Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 1:08 PM
363 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kbertsche, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 357 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,815 Year: 27,421/21,208 Month: 1,334/1,714 Week: 177/365 Day: 19/62 Hour: 0/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 362 of 373 (650134)
01-27-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Panda
01-27-2012 9:28 PM


The nonsense we see
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, : quote


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 9:28 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 363 of 373 (650135)
01-27-2012 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Panda
01-27-2012 9:28 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 9:28 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 11:39 PM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 365 by Percy, posted 01-28-2012 7:04 AM ookuay has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1304 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 364 of 373 (650136)
01-27-2012 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:46 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

Alright, you could have just said that objects can only slow down in a medium. I didn't catch that.


But if I had said that then I would be talking as much nonsense as you are.
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:

"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.


Taking quotes from Wiki and then appending your own ignorant claims is just bizarre.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:46 PM ookuay has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16168
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 365 of 373 (650142)
01-28-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:46 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:46 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 8:04 PM Percy has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 366 of 373 (650155)
01-28-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by ookuay
01-27-2012 8:09 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:09 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 3:14 PM Straggler has responded

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(2)
Message 367 of 373 (650173)
01-28-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Straggler
01-28-2012 11:03 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Straggler, posted 01-28-2012 11:03 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Straggler, posted 01-29-2012 8:39 AM ookuay has not yet responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 368 of 373 (650220)
01-28-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Percy
01-28-2012 7:04 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Percy, posted 01-28-2012 7:04 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:22 AM ookuay has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16168
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 369 of 373 (650225)
01-29-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by ookuay
01-28-2012 8:04 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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:

  • All motion is relative.

  • The speed of light is the maximum speed at which anything can move or influence be transmitted in any frame of reference.

  • The speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference.

  • When one reference frame moves relative to another, objects in the moving reference frame will be measured as having increased mass and shortened length relative to the direction of motion. The greater the speed the greater is this effect. At the speed of light an object's mass would be infinite and its length 0, which according to our understanding is physically impossible. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any particle with non-zero mass to the speed of light, which is another reason mass traveling at the speed of light isn't thought to be possible.

  • This effect is symmetric. The moving reference frame perceives itself as stationary and observes the other reference frame as moving with its objects increased in mass and shortened in length.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 8:04 PM ookuay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 370 of 373 (650226)
01-29-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
01-29-2012 7:22 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:55 AM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16168
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 371 of 373 (650228)
01-29-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by PaulK
01-29-2012 7:31 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 8:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 372 of 373 (650230)
01-29-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Percy
01-29-2012 7:55 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 373 of 373 (650232)
01-29-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by ookuay
01-28-2012 3:14 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 3:14 PM ookuay has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017