Jump to content

jajrussel

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Good

About jajrussel

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday 07/20/1954

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Don’t know they keep changing. The brain the heart specifically whatever problem I seem to be having at the moment angina tumors etcetera.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    The why's
  • Biography
    Old man retired, it's probably for the best. I’ve tried to make sense if it all. I failed, now I make it up as I go. I’m usually wrong, but that’s okay because I now sleep better at night, and a lot more often especially during the day.
  • Occupation
    Survival and skepticism

Recent Profile Visitors

8961 profile views
  1. Okay. But I guess I’ll have to pay Dr. PhysicsA another visit because I made an assumption that energy divided by momentum would give a mass value. My other understanding was that a photon would only have zero mass at rest. This part is also confusing. I’ll have to go back and read it again, but I thought that the mention of spacetime being a coordinate system was meant to convince me that the very real effects you mention are not real. Markus, I’m not exactly sure how to put my understanding of GR into a few sentences. My understanding is that we live the life. We exist within the coordinate system. Plenty of people understand it better. They worked out laws of energy conservation that that I have been convinced by others work. 🙂 I’m not claiming to completely understand them, but I thought that the genius of Einstein’s general relativity was that there would be no actual need to formulate, other more general conservation laws. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my understanding is that even if I see your clock as keeping time more slowly than mine that my understanding suggests that if each of us measures the amount of energy that our clock is using, then should we switch places taking our respective clocks with us. Any new measure should only vary by the norm that would be present had we not switched places. But, if I again look at your clock from my new perspective it is going to still be running slower than mine, because from my perspective you are moving, and the moving clock always presents as being slower. Hmm, I seem to have switched sides. So now, maybe I’m getting somewhere? The effect is real, we have to allow for it. Is this what everyone is saying? Or, is someone going to heap coals to my confusion by saying that the actual amount of energy used by each clock is dependent on its position, and my relationship to each clocks position, without bothering to explain that relativity actually adjusts the measure to the extent that should you join me our measures would be as nearly equal as two clocks in the same frame can be. And I apologize, I didn’t link the article. I wasn’t actually planning on thinking about it. But sometimes a statement stays with me, or maybe it was my thought of, “Oh well, so much for energy conservation”, linked with a desire to understand where does the energy go as each bit of matter deteriorates? If in fact expansion is linked to matter deterioration as the statement seemed to suggest. One thing I am sure of with near absolute certainty is that since I want it so bad, as soon as I Google it, Google is going to play dummer than dumb. Markus, at the risk of once again putting my ignorance on display. How does an expanding universe expand so fast that it rips atomic structures apart. I’m assuming that if that is a possible reason for the statement I remember being attributed to Penrose. Then there is a way it happens? I will try to find the article. Thank you 🙂 found it. https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicist-other-universes-before-big-bang The statement is right after the bolded statement ( Hard Reboot ) in the article. I have no idea why the print became so small. I tried to select it to increase the font size. Apparently I’m not allowed. I assume that the link will work. Note there seem to be a lot of advertisements in the article. Annoying advertisements that suggests that the original trending version was stripped down, but if you can stand the advertisements it is the same article. Note - It doesn’t really say much more than I stated to begin with either.
  2. Okay... Thank you. The reason I asked the question is because I read one of those trending articles, well, actually I skimmed through it because I was distracted in the article there was a quote attributed to a person named Penrose. That using my bad paraphrasing went something like, "the universe is expanding, and will continue to expand until the last bit of matter deteriorates." I thought, well so much for energy conservation. Then I starting trying to figure out where where does all the energy go? My question was what I came up with. Now I see that joigus has replied so I'll stop and see what he has said, again thank you.
  3. I was actually puzzling over the Janus post, and maybe yours helped to clarify, but I'm still puzzle because I thought that relativity was a physical phenomena that stated specifically that the effect is physical. One clock runs slower than another, due to gravity and or acceleration. I could possibly plot a curve, but no I wasn't speaking specific to geometry. I did use the term geodesic, but that was primarily because some like to define the path taken gravitationally between two objects as a geodesic. If relativity predictions are as correct and as real as it has been pointed out to me time after time, and probably a few dozen times in this forum, then I would assume any physical effect that presents is real, physically. Personally, I would prefer to believe that gravity is a force and that the dance between two massive objects as they move through space is simply point, and counter point due to that force. I am not the one who says that relative effects are real. I am the one who is accepting that they are, and if they are then maybe if an object of zero mass gains vertual mass through acceleration then possibly space if it is in fact expanding, might do the same. I mean no disrespect, but when you say that nothing is physically "bent", I am confused. Of course if Space doesn't warp, or expand, then I have no reason to be confused, but personally 🙂 I'm confused, maybe when you said that nothing is physically "bent" you weren't referring to space warping, and expanding. It's possible I took it out of context 🤔? Could you please clarify. And I do tend to get wordy. Knowing so I try not to, still it happens. To that extent I apologize.
  4. In terms of events I was trying to paraphrase a section of the OP, but personally I don't think we can see the future, we can only assume it, so in a sense I was making an assumption based on my best understanding of the OP under the conditions it allowed. Even then, my thought was wrong because I assumed angular positions possibly less than or possibly greater than 180 degrees. I assume, not even if my life depended on it. However, if there is an emoji for it I can grovel. 🙂 Personally, I think we can only assume past, present, and future. This is a great thread, but some of the post are more confusing than the OP, no offense intended Moontanman.🙂
