SamBridge

The faster you go, the greater the coupling rate with higgs particles and thus the greater local curvature and thus the greater the measured effect of time dilation of length contraction that keeps the speed of light the limit. But, why do higg's particles couple more with accelerating objects in the first place, and why does that limit still occur at the speed of light? Why doesn't applying force at a linear rate cause higg's coupling at a linear rate? Or why not at 400,000,000 meters per second instead of 300,000,000 per second?

There wouldn't happen to be an opposite to length contraction that results in simple relativity scenarios would there? Like length expansion? If a photon source accelerates towards and away from something, there will be either a blueshift or a red shift from the FOR of whatever is observing the source, but, as far as I know, time dilation and length contraction work the same no matter what direction someone is going, so I still don't see how a fictitious force breaks this symmetry with simultaneity. And in the space scenario, people on Earth might not get pushed into their seat, but what actual force explains the difference in the scenarios between the space ship and the Earth if both observers observe each other traveling in a semi circle around the star? And still no one has addressed the hyperdonought situation.

So you're telling me if I get in a car right now and accelerate away from a house, I won't observe the house accelerating away from me? What else could I possibly observe in that scenario? If acceleration isn't relative, then that means every frame of reference can agree on the same value of acceleration of an object just as it use to be thought that everyone in the universe measures time as passing the time, but I know you know that's not true.

But if Earth observes me accelerating, then I must observe Earth accelerating, I still don't see how there could possibly be any room for difference. If Earth observes me turning in a semi circle to turn around, then I instead observer Earth traveling in a semi circle around the star and then heading towards me. Also, how can you model it completely like the Doppler shift because you have the same relativistic effect in both directions? And can you address the hyperdoughnut situation? Would this situation ever occur if there was no turn around?

But their space time paths could only be different to a 3rd observer, not to each other. If people on Earth observe me leaving, then that means I observe Earth leaving or moving away. How could it ever be anti-symmetric with only two frames? That's like saying when you draw a line, it's shorter when you go one of the two directions.

According to the internet, the twin paradox can be resolved because "only one twin underwent acceleration." But, from the frame of reference of someone traveling away from Earth near the speed of light, they would have observed Earth moving away from themselves at nearly the speed of light instead. To both frames of reference, both observed the other undergoing near-light acceleration, so why wouldn't it be symmetric? Let's say there wasn't turn-around acceleration involved and Earth and the ship are in a hyper-doughnut where by traveling in a straight line away from Earth, one would end up back at Earth eventually, after let's say, 10 light years of distance. Even if there was turn-around acceleration, couldn't the near-light traveler just say they saw Earth traveling in a semi-circle from their view instead?

Ok, so, how is the paper attempting to use entanglement when they acknowledge coupling with atoms? Do the atomic interactions only destroy entangled pairs if the photons are absorbed, allowing photons to remain entangled while atoms were excited due to their lower absorption rate of the surrounding photons while they are excited? Because if they are using lasers to excite atoms, wouldn't that account for the electromagnetically induced transparency that allows the other, I guess, optical photons to so weakly interact with the atoms? I mean the paper almost sounds like its trying to equate entanglement to the photons being attracted to each other, even though the photons have no charge and they're just slowed down through that medium, and they're trying to show it by slowing down light in an electromagnetically induced transparency to minimize atomic absorption in the medium they are using to slow down the light's propagation, and if simple decoherence doesn't destroy entanglement and only absorption does, it seems a lot like entanglement explains the attractive "interaction" between photons that those scientists think they've found.

