somecallmegenius

The formulas for relativistic momentum and kinetic energy are different from the approximations used in Newtonian mechanics. The difference becomes more and more drastic as v approaches c. Here's a simple way to derive E=pc starting with only the formula for relativistic momentum and a few assumptions (i.e. the Work-Energy Theorem holds valid in relativity, our final equation holds for massless particles).

 

 

 

The formula for relativistic momentum can be found by analyzing collisions with the Lorentz transformation, and what you end up with is [math]p=\gamma mv[/math] where [math]\gamma=(1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/math].

 

From there you can find the formula for relativistic kinetic energy by using the Work-Energy Theorem, calculating the work done in bringing a mass at rest to a velocity v:

 

[math]E_k=\int Fdx=\int \frac{dpdx}{dt}=\int vdp=pv-\int pdv=\gamma mv^2-m\int \frac{vdv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

 

Evaluating that integral gives: [math]E_k=\gamma mc^2+\varphi [/math], where [math]\varphi[/math] is some constant of integration. It's easy to solve for [math]\varphi[/math]; all you have to do is take the fact that when v=0 (i.e. the object is at rest) its kinetic energy is taken to be zero, and [math]\gamma=1[/math]. So what you get is:

 

[math]0=mc^2+\varphi~~~ \Rightarrow ~~~\varphi =-mc^2~~~\Rightarrow~~~ E_k=\gamma mc^2-mc^2[/math].

 

The term "mc²" looks like some intrinsic energy associated to a mass (and is appropriately called "rest energy"). Adding this term to both sides of the kinetic energy formula gives the total energy of a body: rest energy + kinetic energy: [math]E=E_k+mc^2=\gamma mc^2[/math]

 

 

Now that we have the formulas for the total relativistic energy and the relativistic momentum of a moving body, we can be a bit tricky to find some relationships between them. We can start by solving for [math]\gamma[/math] in both equations:

 

[math]\gamma =\frac{E}{mc^2}=\frac{p}{mv}~~~\Rightarrow ~~~ Ev=pc^2[/math]

 

So there's a neat little formula relating energy and momentum. We can also use this result to get to the equation you're looking for. Start by squaring the energy equation and rearranging:

 

[math]E^2=\frac{(mc^2)^2}{1-v^2/c^2}~~~\Rightarrow ~~~E^2-\frac{(Ev)^2}{c^2}=(mc^2)^2[/math]

 

Now substitute pc² in for Ev:

 

[math]E^2-\frac{(pc^2)^2}{c^2}=(mc^2)^2~~~\Rightarrow ~~~E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2[/math]

 

As you're aware, this equation holds for all particles, including massless ones. Setting m=0 gives E=pc.

Got it. Thank you elfmotat for the clear derivation and everyone else for your contributions. So, from the above derivation, E = mc² is the energy resulting from unleashing the rest energy of a certain mass.

However, that brings a question to mind, since c is the speed of light in vacuum, do we have to divide the rest energy by the index of refraction of the medium in which the conversion happens to obtain the actual resulting energy?

The classical momentum and kinetic energy equations are the first-order approximations of the relativistic equations. If you expand them in orders of v/c, you ignore the terms where the powers of (v/c)<<1

 

So the definitions never change, but the approximation that gives you the simple form of the equation is no longer valid.

Perfect. Thank you. The answer I was looking for. So, basically, the approximations become more and more inaccurate as the value of v/c increases.

So, swansont is the real deal after all...

Why should the factor of 1/2 appear in either equation? In the classical equation it appears from the integration of (mv dv), from the definition of work.

Ok, thank you, that is a good reminder of a fact which I forgot I knew. It also allows me to properly rephrase my question. What I mean is, does the definition of momentum change when going from classical to relativistic physics?

I mean does the equation E = 1/2 pv, change as v approaches the speed of light (relativistically relevant speeds..)?

Does the kinetic energy of a moving object slowly shift from E = 1/2 pv towards E = pv as v increases?

E²=(mc²)+(pc)²

 

Photons are massless. Bam, E=pc

I already knew that part. Now, as a start it would be helpful if you told me where Einstein derived that equation from and what it logically means, and no I will not accept the standard pythagorean theorem explanation, because if you are gonna go that route, you'll have to tell me why E, mc², and pc form a right-angle triangle.