  5. I should have read the whole thread first.
  6. Okay I haven't actually read the whole thread because I got caught up in trying to understand the post as presented. This is the confusing part. If at point C you are 5 years in star A's past and you are presumably between Point A and point B it is seemingly a paradox. But if you are seeing light five ly's in A's past and B is five years in A's future it seems more like an equal radius than a paradox. But, you start of by saying Then you say Is it 10 light years, or five? Hmm, seems more like a thought exercise, than a paradox... Personally, this depth of thought has placed me in danger of drowning in possibilities. So, I'm gonna stop, take a nap, then come back and read the whole thread and see if there is anything that explains my confusion. 🤔😊 Didn't even get the chance to take a nap, but now I assume that any light I observed from point C is technically five light years distant from point A. But that's another discussion. Or, is it. Might be back to the equal radius thought?
  7. The gravitational effect between two objects of mass seems apparent. Even uncomplicated until you start to think about it in detail, but gravity is said to warp Space which I assume can be attributed to mass. The assumption being that the effect is an attribute of mass. Generally there is no clear explanation of what Space is. It's this, it's that, know one really knows, yet it expands and warps. When a photon is affected by gravity we can say that it's velocity gives it just enough mass to be gravitationally effected. If Space is expanding it could be said that it has velocity. My understanding of term accuracy becomes convoluted at times, but Space is said to be expanding at an increasing rate, so I think velocity is the correct term. Is this velocity of Space, what allows gravitational warping of Space, much like a photon is effected because it has velocity, and wouldn't this account for most, if not all of the matter that is said to be missing in the universe? Another thought, is that the photon is simply following a geodesic of curved space but that simply brings us back to why space warps without an explanation.
  8. Okay this made me laugh. Actually, it is the second thing written by swansont that I have read today that made my laugh. The first thing was his article on how a question about when a decade ends was such a terrible question. Then I remembered that it was swansont's blog, and it is well known that he has no sense of humor, so I immediately started trying to remember which of my meds I had recently taken... I believe this is where according to Poe's Law I'm supposed to put the little side ways smiley face. The problem is I can't remember exactly how to make the side ways smiley face so I'm hoping this one will do. 😂 Note, I am only joking about the frantic meds search...🤔🧐😂
  9. Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong. You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!" However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐
  10. You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected. It is amazing if you cannot see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own. Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.
  11. So far I have come away from this conversation thinking that if religionist are not allowed to preach then atheist definitely should not be allowed to preach.
  12. Thanks. I’ll start checking this all out now. My mind needs the break.
  13. I had to delete the Apple notes app from my phone because it suddenly decided that I should be notified about one of the notes. I did everything I could think of to make sure I didn’t receive any notifications from that app. It didn’t work. Since the notification was appearing on my lock screen I went so far as to block all notifications from my lock screen. It didn’t work. A few days later there it was again. In frustration I tapped on it so I could examine the note to see if there was something specific to the note that I had done that was causing it to appear. Expecting, to be greeted with a request for my passcode or my finger print since I was after all in my lock screen, I was somewhat surprised when Apple notes opened allowing me to examine the note then after finding no explanation specific to the note, then allowed me continued access to my phone. I tried to let them know. I couldn’t figure out how. Has anyone else run into anything like this? I tried to Google it. I failed. I have no clue why, but Google’s failure, feels like my own. Apparently, it is years of applied conditioning initiated by the very first electronic device salesperson. If anyone has a clue as to why Google search on occasion seems to have very large gaping holes in its ability to access data that I’m sure it has within grasp. I’m willing to listen? In the meantime I have deleted the App, and certainly hope that, that notification doesn’t show up again in another few days.
  14. Love the illustration, and somewhat agree with parts of this statement. I’m assuming that the, either or reference, applies to the illustration, and that, either or, need not always apply. Quantum physics certainly is not classical physics, but how is duality specific to the classical world? If by quantum object you mean objects described by the standard model, I don’t understand why duality would not apply to any part of the standard model that presents as a particle? . It could be that I have simply misunderstood the statement? Thank you for the illustration. 🙂
  15. 🤔🧐 I would assume using the stated outcome that my particle gun was actually a ray gun and that in reality I was firing a ray of energy that presents as a wave until you interfere with the wave by observing it as a particle. Then I would have to assume that the ray only carried enough energy to create the one particle expected to present thus when detected the wave form formally collapses. I could make one more assumption that it would have to be a complete collapse of the wave, otherwise residual energy would either interfere with oncoming waves fired from the ray gun or be absorbed by them creating a sense of structure. I’m only making assumptions. Some thoughts get confusing for me, when they speak of accelerating particles like they are accelerating ping pong balls in a lottery tube, when my understanding is that it shouldn’t exactly work like that. Apparently, I’m playing catch up again. 🙁 The first sentence is positively obvious. The rest I don’t remember ever reading about. Thanks... I’ll google it, but I’ll be googling blind since I can’t even imagine what the process might be called. Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe? Google has a way of giving my research skills a workout... 🤔🙂
×
×
  • 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.