Unless gravity effected the higher dimensional membrane that the other universes lie on... But mostly, what it's looking like isn't a multiverse in the sense of realities being inlaid in each other, but rather that because "nothingness is unstable" and there's no real reason the think the big bang itself was the start of literally "everything", the big bang we think we've found could easily just be a random fluctuation among many other random fluctuations, and because we don't know of anything that can limit big bangs from happening, we just say there could be an infinite amount of them which leads to the theory of every possible universe occurring. Assuming that's how it all works, we don't actually know. Maybe for some random reason there just actually was a single big bang 13+ billion years ago and that's it, or we're in some higher dimensional hypersphere that 3 dimension-ally has no "outside." and we're trapped. But before any of that, there was a problem with saying "outside the universe." Astronomers tried looking for a "closed universe" curvature which would equate 3-D space to being on the surface of a higher dimensional sphere that folds back in on itself so that physically, there was no "outside", but astronomers had no luck there and space still looks flat according to numerous telescopes. So instead, since there can't be anything "outside" of "everything", and we don't know what was there before the big bang, we instead say "well there had to be something" and so try to adopt different models that harness higher dimensional manifolds in which to place different big bangs so that we can explain how it would make physical sense for the universe to appear to be flat and not have any issues with linearly tracing time back to before the big bang and linearly tracing space to some arbitrary boundary of the universe. Not that everything's fixed and ready to go, we still need the evidence. The reason dark energy matters in this is if we say the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, but we still see no boundary whatsoever and see some galaxies that far back with no sign of matter suddenly ceasing to exist, then the universe is either older, a hypersphere, or it expanded faster than light at some point. We see no evidence for a hypersphere, so that just leaves an infinitely long stretch of space filled with matter, or a fast expansion. If we say the uiverse is older, then where do we stop saying the universe is older? Since we can't model what would prevent the universe from being older, that means the universe is indefinitely old which conflicts with our models of a big bang being the birth of the physical matter we see. So, physicists are trying to make sense of the universe expanding at a faster rate in some multi-verse complex where big bangs are just random fluctuations. But the way I see it personally is the same problem still exists. Where did that higher dimensional multiverse manifold come from?

Just look at the Kelvin scale vs the Celcius scale. Or, let's just make up a new scale. In fact, go stand on a gram scale and then set it to zero. It will read you have zero mass. But, all that means is that when you start moving, some other frame will have to account for that motion by adding in the missing mass later which they find via the equations that correspond constant laws of physics and then they can simply say the scale was offset by a value equal to your mass. No matter what, if your moving in a way that corresponds to having mass, it doesn't matter where you start mathematically, all the inertial frames are still going to agree that you at least have mass in whatever unit they decide to measure it in that corresponds to the laws of physics.

Treating all .com sites that you don't have evidence to support as being uncredible is sensible, which is what I'm talking about. There are sites that are already discredited for scientific findings like foxnews and religious sites you would not have to take as seriously. But nature.com might as well be some any random website, .com means the information is there for commercial gain which means they have an incentive to be biased and over exaggerate. Edu on the other hand is the main domain of links to universities and their studies, the main purpose of which is to inform which no prospect in mind. Journalists are not likely to also have Ph. Ds in every scientific field, and they don't "have" to be peer-reviewed, just edited and put through a basic screening. In fact you could have a science department of a journal with a biologist and physicists an an architect, but they probably aren't going to know a whole lot about something like anthropology or psychology. They can even use paraphrasing from random .com sites that they cite which is why the best possible internet reference you can use is either a publication directly from an accredited Ph. D professor themselves who specializes in the feild they are reporting on or a published study from an accredited university. Those merely report the results of experiments and go over what the experiments did, there's not much potential for any bias or exaggeration if the university or professor is credible. So science journals never ever exaggerate or stretch the truth or over-hype a new theory that doesn't actually have evidence huh? Ummm, I said that publication that I used was the one she should have herself used because she was trying to make a point of using a more credible link but ironically did not actually do this even when a more formal and credible link was right inside the very site she was using. Yeah the light slowing down is all what makes sense, but didn't the paper I posted say the photons become entangled?

I'm saying the specific link you posted isn't more credible, not that it's bad. So if you accept nature.com, you must rationally accept other .com sites unless specific .com sites have been proven to be inaccurate, and those ones you wouldn't have to accept. On the other hand, nature.EDU would be more credible, especially if it was directly from a University study.

But the point is, it has a quote from a so called Harvard Professor who I can look up to see is an actual Harvard professor. Unless your saying he's full of it, you'd have to think that after subtracting the things he's pressured to say to seem exciting by the reporters that there's some truth to the matter. Otherwise it's your word against his, and there's no reason for it to resort to that. Also, your source isn't any more credible since its a .com site. THIS is what should have been found http://www.rle.mit.edu/eap/documents/Nature_attractive_photons.pdf because that is at least from a .edu site which means when they posted that information they weren't doing it for commercial gain. Anyway, the phenomena sounds like what I already mentioned, which is that in a "cold rubidium gas" (page 1) (which reminds me of the bose-einstein experiments), the photons essentially keep bouncing around in such a way that they don't get absorbed since the atoms are already in an excited state and are at a close enough proximity for a long enough period of time that they become entangled as they travel through the medium and take a long time to exit the medium. How do you have a high rydberg state but a supercooled gas at the same time? Not sure, I guess intense low frequency lasers which is actually what they used to cool matter in some instances anyway.

