Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/28/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Can you? I'm pretty sure that both length contraction and time dilation have been evidenced.....therefor I would suggest that due to these two observed and verified observations, that the consistency of the speed of light at 'c' is likewise totally verified.
  2. 1 point
    Interesting thought experiment, at least because I have at times wondered the same thing. My thoughts are that the fundamental constants of the universe, including the half lives of any particular elements, are "decided" if you will, by the measurable properties of the quantum fluctuation from whence the BB arose. If we look at "Time Dilation" we know that all FoR's are as valid as each other, yet all frames observe time to be still passing at one second per second. Is this because that speed and gravitational wells change all the fundamental constants by the same amount, so that it is impossible to notice any change from within that frame? What I'm saying is that if "c" was changing, as was all the other constants, the only way we could measure any change is from a position outside of the universe...quite difficult to do. Perhaps all the fundamental constants and their values are somehow tied in with the expansion of the universe? I look forward to some comments from those more qualified on this speculative scenario.
  3. 1 point
    I would have to know the context of the discussion. How you analyze the behavior of a wave differs how you analyze the behavior of a photon. They are different models.
  4. 1 point
    You'd better open those damn boxes and feed the poor cat. No cats were harmed, my a*s ! ( I'm a cat lover; what can I say )
  5. 1 point
    I thonk you can argue this from a classical physics perspective, but photons are quantum, and you have a much harder time applying Newtonian physics. You can’t really say it’s the same photon coming out as going in. Same thing for refraction.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    The smallest possible mass is zero. Photons have zero mass.
  8. 1 point
    ..and stage of life of particular star.. In the future of solar system, also the Earth will be outside of habitable zone, when energy emitted by the Sun will be too high for living organisms on the Earth. Temporary *) solution could be building of cosmic-scale remote-controlled network of mirrors between the Sun and the Earth, that will reflect photons in different directions, reducing radiation reaching Earth's surface. *) temporary for millions of years.
  9. 1 point
    I would define "habitable zone" as distance from the star in which planet is receiving 1370 Watts per square mater of surface +- couple (or couple dozen) percent tolerance. 1370 W/m^2 is measured radiation of the Sun, and by applying reverse of inverse-square law, we can calculate total power of the Sun. [math]P=\frac{P_0}{4 \pi r^2}[/math] [math]P_0 = P * 4 * \pi * r^2[/math] [math]P_0 = 1370 * 4 * 3.14159265 * (150*10^9)^2 = 3.8 *10^{26} W[/math] So, if we will use +-10% tolerance, star must deliver (approximately) 1200 W/m^2....1500 W/m^2. You should be able to calculate min and max radii for this range by yourself now. Carbon-based organic life requires water. Water must be able to exist in liquid form. Which is in temperature range 0 ... 100 C (at standard pressure). Too large radiation from the star, and water will vaporize, like on Venus. Too low radiation, and it'll freeze. There are existing super cold stars which emit fraction of energy which is emitted by the Sun. So distance between such super cold star and planet would have to be very small. e.g. star which has 1% of power of the Sun, must have planet located at distance ~15 mln km.
  10. 1 point
    Then by your definition it is impossible to have secret locations. Because if we do not know about them, they do not exist. But if we do know about them, they are not secret. The implication obviously is that because they have kept facilities secret that have been ultimately discovered, there is a likelihood of yet undiscovered ones. Thus one cannot claim with certainty (as you did) that we know of all of them.
  11. -1 points
    Hi, I have not been on the forum for a while but I am back after some thought and writing a fresh post. Some of it is science, some of it is about the attitudes to science, especially on this forum. I have a number of questions I will ask as I go through, I will summarise them at the end. I am an amatuer phycist but I plan to go to university in the years ahead to work on this further. In my twenties, I am now 42, I had what I believed to be a profound insight about the universe. This insight matured over the years and I am convinced I have a framework for a theory of everything or final theory. It’s not strictly a theory of everything as it doesn’t explain everything, yet, but it would be a final theory because it is essentially drilling down to the very base and defining the foundation of the universe. When you get down to this level things can no longer be broken down into smaller pieces, you get to the smallest and most fundamental unit in the universe. This unit, the prime unit, is a unit of space, a three dimensional pixel/cell/tile and the universe is composed entirely of them. Each pixel/cell/tile, and all pixels/cells/tiles go through a cycle of constructing the universe then deconstructing the universe, over and over again. Reality as we know it is constantly flicking in and out of being, the same process just repeating itself ad infinitum. This is one set of laws, enforced everywhere. These laws enforce both the phenomena we see and the laws that govern the phenomena. For example, the planet and the gravity keeping us on the ground should be viewed as a single phenomena managed together by another set of laws, laws that are embedded everywhere. This implementation of spacetime is a fresh view, current science says nothing on how the laws of the universe are enforced, I think this is the first idea that says this is how the laws of the universe are enforced. Some people will say I need more than that, and that is true, but it seems to me that it is best to stick with this as no one else is doing it. Also, the are limited implementations of spacetime, there are not endless ways to configure spacetime, we should study all of them because it has to be one of them if the universe is a logical place and can be understood by the human brain. And this leads to my first question, how many implementations of spacetime are there, is it a small number? Large number? If it is a larger number can they be grouped into a smaller number of categories? So I have chosen a spacetime implementation to study, which I have outlined above. This implementation of spacetime can produce endless universes depending on the configuration of the pixel/cell/tile. I would like to search through these potential universes looking for one that looks like our own. I would like to automate the search but that steps into artificial intelligence and a level of creativity in artificial intelligence I don’t think we have achieved yet. I am choosing this as no one else is, that makes this innovative even if it fails or does not align with current theories. There seems to be this attitude that somehow there is shame in failure, the modern world does not share this view. Anyhow, this comes to my second question, if reality is popping in and out of existence as expressed, what sort of experiment could I do as part of reality to prove such a thing?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.