
Posts
1054 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SamBridge


You seem to be saying that you aren't really right, but you're close.
You seem to be saying relativity is wrong, but you're not close.
0 
What about the island of stability? Even though they are related to magic numbers they probably have something to do gluonic fields. And I do understand gluonic fields and why this wouldn't work. I may not have the best understanding compared to you because you are practically a professional ( I don't kno,w) but you also have to thought I am only 12, thus do not have the best understanding compared to a professional scientist.
I'm definitely not a professional because if I was I'd have to care what other people thought of me. The island of stability doesn't require that gluons have an infinite range or that their mechanics be altered, it merely theorizes that nucleons in somewhat larger nuclei can have a larger binding energy between nucleons using a "magic" geometric structures that allow the nucleus to hold itself together with more efficiency, thus becoming more stable.
0 
What do you call Mo/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2) http://www.phy.olemi...rkNet/mass.htmlI call it energy, not mass. Relativistic mass is an outdated concept.
But energy and mass are somewhat similar, even photons bend the fabric of space, and there's models of relativistic higg's fields that show a similar effect of mass increase via acceleration. Doesn't matter if its a little outdated, there's experimental evidence like in particle accelerators verifying that you don't measure mass as being constant when observing something that gains velocity to near the speed of light. Assuming that Einstein was crack pot and mass isn't relative in any way shape or form, if wasn't an accurate model in a lot of scenarios it can still approximate many others, just as it doesn't even matter that Newtonian mechanics is outdated, it won't change the fact that u+v is still mathematically a good approximation for speeds that total less than 1% the speed of light.
But, because time (dt<1) is slown, it has no effect on the object : from the outside point of view, all its physic is slown in time (so it doesn't heat or collapse).
That could be an additional component as well, objects that travel near the speed of light take more time such that an exchange rate of heat from kinetic motion may decrease, but the time slowing down doesn't discount the fact that an object still physically contracts.
0 
Your explanation contradicts the conclusion, which is why this keeps getting pointed out.
No it doesn't because my conclusion is that the fuel didn't ignite in the aliens frame and it didn't in hysor's frame either, which many people agree is would happen equally as much as if it DID ignite in one frame THEN it would ignite in the other. The difference is I assumed in one frame the fuel didn't ignite in one frame and drew a conclusion to show how it might not physically happen in the other, no contradiction.
0 
Right, because they are separated by physical difference in space the information about events take finite time to reach any given observer, the events that are separated by distance can be measured as happening at a different time in another frame even if they appear to happen at the same time in one frame since the distance between events and the time they take to achieve that certain relative distance is also relative.
If say, I'm holding one ball in both my hands, and I measure my throwing my arms and releasing them at the same time, a nearlight observer approaching me would have to measure that the electrical impulses that went from my brain to both my right arm and left arm took more time in a longer distance to reach one arm but not the other, so really it's nothing that special, its a direct result of the relativistic all effects we already know at the same time.
0 
What I tried to explain is that when you mesure density, you basicly use a volume at a moment and count the mass in it.
Simultaneousity isn't relative, that's fine, but the fact of the matter remains that you cannot put all of space into terms of only what happens in time, they are different dimensions, there is a physical contraction that you see beyond a relative simultaneity of measuring the ends of the object that is caused by the different phenomena of spacial length contraction and that's why there's two different operators for lorent'z transformations that describe this phenomena. Only considering the time dilation of the matter cannot account for the special metric differences that one would measure with something like density or the distance one says is one point and the next.
0 
But as the video explains, the train does in fact fit into the tunnel when it's contracted from an outside frame that sees it moving, the outside frames are just as correct as frames from the inside of the train which he also says. And as the video also explains, time dilation isn't the only factor, something physically looks shorter when it's appears to be traveling near the speed of light in addition to the time dilation because time isn't the only component of space, there's also 3 other dimensions of space that change relativistically that the axis of time is orthogonal to. Time dilation can't account for the entire phenomena of a hyperbolic approach to the speed of light, so If the spacial dimension also didn't change, it would imply the nearlight object's spacial metric didn't contract from our frame or with the environment from nearlight object's frame and therefore measure that it traveling a greater distance in one measured second than light could have traveled in one second. Didn't he say at the end the math was simple? If you want to see relative density, take m/v, then plug in the relativistic equations for relativistic mass and relativistic volume.
0 
But if it's critical in one frame it must be critical in the other. The point is the criteria are relative.
Yeah, that's what 8 other people already said, and I merely provided an explanation for how it physically happens to be the case beyond "that's just how it is."
1 
Atomic structures do not contract. Density does not increase and there is no relativistic mass.
You're simply wrong.
Look for yourself, there's a relativistic density equation in this thread. If atomic structures didn't contract then matter would become degenerate from length contraction, there's no force stopping them from contracting, I don't think you understand how length contraction works, look at the equations yourself, pretend you have a sphere that's 10 nanometers across and apply the length contraction formula at 99% the speed of light and see what happens. If I take a ruler and send it off near the speed of light, it appears shorter. If I take an atomic ruler that's the size of a hydrogen atom and send it off near the speed of light, it shrinks too, the fact that atoms are really small doesn't matter. "There is no relativistic mass"? What do you call Mo/(1v^2/c^2)^(1/2) http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/mass.html
You're simply wrong.
0 
The volume fraction is not the issue, so its constance is irrelevant. In a given frame, where the 1x1x1 cubes would represent a critical geometry, the same configuration of 1x1x.05 cubes would not be. You can't apply the same criteria from different frames.