I have always wondered why the energy of a photon in vacuum is equal to E = pc (where p is the momentum of the photon, and c is the speed of light in vacuum) and not E = 1/2 pv (where for a photon v = c) as is the case for the kinetic energy of any moving mass. Of course, I understand that photons are massless, but can anyone clearly explain how E = mc^2 and not E = 1/2 mc^2 and prove that in a theoretical non-empirical way??

That's right - especially when it comes to war. Wars kill lots of innocent people on both sides. The question is though - which side wins the war?

 

The winning side will not be asked to justify its actions. Even if those actions include the mass slaughter of civilians. Like in WWII. The British and American leaders ordered the "Strategic Bombing" of German cities in WWII. This resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians. But we won the war, so our "good" leaders got away with it.

 

The German leaders also ordered the killing of millions of civilians. But the Germans lost the war - so their "bad" leaders got put on trial at Nuremberg, found guilty of evil war-crimes, and hanged. Tough on them for losing!

 

If the war had gone the other way, and the Germans had won - wouldn't the "evil" (possibly psychotic) Churchill and Roosevelt, have been tried, and convicted of war-crimes, for ordering the callous mass "terror-bombing" of German cities?

 

In matters of "good" and "evil", the winner defines.

I agree with your idea in most cases. However, there are cases when it is tyrant vs people such as what is happening in Syria right now, and what has happened and still happens in some countries in Africa repeatedly. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that popular revolutions often lose their pure "for the people"-essence slowly as they progress towards impeaching or discarding the tyrannical government, with the post-revolutionary authorities sometimes even becoming as "bad" as the dismantled government or even worse.

I love your question! Who did the doing, Hitler or those who followed him? If you can watch the movie "The Reader". It is a tragic movie because the woman punished for war crimes was only following orders, and could not comprehend not following orders, even though innocent people would die. She could not allow them to escape the burning church, because it was her duty to keep the Jewish prisoners under control, and this meant not letting run out of a burning building. This is why I speak of the change in education and culture change. Education for technology does not prepare individuals to think for themselves, but to rely on authority. This is wonderful for the rapid advancement of technology, but it does not manifest a society with good moral judgment.

 

In the 1970's the US announced a youth crisis. We did not suddenly have a mass of mutant parents uninterested in raising their children. We had a major change in public education, and stopped transmitting our culture. We stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. Big mistake.

 

If you can, watch the original Star Trek with Captain Kirk and then watch the Next Generation with Picard and compare the two. The Next Generation expressed the "group think" generation. Captain Kirk is from the generations that talked of virtues and honor and were educated for independent thinking. Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Now with the "group think" generation it seems being popular is more important than anything else. We have young people willing to kill, to prove they can be good gang members. We have bullying and suicide. My concern is, how many of them will follow orders without question? There were Germans who risked their lives to protect Jews, at a time when family and neighbors would report them to authority. When I experience how people react to what I am saying, I wonder how different are things today? If we don't like someone's post, we are not to deal with this person directly but are to report this person to authority. Gone are the days when we would chant "tattle tale tattle tale hanging from a bulls tail" when someone reported on someone else.

 

A popular Star Trek theme was societies run by computers. These shows were not just entertainment. Like ancient Greek tragedies they were plays written to make us think about what we think and what we are doing. They go with "1984" and "The Brave New World", novels of excessively controlled societies. One of my favorite quotes is Aldous Huxley, "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." The US government did not have the organization for power that it has today. It made laws, but it did not rule with policies. Today, everything is subject to rule by policies made by committees that are disbanded after the policy is written, leaving no one to address when things go wrong. This is an impersonal, headless rule over the people, who have nothing to do but obey. Just like Tocqueville feared would happen to us when he wrote "Democracy in America", in 1830. It is what we defended our democracy against, but like the people in Star Trek shows, no one can imagine things being different, and like a Star Trek show, they will do all they can to prevent the Star Trek crew from disabling the computer.

 

Fortunately for us, we have a different history than Germany, and there is hope we will continue to question a president and vice president who stand behind torturing war prisoners, and a war based on false information. But what happens to the memory of the past, when us old folks die? It really kills when the people I do business with have a policy change, and the young person I am speaking with, is sure things have always been as they are today.

