Jump to content

guardian

Senior Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About guardian

  • Birthday 05/14/1971

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Physics, IT (Software Engineering), Electronics, Philosophy
  • College Major/Degree
    Monash/LaTrobe University, BComp/BEng
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics - SR, GR, QM
  • Biography
    Born in Czechoslovakia. Came to Aus '84. Happily married with 2 children.
  • Occupation
    Business Owner/Director

Retained

  • Meson

guardian's Achievements

Meson

Meson (3/13)

10

Reputation

  1. Check out this applet that shows the group velocity faster than c. Click on the applet to see the apparent 'signal' travelling backwards - seemingly from the destination to the source Check out the other applets too - quite interesting.
  2. I seem to distinctly remember something I read recently about fractal dimensions and that they can be irrational. That may not be what you're after though. If it, is perhaps mathematics/geometry is a more appropriate section.
  3. Interesting. I am not too fussed (at this stage) about the multiple time dimensions he mentions in the intro however after reading the first lecture notes (pdf) that he presents I would be very interested to know whether the GPS anomalies, orbit decays (spin down) and other anomalies presented coupled with the rotating reference frame (& the radius curve) are still valid and 'unsolved' by physics. Many references presented with regard to these anomalies are from the 60's 70's and 80's. Have these been solved or could this guy really have valid answers to something (even if he is a biologist) that physicists have been puzzled by to this day? I would really like to know more about the things this guy is claiming to have solved. He seems to be making a lot of sense and testable predictions that, if found correct, could humble a many physicist. Please enlighten.
  4. I would say energy is THE entity - not another. Matter is, amongst many, one of the effects of energy and when this happens, it can be thought of as a property of matter. Just the way I interpret it.
  5. guardian

    New Idea

    Thank you Atheist. ...to be entirely correct I wasn't asking for an explanation of 'why' HERE, I was asking whether it was so difficult. Usually when someone asks a question (even in the form that I used), 'physics experts' will give reasons for their answer. The intriguing part was that it took some 6 days to answer something that seems so simple even if it was a 'non' by a (presumably) non-expert. Now back on topic...
  6. guardian

    New Idea

    I agree with Swansont also. Time is relative. But what is disheartening is that Einstein (from what Bettina has mentioned) is allowed to imagine himself riding a beam of light - yet when I ask a question Is it sensical or non-sensical to use a photon reference frame...I get nothing (for a long time) and then a "non". Hmmm. Is it really that difficult to succintly describe why or why not? I go with Einstein and ride the light - afterall the photon is doing it and still gets to interact. I digress...
  7. Martin, one other thing that has left the preon model incomplete - angular momentum? Or did I miss something...hmmm Still haven't watched the presentation in its entirety but I AM interested in the Q-A section. Oh, and another thing. Although it says it has solved the asymmetry problem - the asymmetry persists! We still have dominance of matter.
  8. Took slightly longer for me to get going since I had to d/load some sort of a decoder. Watched 13 mins. but cannot watch the rest yet. Although more appealing as a visual presentation I get a feeling it'll be a rehash of the paper (apart from the background - ie prior versions of preon model), am I right? I understand the paper completely. Are there things in the presentation (again bar the background) that are not covered in the paper?
  9. That would be 'limited' type of thinking but if you can get a good enough grasp of 'nothing' then talking about boundaries loses its meaning ie. becomes meaningless. We're used to having something beyond something and hence boundaries. If the universe is closed then that doubly dissolves any boundaries since space curves back in on itself and there is no way to reach any real or apparent boundaries.
  10. Well, wouldn't you know it - just checked my collection and that is the one I read (downloaded the pdf on 24 Nov) ...and I had a feeling that there was something incomplete about it, let me check... Ah, yes, origins of gravity & "what physical process the twisting and braiding of helons represents". But all-in-all it is quite an interesting theory. Come to think of it, I may have come accross it in one of your other/previous posts elsewhere here and that's why I read it. I will watch the presentation, just need to get some time up my sleeve first.
  11. Martin, I have actually read a paper about preons and such. Cannot remember the detail, I will have a look again and refresh my memory, thanks for the links & the info. I am quite well versed with the St. Model however what I am looking for is a credible (non-cooky) explanation for the domination of matter in the U and perhaps a similar explanation of why CP symmetry violation occurs. Swaying off topic here a little - but it's all good.
  12. Thanks Martin, I will source some of the proposed explanations for these observables, any idea of a good source?
  13. Well, thank you Martin. Your post pretty much answers the questions I posed in post #176 in the 'Where does space end...' thread in this forum section that seems to have been overlooked and perhaps buried by the next poster. I should have posted it as a new topic I suppose. So we can still hold onto the hope that perhaps space is minutely curved and perhaps closed as long as we get a positive Omega value. Even though it is very close to 1, it CAN be said that the possibility of a closed ALMOST infinite universe still exists. Couldn't this minute curvature (translating to a larger curvature earlier on in the universe) be responsible for the reason we have mainly matter and not anti-matter as the norm? Couldn't this also be responsible for the CP symmetry violation?
  14. My question is, is it sensical or non-sensical to use a photon reference frame to observe, using relativity, another photon? If it is sensical, then what is happening in terms of time dilation/length contraction in the following cases... Case A: 2 parallel photons travelling in the same direction separated by some arbitrary small distance say 1 mm. I understand that this would perhaps constitute the same frame of reference for both photons but, photon A would observe photon B to be travelling at c, is this not right? Lorentz transform would give us an undefined (division by 0) answer, is this correct? Case B: 2 minutely diverging photons (coming from same source - may even be entangled) eg. 1 mm apart after 1 second ie having travelled approx. 3x10^8 m Case C: 2 photons diverging at a 60 degree angle from the same source - may even be entangled. Case D: 2 parallel photons (in close proximity) travelling in opposite directions separated by some small distance say 1 mm. Is this the same as case A? Just need things cleared up by the experts. Thanks.
  15. That clears it up. Till next time...thanks. Severian, if you have time, I have posed a question that you may want to have a look at in the Astronomy - 'Where does space end....' thread. It is sort of in reply to one of your posts...I hope you may be able to help.
×
×
  • 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.