Jump to content

md65536

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by md65536

  1. Oh I see. I was way off. Does this "leaving of a band" produce fairly uniform expansion in all directions, as we see today? I would expect the expanding and shrinking to be dependent on the shape of the spiral arms, and that the universe would shrink into and expand out of a similar long and narrow shape. If the "front" of our galaxy is heading out of a band and the back closer to the band and being pulled back, that would explain the expansion in forward and back directions, but what causes expansion in a sideways direction? Anyway vordhosbn's post (it violates causality) and swans
  2. The words are right but the correct syllogism is: p->q ~q ~p It probably won't confuse anyone but me, but I didn't fully read your words and I was about to argue that you have the scientific method all wrong! I don't understand your reasoning for why the universe would begin to contract again. Are you familiar with the concept of escape velocity? Basically, if you have 2 masses moving apart at a fast enough speed, their gravitation attraction will slow their speed but not enough to overcome it completely. They may decelerate for eternity but never come to a stop (analogous to a
  3. Since it's only approximately a Fibonacci spiral I would guess that the spiral shape is not due to photoshopping (otherwise, why not make it more perfect?). In the bottom left corner of the largest box, a Fibonacci spiral would aim straight down and curve to the right rather than continue off to the left. Also, all the boxes should be square and none of them are very close. Without that, you don't get the proper ratios that make it a Fibonacci spiral. This is just a spiral. It's pretty cool though.
  4. I'm going to go the opposite direction of Stephen Hawking and bet that by the end of this year, we will have a generally accepted theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. I will also predict that there will be an explosion of related scientific discoveries over this year and the next few. In previous great years in the history science, there have always been few people working on the cutting edge of science, relative to the number of scientists working today, and the world took a long time to catch up. Today, there are so many brilliant minds who have a hundred years' worth of
  5. http://www.smbc-comi...=comics&id=1995 You can deal with equations. If you understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance squared, then the equation g = GM/r2 makes sense. If the equation doesn't make sense, you probably don't really understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance. If you understand that the gravitation force on an object is the same as the sum of the force on all its constituent parts (or particles), then some equation involving integration should
  6. Hawking's time travel is time dilation, where one observer experiences time at a slower rate than others (just as with the twin paradox). The Singularity you speak of is a predicted period in technological advancement where artificial intelligence is able to aid in technological innovation. The idea is that since they may be able to "improve themselves", then future iterations of AIs will be able to innovate better and faster, and through iteration will accelerate technological innovation beyond what is humanly possible, very rapidly. There is also the concept of a singularity eg. w
  7. "Explanations" that are neither backed up with math, nor predict observations that existing theories do not, might be considered crackpottery. This doesn't mean they're wrong. They may be simply incomplete, and not ready to be accepted by others. What I was referring to is another aspect of crackpottery seen in this thread, which is a tendency toward sweeping claims that what has been established is wrong. This can be good in moderation, because our existing understanding is always evolving and some of it is wrong. As you've said, claiming that something is wrong without understanding it i
  8. I think time dilation, and the fact that different observers measure time differently, suggest that time doesn't quite "exist" ("To have actual being; be real") but is rather a fignewton of an observer's perception. One might say it only exists within the context of an observation, or even that it is illusory. Time can be separated into several concepts. One is the perception of durations, which I believe is entirely a product of perceptive. Another is chronology, or the ordering of events. Ignoring the measurement of durations between events, the chronological ordering of causally rel
  9. Considering that you called a member of the staff "arrogant", I'm sure you'll be the first to know. My post is off-topic but this thread's a train-wreck! I have to take the side of "proper science" on this argument. I'm a crackpot scientist myself, but I've learned at least 2 things: 1. It's a waste of time to engage with argumentative crackpots. They typically refuse to acknowledge accepted understanding, so any attempt to help them be better informed will be brushed aside. 2. Math really is the key to go from idea to theory. An idea may be judged good or bad depending on opinion (th
  10. My other theory (the boring one) concludes that time is equivalent to distance. While working on it I ended up with 2 separate concepts of "present": One is "what we can observe right now" and the other is "what we can affect right now". Considering special relativity and c as the speed limit of information, each of these is "equidistant" from our accepted understanding of "present", in time relative to some given remote location. That is, for a moon that is one light second away, what we can observe is at least 1 second in the past and what we can affect (on the moon) is at least 1 second
  11. Cool! Do you need to get a Master's degree in Time to use it? Or do they just restrict it to those with Lord degrees?
  12. Thank you! It's nice to see someone else as excited about the theory as I am! I am unfamiliar with the university of Bellevue but if they have an Advanced Timeology team in their physics department, then I'm sure it would be beneficial to have me speak to someone from there. I've been developing this theory in isolation. It would be nice to finally get some help.
  13. Time consists of energy that oscillates 90 degrees out of phase with spatial energy, in the form of particles called chronotons. These chronotons can be positively charged (representing time that hasn't happened yet, IE. the future) or negatively charged (which is what the past is made up of). Positive chronotons react with particles of the present, called immediatons, to create negative chronotons and other particles called effectons. There are immediatons present in all elementary mass particles. The more mass an object has, the more chronotons it needs to react with, which is why larger