Athena, those are some great ideas you have there. Particularly, the one about the dehumanization of human life in order to justify killing, and the one about the policies written by committees that are disbanded after the policy is written. Moral training should be taught in schools because, unfortunately, most moral values and ethics are learned, and are neither innate nor instinctive. If you ever write a book about this I would be glad to read it. And I am relatively young, so hopefully, people with principles and moral values will never be extinct. As parents or future parents, we have an unshakable responsibility to pass on our values and principles as a nation to our sons and daughters, albeit while giving them the chance to think for themselves. Kind of like this: "My dear Son/Daughter here are my values, I will explain them to you and tell you the consequences of ignoring them or not abiding by them, however, now that I have given you the whole story, feel free to modify or alter them in however way you deem fit for your future, but always be wary of the consequences of such changes. Mainly, how they would affect society as you know it, and wether you would want to live in a world where this set of changes to the moral system apply." Nevertheless, what with responsible parents decreasing in number by the day, such principles would be much better applied and taught through the educational system...

In short, Athena, write that book and I will be sure to read it, and if it is as good as the ideas you mentioned, I'll endorse and promote it.

I to have often wondered how he came to power and how he convinced so many to follow such a dark course. To be honest i think some of it was simply the perfect storm type scenario. A cult of personality built around someone who was severely flawed who was able to attract a great many others who were similarly flawed.

 

From my perspective it's difficult to imagine anyone thinking such things but we have leaders today that advocate horrific things but they don't seem to attract the numbers of people today that such people attracted back then. We don't quite jump to the beat of authority like many people did then and fewer of us are willing to allow others to tell us what to think and do, not that such people don't exist now they just don't seem to as many of them nor is blind obedience thought to be as virtuous as it was then either...

 

Personally I think the movement toward reason and rational thought have greatly crippled the people who would do such things.

Your point about jumping to the beat of authority seems valid within the context of our western world and modern democratic countries. However, it is unfortunate that in some countries, third-world or otherwise, significant numbers still jump to the beat of authority. Such individuals are willing to hold ,and act upon, beliefs that would be repulsive to any informed individual from a modern society. Many Middle-Eastern and African nations still struggle with large cults of personality and terrorist organizations: Hizbullah (which is actually kind of a cult of personality), the LRA...

Actually, throughout history, many such large groups that are/were considered ruthless or evil actually grew around one person or a few personalities who had warped beliefs that were disseminated to the masses coated with some attractive slogans which guaranteed they would catch on with a "sufficient" number of people, or what I'd like to call a "human critical mass".

This is just another version of the long debunked Plasma Universe.

 

 

Hmm. I just went to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

And the word plasma was not mentioned even once in the article.

Even though many flaws have been found with this theory, and I don't believe in it myself, your reply is very presumptive. The Plasma universe is pretty much separate from the soon to be debunked SST, and any overlap that may exist is not essential, otherwise it would have been mentioned at least once in the wikipedia article.

Those are good points, but those governments you mention are also using the cyber arena for modern day warfare. It could get scary if instead of launching viruses into a nuclear facility they instead start launching viruses directly into our minds. This would make a fascinating movie, now that I think about it more. I wonder if Ridley Scott is available.

I'd watch that movie. However, I didn't mean that the internet should be directly connected to our brains in the physical sense. I believe that the internet as it currently stands, already is a version of such a global brain, and that's what I have been discussing for the past two posts. Believe me I'm the last person to want viruses downloaded onto people's brains... I value my brain, perhaps too much...

Not really. You sort of blew off the question saying, "It won't be a big deal, so there." I think you may be right, so I won't belabor it.

 

I was, however, trying to make a larger point that not all of this sharing will be used for good. There are a great many people in this world with nefarious intent... people who will take advantage of others in any way possible... and it seems to me that this idea of yours opens people up in vast new ways to be taken advantage of. I just thought it would be nice to hear your thoughts on that aspect of the topic.

By opening up any new avenues of online communication and sharing, you risk the abuse of such avenues through their use for nefarious plotting, hacking, cyber-attacks, and other malicious activities. However, what I meant to say is that with the internet, all that has already been done and most, if not all, countries have implemented detection and control methods of such activities, examples include: the Cyber Defense Agency in the Baltimore-Washington area, NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCD COE), the NSA's cyber defense boot camp, in addition to the many cyber-police departments, proxies, firewalls, security firmware, and antivirus and anti-spyware programs already in place across the globe.

The existence and constant growth of such measures are exactly why I believe it won't be a big deal, it is because people are just as well protected online, if not better, than they are in other aspects of modern life.

How are you accounting for the contributions of unhealthy minds, or the minds of those who wish to do others harm, like sociopaths and psychopaths?

The same way we account for them in a democratic society. Sociopaths and psychopaths have been contributing to the internet since its creation. Some harm has been done, but it has been and will continue be very dilute harm, since the overwhelming majority of people are NOT sociopaths or psychopaths. So, there, your question is answered.

Well, as long as "The Global Brain" maintains a peer-to-peer configuration and not a server-client one, I can't really see how it would harm the global collective.

Basically, as long as individuality of choice is not omitted from the equation, and each individual's right to participate or not participate in any and all aspects of such a "brain" is maintained, then why not.

I coin the term "Democratic Intelligence", meaning a "Global Brain" based on the main principles of democracy, a perfect example of which would be the American Constitution. To make it even clearer, if you count each person's footprint on the internet as an ever-growing collection of neurons and synapses, then in a Democratic Intelligence, each such collection has a choice to grow or connect to any other collection on the internet (or in the global brain). Each individual even has the choice to shrink his collection, by deleting messages or posts, social networking accounts, and even entire websites he/she has previously created.

LOL.... I thought I said I was giving the value of 0/0 and not 0. You yourself say 0/0 is not 0. Then how do you say 0 = 0/0 =1?

 

To The Moderators:

I'll be going away for a week, and to a place where there is no internet connection. So please don't close this thread. The debate's going nicely.

Actually, one more thing. By twisting tmpst's first post on this thread, you made an unforgivable fundamental mistake. tmpst's proof that 0/0 = 1 => 0=1

is perfectly correct (based on your assumption of 0/0 = 1) and in your twisting of it you denied a key mathematical concept, which is the fact that by saying that 0*0/0 equals 0* (0/0) = 0 (as you showed) but does not equal (0*0)/0 = 1 (as tmpst showed), you are basically denying the associative property of multiplication which says: When three or more numbers are multiplied, the product is the same regardless of the grouping of the factors. For example, (2*3)*4 = 2*(3*4).

I.e. 0 = 0*0/0 = 0*0*(1/0) = 0*(0*(1/0)) = 0*(0/0) (Which you showed = 0) = (0*0)*(1/0) = (0*0)/0 = 1 (which tmpst showed)

Therefore, what you call your "hypothesis" not only brings about the contradiction 1 = 0 as tmpst showed, it also violates one of the essential properties of multiplication, which is the associative property. So, there you go. Go to sleep kid, and when you wake up, put your mind to better use...

If you do say anything after this, other than "I agree", then you are arguing for the sake of argument, and your goal is not to arrive at a logical conclusion, but to raise anarchy and mayhem...

Is it easy to observe entire star movement in the Galaxy? Galaxy is very thin plate, and half of the season we can not see it very well , because solar ray interference with seeing it. And the movement is changed very slow. Almost recent date we can see it more better by using infrared telescope without star dust interference. Do we have star movement data about the Galaxy?

Even though alpha2cen usually hits the language barrier, or he trolls, I can't possibly know... I can discern a valid point in his reply, how accurate would our observations of star movement towards or away from the galactic center really be. Also, since the theory David Levy is defending claims that all stars "made" at the galactic are moving away from the galactic center. It would be difficult to use them as reference points. Therefore, how would we go about measuring our separation from the center of our galaxy? I want to know?

Hopefully, an expert can reply to this and let us know.

Ok, I'm only going to give this one shot.

 

Suppose [math]\frac{0}{0} = 1[/math]. Because of the property of [math]0[/math] it follows that:

 

[math]0 = 0 \cdot 1 = 0 \cdot \frac{0}{0} = \frac{0 \cdot 0}{0} = \frac{0}{0} = 1 [/math].

 

So by claiming that [math]\frac{0}{0} = 1[/math] you are actually claiming that [math]0 = 1[/math]. This is a contradiction, because we know that they have different properties in the ring of the real numbers, and as such they are unique.

 

So if you want to keep the algebraic structure of the real numbers as a ring, then you can not claim that [math]\frac{0}{0} = 1[/math]. And if you are thinking in the lines of "Fine, I can live with losing the ring structure of the real numbers", then you are not really defining [math]\frac{0}{0}[/math] as we know the number [math]0[/math], because, well, you just lost the meaning of the number [math]0[/math], so you have nothing to define.

 

Makes sense?

With all due respect to all others who replied to this thread, I have to say this is by far the best one. I was going along with the OP's replies for second, but this, this completely puts the issue to rest. Well played tmpst.

Good websites that can help you decide:

http://colleges.usne...m/best-colleges

https://bigfuture.co.../college-search

Good luck. College days will be some of the best in your life. However, be wary that it is all about striking a healthy balance between your studies and your social life and hobbies.

Don't work too hard or you will miss out on some very good experiences, which, at times, can help you just as much as your education.

Also, being an international student, pay attention to the location of your target universities, some of them involve internationals in the school community much more than others.

And pick a coastal state, those are more fun, example: California, Florida... No offense to all other states...

Source: I studied in the US, and I had many international-student friends (I say had because we are no longer students, they are still my friends).

Hm, I was under the impression it was a lot later, but even still. 600AD is, supposedly, more than 2000 years after creation. Where was the story up until then?

 

Anyways, as I said before (and in the other thread) this is more of a 'quibbling' point. I think it's quite easy to make connections (any connection, really) from the relatively vague languge of the ancient texts (of the bible, of the quran, of the stories of Gilgamesh, etc) to what we think happened. The reason isn't necessarily because they are similar, but because the texts are so vague that they allow enough room for interpretation that we can fit almost anything in.

 

I think that alone is suspicious as to state that they explain a particular theory. For that matter, if we discover an alternative theory, would creation story fit it? If we discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that Panspermia is true (for the sake of argument alone), would the creation stories in the ancient texts fit it? Probably yes. Doesn't that show them to be almost useless in explaining (or describing) anything real?

 

~mooey

Vague they are. Cannot argue there. Ok I'm speaking like Yoda. I agree that only the Dogma parts of the ancient texts are still mostly (but not completely) clear. As to creation stories and such, they do leave a lot of room for interpretation... However, it may just be the aging effect... For such texts to be understood over many ages, they needed to be vague and concise when it came to describing certain things...

As to where was the story up until then, muslims say that it was sent by God (via an angel) to Mohammad when the Quran was read. However, the mention of mud or dust or clay, whatever you want to call it, did occur in both the Bible and the Quran, which means that at the very least, they do confirm each other on that particular point.

As to you calling them "useless in describing anything real", you are equating vagueness to uselessness. Now to dissect the uselessness argument, it depends on what kind of use you are looking for. Scientific use from ancient texts? Not where science is right now, and possibly not ever... However, I believe the purpose of mentioning mud in such texts is to confirm what we are discovering thousands of years later, after we discover it. Meaning, maybe the mention of mud or clay in the creation of man is meant to provide evidence to scientists believing in abiogenesis that God is there, and it does that through mentioning something in texts thousands of years before it's actually confirmed by modern science. Hence, it provides evidence for the existence of higher power by mentioning something that could have been almost impossible for a mere human to predict back then...

And I do say it was almost impossible, but if I were to put myself someone else's shoes, I could clearly see how this can still be viewed as a mere coincidence. Maybe whoever wrote the Quran or the Bible just got lucky there... Nevertheless, what I have given is only one example out of many. And the combination of the many examples, could add up to make some believe "Hey. There actually may be a God after all." I can also see how others can maybe find logical explanations of all such instances where the ancient texts seem to match or predict modern scientific observations or theories. After all, believing or not believing is a choice, and it is one of the strongest examples of human free will.

Okay, how about the Makiritare myth, which is that the world is just a god's dream? Or how part of the world is made from concentrated butter, as in the Hindu creation story? Why give the Judeo-Christian myth preference?

 

 

 

 

The passages in the Bible about clay are metaphorical, not literal. Clay was the most popular and useful crafting material at the time, so invoking it in the holy literature would have made perfect sense to the people for whom the message was intended. It would be like today if you say that television is a black hole of culture, you don't literally mean that television is a black hole, you mean that television kills culture. The term "black hole" makes you think of destruction, of an inescapable force. The image of god forming man out of clay is exactly the same idea.

 

And if I'm not mistaken, man is created from a clot of blood in the Quran. In any event, even it they were literal, you'll notice that only man is created from clay, not all of life. If God were truly just dumbing-down the scientific explanation of abiogensis, he wouldn't have excluded animals from the process. Of course, clay isn't the only model; we still don't know how life started here.

 

Oh, and as for the compiling of the Quran, supposedly the process began immediately following the prophet's death, so it's easily a more historically-correct document (in the sense of being the actual words spoken by the actual person) than anything else in the Abrahamic faiths. Well, at least prior to the Book of Mormon.

As to the mention of clay being metaphorical, that is wide open for interpretation. This right here may be the very reason sects exist in almost every religion, some sects take ancient texts literally, some metaphorically depending on each every expression used in such texts. Therefore, unfortunately, it cannot possibly be proven wether each expression in the ancient texts is meant literally or metaphorically. You do use the popularity of clay as a crafting material (back then) very well. However, that is circumstantial evidence which many would not consider enough to prove that the expression was meant as a metaphor...

The clot of blood you speak of is a reference to the blastocyst, which is a stage of mammal fertilization that everyone, even back then, was familiar with. They did not call it the same thing but they had seen and known of its existence what with early abortions and the such... He did not exclude animals as to say that animals were not made of clay, but it is because of the context in which it was spoken that there may not have been room to mention animals within said context. However, that does not imply that only humans were made of said clay...

No, nor should it be our aim, as the quest is pointless. Dream up anything then set to prove it doesn't exist.

 

The question posed in the opening post is, in my opinion, not a useful question. No creation myth is accurate. No creation myth is even close to accurate unless you allow for a generous amount of interpretation. If you stretch the meaning of the text of the myth to fit known data, then what value is the myth? If your intent is to validate preconceived notions, then given an appropriate amount of fudge factor, any creation myth can be viewed as being relevant.

 

Invoking god, gods, intelligent designers, universal consciousness, higher intelligences, or any other unverifiable metaphysical entity to answer a question that is firmly rooted in the natural world is merely hand-waving. If your answer can't be tested, it can't be shown to be incorrect. If it can't be falsified, then there is no hope of verification. If an answer can't be verified, then you're just wasting your time as there is no way to distinguish one unverifiable answer from another.

I definitely agree with the first part of your statement, about the uselessness of disproving the existence of things. Proving something exists matters much more than proving that something doesn't.

As to using God as an answer to natural phenomena yet to be explained, I also agree that that notion defies the very purpose of scientific exploration. And it is wrongly used by many believers to prove God exists. In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and I'm paraphrasing here, people should stop portraying God as a gap in knowledge, because that would mean that God is shrinking as we find out more...

As to your evidence about stretching the meaning of a text to fit known data, let me remind you that the transition of non-life to life has not yet been fully explained, there are theories, but they are still in testing phase... But going from clay to montmorillonite (which is a type of clay) is not that far of a stretch by anyone's measure...

And may I also remind you that assuming something cannot be verified (which I assume you meant can never be verified), is in and of itself a notion that defies the purpose of scientific exploration. If science has taught us something so far, it is to never deny the possibility of something or the possibility to verify wether something does exist. Who knows? Maybe one day we will find out for sure wether or not divine creation (for a lack of better words) is a myth or reality, using rigorous scientific methods at that. And you know what, I truly hope that day comes as soon as possible so that everyone can put their mind to rest on the most controversial matter of human history.

David Levy,

Even though your arguments (if I could call them that) are being destroyed by MigL and a bit too aggressively by ACG52, there is one thing that vouches for Steady-State Theory (SST) which it seems you are trying to prove, is that it is still called a theory. See definition of a scientific theory here:

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

However, more than any other cosmological theory, evidence is piling up against SST, hence it is unlikely for it to remain considered a scientific theory for much longer; excepting some miraculous new observations somehow prove it.

A piece of advice:

Do not try to prove a theory which even its creators are currently failing to prove. With all due respects, your attempts do seem a bit futile and pointless...

I hope this puts your mind to rest, if only temporarily...

Thanks somecallmegenius.