Isn't the pristine form of the DNA destroyed during fossilization normally? How'd they manage to find DNA in a rock-like substance? Otherwise they would have been working on this a lot sooner. http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-dinosaur-dna-amber-01383.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA It's got to be astronomically rare to find DNA that's so well preserved they can incubate it within an organism and succeed in the exact way they planned.

If yahoo was reporting on its own I'd agree, but they are reporting directly from actual scientists. Plus they already use supercool substances to slow down light because of the density for quantum computing as I'm sure you know. Otherwise, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-bind-photons-together-to-create-new-state-of-matter-comparable-to-lightsabers-8841612.html It probably isn't that exciting or anywhere near an actual light saber, but I'd still bet there is a legitimate way scientists can keep photons within a closed region.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/26/4773354/scientists-create-light-saber-material-with-photon-binding-technique ???

You can appear to be traveling faster than light in a non local frame where space is already moving faster than light, like with predicted redshift acceleration of the universe and the ergoshpere of rotating black holes, probably related to a higher dimensional curvature which is sometimes predicted in wormoles but not completely ironed out. Other than that, the space and time metric decreases as you approach light the conventional way meaning that as you try to travel more distance in a given amount of time, the amount of distance you say you have to travel to get to the next point and the amount of time it will take to get there keeps increasing in just the right way to keep you from going at or past the speed of light. Why does it do that? Who knows.

Looks like it's worth a try, thanks.

it is. You can't use the washer method at this poiont because the distance between the large radius and the small radius isn't defined. All you can say is washer radius = x^2-(other radius), we need to use the fact that its always 2 inches thick to develop a formula for the curve of the smaller radius since it isn't defined for us already.

There's something about this thickness of a material to find the volume that I can't quite figure out. Let's say I have a shape with an Outer surface that's generated by rotating y=x^2 around the x axis, and its 2 inches thick all the way around, meaning that at any given point on the curve y=x^2, you can draw a line perpendicular to that point to reach a secondary curve that is only 2 inches away on the inside that has nearly the exact same shape. How do I describe this volume in terms of using a summation of hollowed cylinders? The greatest mystery of all time, only the best can solve it...cause no one can answer it...

I have no idea how anything you just said addresses any of my questions. I already know the inverse trig functions and their reciprocals, I'm talking about something completely different than simple trig identities, I'm talking about solving for an inverse using a substitution with a polar coordinate system. If rsin(theta)=y, then in order to back substitute in a Cartesian function in terms of y I need to solve for rsin(theta) and back substitute into Cartesian functions if it's possible. The hope is that because trig functions are more manipulable and have all sorts of weird properties that you'd get a better Cartesian equation to work with after back substituting.

Well, say I have a function that's y=...some function with an inverse that's not actually a function. It would be converted to rsin(theta)=...f^-1(rcos(theta))... so is there a way to rearrange the inverse of that and have it equal the inverse of the original Cartesian function and rearrange it to get rsin(theta)=...?

So there's all sorts of equations where when you solve for their inverses, you don't get a "function", but I honestly couldn't care less if it's not a function, I just want to know the straight up relationship between y and x of the inverse and I don't care if it fails the vertical line test, so be it. I know there's some way to convert cartesian equations to polar equations, so can I convert, say, y=^6-8x^5+4(x+2)x^4-(x-4)x^3-20, convert it to a polar equation, solve for the inverse in terms of polar coordinates, and then back substitute into cartesian coordinates to get an x-y relationship with y in terms of x? I really don't mind if I have a bunch of roots, technically sqrt(x) has two outputs just on it's own and it's not a particularly unique function.

Wow, that sucks.

It's not an illusion, but it's not what we think it is either. Based on any given average individual's evidence, there are others who can observe and respond to the same environment they perceive in such a manner that the chances that it's a coincidence are beyond astronomical. No one can really say "yes it 100% exists", but we can say we have a 99% certainty that it does according to our observations.

i don't mean for that specific series, just in general, how would you generally do series(a)/series(b)? Because I know I didn't do it right, and I don't find anything when I google "dividing one powers series by another".