  14. Are you saying that frame-dragging etc warps space-time differently for gravity vs light? Or that light and gravity waves propagate along different geodesics or at different speeds? If so, that's something I don't understand. If you are not saying that, then I stand by what I said. To use a particle metaphor, one might say that photons and gravitons from a point on the gravitational mass arrive at the same time from the same direction (their path is the same geodesic across space-time warped by any number of phenomena). The result is that the gravitational mass "feels" (according to the pu
  15. Perhaps my arguments were unfair. I apologize. I've also realized that speaking of scientists and non-scientists in general based on a few posts, let alone based on all people who post to science forums, is a gross overgeneralization. However I don't want to hijack this thread so I won't argue semantics. Back to the original topic... in another thread by the same poster, I basically said in this post in the Speculations forum that the main mystery for me on this topic is how mass/energy in one place can affect the length of measurements at distant locations around it. If that could be expl
  16. This thread i think is a good example of the problem dividing scientists and non-scientists, and the resistance of each to the other. Scientists: Obviously ProcuratorIncendia was wondering HOW mass and spacetime are related, but rather than saying "No one really knows, exactly," you argue semantics and say that the question is not really important. If he instead had asked "Why does an apple fall?" you would have answered "gravity" and maybe even explained it. I'm certain no one would say "Well that's not science!" I assure you, if you had a simple answer for a causal connection between
  17. I have a fairly solid understanding of why the speed of light is a cosmic speed limit, but as for the value of c itself, I have no idea. Is this value connected in any way with other fundamental constants? Are the fundamental constants of the universe pretty much arbitrary? c is based on measurements of time and length, but would it work equally well if it was a different ratio? I don't see why not. There are theories involving infinite universes each with different values for the fundamental constants. People ponder questions like "Which would support the formation of galaxies? Whic
  18. As gravity waves and light both propagate at a speed of c, you pretty much have that a mass is attracted to where another gravitational body appears to be at that moment. I've tried imagining a mass catching up to it's own "wake" and I'm pretty sure that it must involve it traveling at superluminal speeds, which is impossible for good reason. I think this idea is similar to something like "Imagine the orbiter catching up to its own delayed image, and seeing multiple copies of itself... can it crash into itself?" The answer is no; all three of the ideas in that sentence are impossible.
  19. I never really figured out the details, but doesn't the left side of the brain control the right side of the body, and vice versa? And the left side of the brain is more analytical, while the right side is more creative and junk. I wouldn't doubt that the motor control parts of the brain are quite separate from the thinking/reasoning parts of the brain, but the left-brain motor control stuff might have better connections to the analytical parts of the brain which might make it better for precise control. Then left-handedness might indicate something to do with the intrabrainial connection
  20. Okay I wrote up a perfectly wonderful response along the lines of everyone else and then spotted a source of confusion. Yes, an exterior observer would "observe the light reaching the back of the traincar first" as that end moved forward to meet the light signal that is moving backward. The situation you describe requires that the LED switch device is causally connected to the "light hitting the sensors" events. This means that the LED switch event must happen long enough after the sensor event, that information from the 2 sensors can travel to the switch. The sensor can't know instant
  21. I don't think this is true when relativity comes into play. Specifically I think that the inside of a black hole is "bigger" than the outside. But regarding the original question... Here are some concepts that I think are interesting when trying to understand infinity: - Infinity is not a value (infinity + 1 etc). If you treat it as a value, I think it's possible to say that infinity^2 == infinity. Google "infinite hotel" for seeing how you can expand an infinite value and not change its value. Or whatever. - There's a difference between countably infinite and uncountably infinite
  22. What branch of science satisfies all of these criteria? Chemistry is not a science because we've never directly observed parts of one atom interacting with parts of another. Sure, you put baking soda and vinegar together and you get school project lava, but there's no evidence that the baking soda and vinegar turned into lava because we can't see into atoms as they interact. What is the next step? Prove that science is not science?
  23. Is black hole evaporation equivalent to heat death? I'm stuck on the idea that a black hole and a "universe seen from the outside" are essentially the same thing.
  24. Around 9:30 to 11:06 in the video is a good demonstration of how an expanding universe would make different locations seem "like the center". If you inflate a beach ball and you know exactly where its surface is then you can find the center. We don't know where the surface (or edge) of the universe is, or what its shape is.
  25. md65536

    An Idea

    Personally I think that trying to reason past "quarks have gravity" is like trying to figure out what is beyond the edge of a flat earth. You can imagine anything you like as an answer, but if you skip way past the edge of your knowledge or understanding, then there's nothing real and known to compare against, to use to evaluate new ideas. Personally I don't think that gravity is a "thing" that can be "had". It is similar to inertia. You wouldn't say that things stay at rest because of particles called "nonmovitons" that are like little monsters that pin stuff down to the rubber sheet of
×
×
  • 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.