 

Even if you take away the idea of the universe accelerating (which I would personally love to see disproven because it just makes no sense, and currently requires us to "make stuff up" to fit the mathematics i.e dark energy....I still feel pretty good about visualizing the shape of spacetime and the universe from the outset of the BB til now and projected into the future in this left to right ever expanding super imposed globe model. The only difference being that if you don't believe the expansion is accelerating, we can model the universe growth linearly so that the shape is truly conical from left to right. Or, if you think that the old idea that the universe is actually slowing down its expansion and will eventually "crunch" when gravity wins the battle, then perhaps the model of the universe would be still a singularity, a conical expansion, a point at which the limit has been reached, and then a sort or Rorschach or mirror image of the cone, still going left to right, back to another singularity, and so on infinitum. This would be a cyclical or wavelike model in 4 dimensions. Somewhat sinusoidal (another natural geometry that I find appealing.) Actually it would quite remind me of a steady carrier amplitude modulated EM wave to be honest or at least how textbooks depict them

All of the possibilities you stated are currently possible. Simply because the scientific community requires much more data and possibly better observation methods in order to confirm details about the expansion of the universe. However, as I previously said, I do believe that your visualization method of the universe over time is interesting...

!

Moderator Note

That's not what we meant when we told you that you need to be clearer. This is a discussion forum, not your personal site. Do you have a point to make or are you just here to post chunks of weirdly-written english bits with not much sense in them? If it's the latter, I suggest you stop now.

 

This is preaching (an unclear one at that) - which is against our rules. It's my utmost sencere recommendation you go over our rules once again, and start following them.

 

Also, as we've discussed before, English sentences start with a capital letter, usually contain a verb, and end with a period. Stop... making.. making making.. making... your own version... version... your own... of what english... yes, english englishg... needs to look ... look like.. you're just being unclear.. unclear unclear unclear.

 

If you don't have an actual CLAIM to make, don't post in the thread. The staff will start deleting pointless posts to avoid derailing a thread, and the next step is to delete your access.

 

Follow our rules, Amanbir, that's not a request.

 

 

 

I hope this doesn't violate the rules. But the moderator note did make me laugh out loud... out loud out loud.

Why exactly are we limiting ourselves to the Abrahamic creation stories? Why not the thousands of other creation stories?

We are not limited to those stories. You are welcome to add more...

And to mooeypoo, yeah I can't read Hebrew. I am planning to learn it.

But as I do read Arabic, I am sure of the accuracy of the translation of the Quran version.

And the Quran was first written reasonably closely to when it was first read by Prophet Mohammad.

And it has been the same ever since. Quran was first read around 600 AD if I'm not mistaken.

Montmorillonite Abiogenesis theory did not come about until the 19th century..

So that verse of the Quran could not have possibly been modified after the Abiogenesis theory was first postulated...

This is cool. I get what you are getting at, but I'm no astrophysicist...

The problem is not with your idea, it is with the postulates on which it has been based. The idea that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is still in its infancy, and therefore very weak..

Personally, I find the supporting evidence for such accelerated expansion to be very weak currently. Even with the recent evidence provided by gravitational lensing of distant quasars (see this article: http://www.space.com/15247-universe-acceleration-dark-energy-quasars.html), there are many assumptions that go into the calculations involved in determining changes in frequency of electromagnetic waves emitted by such quasars, there just so many currently unpredictable factors that go into such calculations, that they render them barely useful. Such factor include: the estimation of the curvature of space-time between such quasars and Earth (huge amounts of speculation apply here), gravitational redshift effect (from quasar to Earth), the doppler effect, and other effects which may be yet unknown.

Due to all the above, as elegant as your idea may seem, I don't necessarily like what it is based on...

But despite all the above, it is still possible that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that your idea is plausible. It would require a much more knowledgable scientist than me to know that. Especially, since I am speaking way out of my field here...

I don't think it's right to call the biblical or quranic stories "theories." Theory has a very precise meaning in science, and those are mythological fictions, not "theories." It would be like saying there is a "Harry Potter theory" of railroad travel or a "Twilight theory" of maximizing harvest yields in a garden. No, they're not theories. They are stories. They are fictions. They are myths.

 

With that said, I think basic physics and chemistry and vast epochs of time explain the situation perfectly well. There is some open question about the "start," but that's different, and suggesting "goddidit" is hardly an answer. It's a cop-out.

 

 

 

"What is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."

~Bertrand Russell

 

http://www.talkorigi...onth/nov96.html

Good point. I may have mistakenly implied that the creation stories in the Bible and Quran are theories. I certainly did not mean to.

Question still applies though. Isn't it possible, and potentially logical (as suggested in the bottom of my first post), that the stories in the Quran and Bible are point-A-to-point-Z abridged versions of what actually happened?

Hello I'm Tarek and I love overestimating myself. Or maybe I never did. Maybe it was all true.

See, there I go again

Nice to meet you all, fellow science lovers...