|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9196 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Then why do you insist on posting this utter nonsense?
I think people like this are used to posting their crap on other forums and people just accept it. People post and read utter crap every day so it seems normal to them.I think a lot of people have a big surprise when they post here and people question them and demand(yes CS I am going to say it, the thing you seem to think is unimportant) evidence. Most forums just have idiots posting. Here we have actual physicists and geologists and archeologists and historians and mathematicians and people from various other fields(oh lets not forget the comedians). For most people I am sure that is quite a change from where they usually post. EVC is by far the highest quality forum I have ever found. Edited by Theodoric, : quoteFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Alright, you could have just said that objects can only slow down in a medium. I didn't catch that.
Returning to the discussion..."This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity"+Neutrinos seem to travel faster than the speed of light. FYI: "it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass"- particles can't accelerate past the speed of light but tachyons can still exist. Time dilation-->alternate time-space frames.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
ookuay writes:
But if I had said that then I would be talking as much nonsense as you are. Alright, you could have just said that objects can only slow down in a medium. I didn't catch that.It is actually very simple for objects to slow down in a vacuum. Only someone with as little knowledge of physics as yourself would not have heard of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. ookuay writes:
Taking quotes from Wiki and then appending your own ignorant claims is just bizarre. "This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity"+Neutrinos seem to travel faster than the speed of light. FYI: "it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass"- particles can't accelerate past the speed of light but tachyons can still exist.Time dilation-->alternate time-space frames. I do not know why you are talking about tachyons, when clearly your education does not reach that far. Your grasp of physics is as tenuous as your grasp of English. Give it up. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Ookuay,
Your conclusion seems unrelated to the text and claims that precede it. The field of physics has always been full of startling possibilities. Some prove out, some don't. Perhaps neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, but we don't know that yet. Perhaps tachyons exist, but we don't know that yet. And perhaps someone has proposed ideas about time dilation causing alternate space/time frames (whatever that is and means), but it wasn't Einstein. Ideas about alternate universes derive more from quantum theory than relativity, and Einstein was very wary of quantum theory. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ooo writes: No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light Huh? Relativity tells us that there is no absolute time. That all time measurements depend on the observers frame of reference. The truth of this has nothing to do with moving at faster than light speed. And there is nothing in relativity to suggest the "alternate time-space frame" of the many worlds sort that you seem to be implying. Alternate universe theories are a product of quantum theory. Not relativity.
Ooo writes: (which is impossible only in a vacuum) At the risk of confusing the issue.... It is possible for particles to move faster than light does in a medium. Cherenkov radiation is an example of such. But this has nothing to do with alternative realities and suchlike.
Ooo writes: Obviously I don't know in-depth physics ... You don't seem to know any physics.....
Ooo writes: Panda's example of time dilation of clocks seems a better example since it is possible at sub-light speeds. If your ultimate point is that time is not simply some sort of subjectively derived man-made invention but instead and actual physical property of objective observable reality - Then - Yes. But your argument for that point doesn't make any sense at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined:
|
I came to the forum with biology- and philosophy- oriented knowledge, so you could definitely say I don't know any physics (nothing past Newton's laws of motion). That was my point but I defended it inadequately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
I started this side discussion by commenting on JBR's claim that time is a man-made invention. I'm positive it can be distorted and observed but fail to give accurate and specific examples in modern physics.
I basically heard that moving faster than the speed of light causes an object to slow down and contract relative to the objects around it and that there were existing objects that traveled faster than the speed of light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
ookuay writes: I basically heard that moving faster than the speed of light causes an object to slow down and contract relative to the objects around it and that there were existing objects that traveled faster than the speed of light. There are some recognizable elements of what relativity really says in this. Here's a summary of special relativity, which is the simple form of relativity that ignores gravity and the effects of acceleration:
The most distant parts of the universe are retreating from us at a rate that exceeds the speed of light, but we cannot observe them directly. This may be where you heard that some objects can travel faster than the speed of light. They are no longer within our reference frame, and the expansion of space itself is responsible, not motion, which is why this is consistent with our current understanding of relativity. Nice recovery! Again, welcome aboard! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I should point out that that is Special Relativity, which only deals with inertial frames of reference (i.e. the frames of reference do not accelerate and therefore their relative velocities are constant).
Acceleration complicates matters considerably and is dealt with in General Relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
PaulK writes: Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I should point out that that is Special Relativity... Saying "Here's a summary of special relativity..." in the opening paragraph wasn't enough? Geez! We may have different opinions about how much new information should be presented at one time. Given Ookuay's current level of understanding and the topic I thought that including general relativity might be a bit much, but maybe I'm wrong about that. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that it is important to know that General Relativity exists and that acceleration does make a difference. Explaining General Relativity, even in outline, is probably going too far - but without that information you do risk introducing more confusion.
(The Twin Paradox, for instance can only be solved by recognising that acceleration is involved and a naive application of Special Relativity doesn't work).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: If your ultimate point is that time is not simply some sort of subjectively derived man-made invention but instead and actual physical property of objective observable reality - Then - Yes. But your argument for that point doesn't make any sense at all. Oo writes: I came to the forum with biology- and philosophy- oriented knowledge, so you could definitely say I don't know any physics (nothing past Newton's laws of motion). That was my point but I defended it inadequately. OK. Credit to you for fessing up. My advice is to take part in some threads where you can contribute on firmer ground before diving head first into less familiar territory. EvC can be quite unforgiving on those who leap into discussions saying things that are demonstrably wrong or which don't make any sense. But it's also a great place to learn and to find out how much you really understand the things you think you understand by being forced to defend a given position based on evidence and argument. Don't be put off by your initial foray.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024