Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 558 of 948 (797825)
01-27-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by vimesey
01-27-2017 1:47 AM


Re: Quick question for Son Goku
Yes, essentially, all of that is correct.
Under Special Relativity their are only four possible velocities in spacetime:
(Average velocity means average over all four directions)
("bias" means it requires effort to have velocity in the other dimension)
(a) Average velocity of 1, with a bias toward time (normal matter)
(b) Average velocity of 1, with a bias toward space ("faster-than-light" matter, i.e. tachyons)
(c) Average velocity of 0, equal spread among time and space (light and other massless particles)
(d) Average velocity of 0, all velocities actually zero (these were never given a name)
Special Relativity allows all of these, but when you add in quantum mechanics (b) and (d) are impossible for quantum particles (but not for classical particles).
This leaves only (a) and (c) as possibilities. It's one of the strongest reasons we doubt FTL travel, there are literally no possible particles with this property and you can't be made of non-existent stuff.
Note, although Relativity says everybody experiences time differently, i.e. the time/space splitting of spacetime is different for different observers, everybody always agrees on the class a given particle belongs to, i.e. a photon is equally split between time and space for all observers.
from its perspective
These leads on to the second point, the perspective of particles in classes (a) and (c).
Basically it turns out (c) don't have a perspective, although they do move forward in time (equal split of velocities), they don't experience any, i.e. their own state cannot change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going a little further, just out of interest, QM also says (a) and (c) can't have any properties except their velocity class, their mass (must be zero for class (c)), their spin (which must be in multiples of 1/2) and any charges they have. Where charges are the properties that determine how strongly you interact with a force* (e.g. electric charge). Also for all forces, except the Electromagnetic force, that charge must be a specific value.
*Also all forces must be carried by particles in class (c).
Edited by Son Goku, : More accurate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by vimesey, posted 01-27-2017 1:47 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by vimesey, posted 01-27-2017 5:04 PM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 578 of 948 (797860)
01-28-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by creation
01-28-2017 1:53 AM


The planet's happen to be the same size as an atom?
The ratio of orbit distances are not the same for one. The central mass is too large relative to the orbits as well.
Edited by Son Goku, : Clearer wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by creation, posted 01-29-2017 6:59 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 806 of 948 (841706)
10-19-2018 4:35 PM


Confusing
Okay let me make this very simple.
When we look at stars in the sky, they move across our telescopes' detection surfaces at the same rate and following the same curves that General Relativity predicts they should if they were X kilometers away.
Then if you take that X kilometers and the colour of light coming out of the star and plug it into a hydrodynamic stellar model, the models say "Oh, that star should leave a mark of strength Y on a photographic plate.
Then we look at the plate and see an excitation pattern of strength Y.
So why shouldn't we at least tentatively conclude that perhaps stars are made of what we think and they move like GR says?

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by creation, posted 10-20-2018 9:55 AM Son Goku has replied
 Message 812 by Larni, posted 10-20-2018 3:19 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 813 of 948 (841741)
10-20-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by creation
10-20-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Confusing
Interesting claims. Let's look at the first one. So we see light bent where a star is. You claim that star is distance X. Tell us how you think that the bent light fits your distance.
Remember, if the star distance was not known, neither would it;s size, etc etc be know. So yes there is bending of light possibly caused by gravity of some sort out there. That would be true at almost any size and distance I suspect?
Alright, let's go even simpler.
Of all the different curves we see stars move along, every single curve is consistent with general relativity. Even ignoring how far the star is, the actual shape of the curves are correct and match those predicted by General Relativity.
We never see a curve that General Relativity cannot predict and there are an infinite number of such curves in principal.
This is just like when somebody kicks a ball, seeing it move in a helix up into the air, stop and do three circles is impossible under Newtonian gravity, regardless of the distance the ball is from us.
Secondly, the colours coming out of the stars are exactly those predicted by stellar models. Out of the continuous range of the electromagnetic spectrum we only see those colours that are predicted by our models for what stars are made of.
Being wrong about distance isn't a factor in either of these.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by creation, posted 10-20-2018 9:55 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 815 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 9:16 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 817 of 948 (841765)
10-21-2018 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by creation
10-21-2018 9:16 AM


Re: Confusing
OK, so if we do ignore how far a star is, show us one star that examples your claim..?
I answered that in the post you are responding to:
Son Goku writes:
Of all the different curves we see stars move along, every single curve is consistent with general relativity.
So that is all of them. Every star.
Colors from stars: The problem is if we were only able to detect say, 50% of what is out there (or any other % than 100%) then what we see streaming into the fishbowl would not represent what is out there in any meaningful way.
This can be applied to anything, even a duck. A duck you see at the park might be only the 8% of the duck's true 14-dimensional Lovecraftian body that protrudes into our reality. The stuff we can see is adequately explained by duck biology. So one goes along with that explanation for now.
Sure there might be and probably is stuff we cannot detect, but what we see matches exactly what the stellar models predict. So at least those observations can be explained consistently in terms of current stellar theory. Scientifically there is nothing else one can say, until somebody observes the stars doing something stellar theory can't explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 9:16 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 6:03 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 824 by Phat, posted 10-22-2018 12:02 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 820 of 948 (841785)
10-21-2018 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by creation
10-21-2018 6:03 PM


Re: Confusing
I don't see why tactile contact suddenly refutes the points you're making. Sure it is on Earth and you can get hold of it, but you still only have access to the parts of it that interact with either your senses or your observation equipment.
Either way what you observe might only be 10% of the totality of the thing. Just because something is spatially closer this general point doesn't go away.
Also the light that we do see perfectly matches stellar theory, until the time when somebody observes light or any other emission that doesn't match stellar theory, there is nothing else to say scientifically.
Name a star with a curve that supports GR then, let's have a lookie.
S0-38 near the Galactic core
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 6:03 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 9:12 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 827 of 948 (841819)
10-22-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by creation
10-22-2018 9:12 AM


Re: Confusing
The light they see coming into the fishbowl will look a certain way to them. That does not mean that what they can see (and they admit most of the universe is dark to them) is all that there is out there.
I've already discussed this. Yes it doesn't mean what we can see is all there is out there, it mightn't even be 1% of what is out there. However what we can see fits stellar theory and scientifically that is all one can discuss, i.e. whether a theory fits observations.
Nor does it mean that time is the same out there. What we see take say, a day, could involve a much different level of time out there. Etc.
S0 38 So, rather than get into how far away and big they claim this light to be, can you tell us how it shows time is the same exactly? Redshifted light shows time is the same...how? Ha.
I don't think you really read other people's posts. I've already explained to you that General Relativity doesn't presume time works the same in the different places. How time works depends on (i.e. is "Relative", it's in the theory's name) where somebody is in relation to other massive objects and how fast they are moving.
So nobody is claiming time "works the same" out in the universe. If time did work the same, General Relativity would be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 9:12 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:12 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 833 of 948 (841906)
10-23-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 830 by creation
10-23-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Confusing
I really don't know how you got that from my post.
GR does deal with what time is like in the far universe, my point was that it explicitly does not assume it is the same everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:12 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 1:59 PM Son Goku has not replied
 Message 837 by creation, posted 10-26-2018 10:27 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 845 of 948 (842409)
10-31-2018 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 837 by creation
10-26-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Confusing
Because in our reference frame the events are that far apart in time. In other reference frames they are not, because time works differently in different places according to relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by creation, posted 10-26-2018 10:27 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 847 by creation, posted 10-31-2018 2:07 PM Son Goku 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