested to by experiment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-08-2012, 02:53 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
Everything starts with a theory. Only once you have a theory can you go and try to prove or disprove it.

Everything we know was once a theory.

The multiverse is a theory. The process of proving or disproving it is science (even if it takes hundreds of years to do so).

If there are scientists out there trying to prove or disprove it, it's science. You don't ever know the outcome of science ahead of time.

Personally, I think a multiverse is pretty likely. But that's not even a theory, it's an uneducated opinion.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
12-08-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(09-08-2012 08:03 PM)DreamWeaver Wrote:  Lately, physicists have been toying around with the concept of a multiverse, the idea that our universe is just one of many. The problem is, there's not really any way to test it...right now, that is. Our technology just isn't that advanced...yet. It might never be.

In your opinion, is this really science? Should the idea of a multiverse be pursued further or should it just be left as a nice thing to think about?

Huh? Huh Physicists have been toying with that for a lot longer than you indicate. Over 50 years. And of course it's science, it's one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. It has been gaining a greater deal of acceptance lately though in that community.

(11-08-2012 12:00 AM)Humakt Wrote:  The most useful thing I ever heard said on the subject of quantum mechanics was by some big wig PhD, cant remember who, but think it might have been on a panorama or similar BBC documentry.

"Quatum physics is strange, very strange. If you think you understand it, youve got it wrong."

Bigwig PhD is something of an understatement.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (1965)

Feynman was also a supporter of the many-worlds interpretation.

(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You want a real mind fuck, look into quantum entanglement.
The idea that when two particles are 'entangled' that when you measure one particle it means the other is the exact same measurement no matter the distance between them.

I work with a couple of crazy dudes who work on ghost imaging and quantum entanglement to generate undecipherable ciphers. Don't understand it but it sure sounds sexy.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-08-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(12-08-2012 03:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-08-2012 12:00 AM)Humakt Wrote:  The most useful thing I ever heard said on the subject of quantum mechanics was by some big wig PhD, cant remember who, but think it might have been on a panorama or similar BBC documentry.

"Quatum physics is strange, very strange. If you think you understand it, youve got it wrong."

Bigwig PhD is something of an understatement.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (1965)

Feynman was also a supporter of the many-worlds interpretation.

Richard Feynman... Now we're talkin' sexy. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: