EquisDeXD

But what about relativity? What if the two are accelerating away from the atom at the same speed and started from the same position, but then to a stationary object it happens to appear a little to the left of the nucleus making a small difference in the actual distance between the people accelerating away?

Yep. I'll give you a hint: the frequency of light is relative.

It means theoretically, even if matter can't travel faster than light, it can get from point A to point B faster than light because there's no limit on how fast the fabric of space itself can stretch.

No I've read that, but there exists a fabric of space, which they probably know, but they seem to think just because the labeling of it is arbitrary that it's somehow not real, there has to be some universal factor that is true for all possible labels or "units" of time, like there will always be a finite number of them within any given relative increment.

Wait, if you measure a particle at only a particular instant, your only gaining information about a particle when there is only a change in time coordinates of 0, so wouldn't that make sense that if you measure a particle at a single time coordinate that you aren't seeing it travel distance over time?

But the particle is still in superposition prior to measurement, which means it occupies all possible energy states simultaneously.

The frequency of light stretches to 0? I thought it stretched to infinity as it approached the event horizon, but in any case, to any outside frame of reference, for whatever's in the black hole time would be stopped, while someone inside would count normally? There's something about seeing frozen people at the event horizon that doesn't make sense. If they already passed the event horizon, what is light reflecting off of? Theoretically if it works that way, black holes should be completely visible because you'd see the stopped time of all the dust, meteors and gas they've absorbed, which over a long time I'm sure accumulates to a lot.

Yeah, I know that, so what? And that's just the probability of "measuring" it, prior to measurement the particle is in superposition.

No, what it means is from your own point of view, your time flows normally, but to the outside world, your time is slowed down, so while nine years passes on earth, you only count one year of time passing. As you approach the speed of light, the rate it which time passes for you relative to other subluminal frames of reference slows down, so it's only natural you'd age at a slower rate, that's also why if you go near a black hole, then come back to earth, you'd find people who use to be younger than you are now in fact older than you because in the presence of higher gravity, time flows more slowly.

Not all substances "scatter" light, some allow it to pass through it bent or relatively unaltered. Concentrated gas if its not unionized doesn't change the frequency of light so often as it merely blocks light, like chalk in a glass of water. Not only that, but there are still "standard candles" or supernovae throughout different parts of the unvierse which have constant ranges of brightness per distance, and we can make inferences based on how the same magnitude of light from that distance acts when we observe it which means we can make inferences about its mass and of the objects around it, which tells us that the mass of not just our own, but of distant galaxies isn't accounted for by a very large factor. If the gas is only 20% of that, it's not enough.

For another explanation http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69463-why-the-universe-is-here/ which no one commented so I don't know if there's any logical fallacies in it can work.

So what determines the strength of the Higg's field?

I wouldn't trust him, I'd wait until swan can clear it up.

Yeah, I myself even said it's a process, but, your first paragraph is sort of pointless, all your saying is "ok, we can just drop a 6 sided die on the table and force it to be on one side" even though the actual event of just letting a die roll is random and nothing you say changes that. But you sort of use that in later paragraphs to justify the existence for some kind of "guiding" factor which there is no evidence for. Different products of an evolutionary process such as one species becoming more prominent and therefore consuming more of a particular resource or certain genomes dispersing through a population causing an evolutionary shift which can have highly probable results for a given environment, but that's about the extent of prediction or "guidance", the mutations themselves are completely random, it's kind of hard to factor infinite randomness into a computer, in fact it's technically saying the chances of any particular mutation are 1/infinity, which mathematically is undefined, but in measure theory the different elements of an infinite set have an arbitrary label of 0 such as that something can have a 0 probability but still happen, but can still happen because we can be "almost sure". In other words, there's so many possible random mutations that the probability of any one is technically 0. If an alien was on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago, they would not be able to predict that humans would eventually be a result, it's random, always has been, always will be. Even if they tried to influence the bacterium and put plasmids in then that they thought would create organisms that would evolve into humans, there's still plenty of room not only for random mutations but environmental pressures like maybe a meteor sneaks up on Earth and makes it hotter or colder or even the selective pressures within species themselves.

Ok, well that's kind of cool I guess, so the potentially energy into making the elements into the materials is the energy that get's released via using an electric current?

So if it get's to all points instantaneously, isn't it in a superposition of all points it would be determined to be in, in future time coordinates? If it get's to a location in literally 0 time with literally 0 distance to travel from its frame of reference, then that means it also get's to the next place its suppose to get to at the same time because it also takes 0 time to get to the next place, which means all light should be in every single location all the time...if that's actually true. But perhaps it works differently for light because it doesn't have mass.

Well if to the reference of light time is stopped, how does light actually get from point a to point b? It instantaneously gets to all points because of infinite length contraction? No, there's answers I just don't understand them. There was some kind of answer on a graph, like the x axis is time, and y axis is space, and as you travel through more space, you travel through less time since the slope increases as you go a greater amount of space per second, using triangulation.

But if time is stopped, how can you be traveling distance over time? Wouldn't that be x/0? So if I traveled near the speed of light from the sun, my clock would count normally, but everyone else's clock would appear slower, while to everyone else, my clock would seem slower...how does that decrease the length between any two objects if one is traveling near the speed of light? I still don't see why traveling that speed makes time dilation in the graphical sense. I guess, as you approach the speed of light, you'd have to be gaining kinetic energy to travel at a greater speed, which in tern gives an object more relative mass which distorts the fabric of space a greater amount, I could see how this would work with length contraction, but how would it explain time dilation if its an accurate reason? Or, why do different gravitational masses slow time differently relative to other observer?

It answers time dilation (though not very well in my opinion, I already know time dilation and I still had trouble understanding him), but I still don't see how it explains length dilation. It I guess explains "that" length dilation happens, but I still don't see "why" it happens, he just keeps using the example "because the speed of light is constant", like even in the speedometer he put c as the limit, but never explained why it always has to be c, why length mysteriously contracts just because you want to approach c. You travel slower...so the rate at which you measure increments of length of an object approaching the speed of light contract? I guess it would be easier if it was more visual, like the fabric of space got "pinched" inward the more an object travels at the speed of light which changed the distance light would have to travel to reach an object or also the length between intervals. Actually, I still don't completely understand why time dilation occurs in the traditional sense. The way I had always thought of it is that time flows at the speed of light, and the closer you approach light, the smaller the relative speed between time and the object is decreasing, like one car moving at 12 miles per hour and one car moving at 14 miles per hour to an outside observer. The car going 12 should measure the other one going at 2 miles per hour while the outside world flies by at 12 miles per our while to an outside observer both go at 12 and 14, but this doesn't seem to match up with the analogies in other sources.

What your essentially saying though is "even though I can roll a die, I can also force a side for it to be on". So what? There's no evidence that there exists such a thing that somehow "guides" all of evolution. Circumstances change randomly which favor whatever happens to have mutated to survive those circumstances before they change again. Well, the word "process" was invented before computers were invented, but it is similar to a system of corresponding takss that need to be met for somethign to happen. There's not really any "methods" though, it's that in chemistry you can't combine any atoms you want, specific chemicals will have specific atomic charges and atomic radii which are quantized and can only combine in certain ways, which I think is more like what your trying to say, which still isn't to say mutations themselves aren't completely random.

You just answered it yourself, because its a function, a function can only have one output per input, i.e. one probability per measurement.

Well, regardless of either case of stretching or shrinking, why does it happen just because I happen to travel near the speed of light? I travel near the speed of light, time slows down, and then for some reason increments of length decrease in some direction. Why? "because you always have to measure the speed of light as c" doesn't answer the question. Why do I always have to measure it at c? What is speeding up doing that's causing this length dilation?

Evolution doesn't really have the same context in physics, and evolution isn't a law anyway, it's the process that happens to happen. If I say a wave function evolves over time, I'm not saying that it has constituent parts that somehow are surviving because they are the most fit variables. Evolution is essentially completely random, there's an entire universe of cosmic rays that could ionize a DNA strand the right way to cause a non-lethal mutation.

They both had their own perception of what meaning was.

So as an object approaches the speed of light going away from you ask you are going away from it, the distance between them somehow decreases (which wouldn't that make them seem to speed up to each other more?) but the frame rate decreases, what's the point of the length decreasing? Why isn't it purely the time dilation? And why isn't the length "increasing"?