Did you actually read the explanation? It's not critical geometry because the probability stays the same due to constant geometric proportion, that's the reason why the configuration of 1x1x.5 isn't critical, I'm agreeing with you that the geometry is why it's not critical.
0 
The nuclear fuel example isn't just a matter of density, though, it's also a matter of geometry. You can have a cube that goes critical whereas the same mass and density reshaped into a rectangular slab will not.
The underlying point is that these parameters are framedependent. Absent a rigorous demonstration that the various effects cancel/compensate, one should not simply assume that they do.
Well relativity still has classical components. If I put 8 1*1*1 cubes inside a 10*10*10 cube, then I shrink it such that I have 8 1*1*.5 cubes in a 10*10*5 cube, the first ratio of volumes is 8u^3;1000u^3, the second ratio of volumes is 4u^3:500u^3, the same exact proportion. Both 8/1000 and 4/500 yield the same number, thus the probability of finding a certain smaller cube within the respective larger cube stays the same. And, a reaction going critical doesn't necessarily require an increased density, just a high enough probability of nucleons running into various nuclei which coincidentally can be achieved with physical force compression but not length contraction.
0 
I think the main probleme is the way you define the "volume" to calculate your density.A volume is a limit in space at a given moment, and density is define by the quantity of mass/energy in it.But when the frame change, the limit of the volume are contracted, but the moment is also shifted through time along the direction, and also slowed.So if you define a volume in a frame, it won't be valid to mesure density in other frames.I think the right way to mesure density is to use a spacetime volume (extended in time).. this way, when the frame change, time slowing increase the size of the box in time (and also rotate it so the front get to be at another time that the back). the new density wouldn't be frame dependant.
But what your saying doesn't make any sense at all because the back of the object is moving at the same speed as the front. There's already an equation that models relative density, and according to that model, you get a higher mass in a smaller volume, even if it doesn't happen the same way as force compression.
0 
I think I see what you mean. with the 4X3=12, but we're talking fluxing gravity effects here,
No, we're talking about static gravitational effects where what I am saying upholds. It's not a constant "recalculation," it's a correlation, recalculations take time, correlations don't. Time doesn't need to pass for a gravitational field to exist where it already exists. If what you were saying was true, it would imply everything would stop existing if we stopped to look at an individual moment in time.
0 
I don't think this is stated correctly (though I agree SamBridge is mistaken. I also agree that different frames "agree" only as in "are mutually consistent" but not as in "have the same measurements").
If an object's density is relative, then its measured density depends on the frame of reference in which it is measured. An object's density can be different in different frames, and that doesn't require that it changes in its own frame. Of course the object's density (or length etc) doesn't change due to relativistic effects in its rest frame.
So for example this statement is perfectly sensible:
'Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained, when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
Doesn't that mean that density is frame DEPENDENT?
Its "rest density" would be frame independent (vacuously I guess, because it specifies the frame in which to measure).
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting, relative density can vary from other frames which we know with the relative mass equation and the relative length equation, but there's just something that we haven't completely identified that is kept constant during length contraction that isn't kept constant during compression due to force that accounts for the fact that contracted matter doesn't necessarily become degenerate matter. Anyway, there's already another thread with a similar topic so we should make plans to return to the original discussion and move this one to the other thread.
0 
I don't doubt that you can build a good computer, I just doubt determinism can universally exist because of scientific experiments. If there are inherently random properties of the universe, you can never have 100% certainty that anything is physically deterministic, including AIs and biological systems. Thus, we can never determine with 100% accuracy what all future results will be to prove there is 0 degree of freedom, or in other words, that every position of all matter and energy long every axis at any given point in time can be modeled as a function, generating only one possible set of outputs for every single set of inputs with a 1:1 correlation. Good luck making a deterministic equation of the universe.
I'll repeat it again for you to consider since you didn't seem to completely address it but rather gave logically inconsistent oneliners. A conscious entity can distinguish having no freedom from what they measure as their own conscious action of measuring in a state that is defined as having freedom or "choice", therefore there must be a difference between the two, otherwise logically they could not possibly be distinguishable and the appearance of having choice would be equal to actually having no choice. If on the other hand, it was proven that for any given conscious entity that it is impossible distinguish between how they measure their own conscious state as having a choice and a lack of an ability to do so, then it would imply there was no difference between what is measured as but in reality is only an illusion of choice and what is measured as no choice, which can coexist with a lack of determinism, but I don't think we've gotten to that point and I don't think we know if such a point can exist.
To put it frankly, we don't have the evidence to prove what is being suggested to its full extent and it may very well be improvable. And the theory in this discussion isn't even considering the epistemology of our measurements anyway.
In current physics, there's ways to mix and match the more Newtonian views of systems by saying certain events are more or less probable with certain parameters, so it's not like you'd be completely wrong or anything like that, there can still easily be rational and logical patterns, especially considering the fact that mathematical patterns themselves uphold the property of their correlation independently of time and space.
0 
but I suppose the universe would have it's "hawking radiation" of virtual particles reflected back
No idea what that's suppose to mean.
oh, that just popped up...are you asking if I need distance over time to do the 4X3=12? if so, then yes....any changes within a region, including theoretical multiplicatons frequire time to accomplish this
But, a correlation isn't a change, it's almost the opposite of a change. 4*3=12 is never going to change, that statement will always be true regardless of how much time passes anywhere and regardless of where anyone is. Only changes in which correlation matter/energy decides to follow need to be observed as being at or less than light, such as changes in position, how they are affected by differences in gravity, ect. But, I don't need any amount of time to pass to say "position x = position x" because the correlation is never untrue, the state of correlation is independent of physical dimension. You can see this exact propety in entanglement, assuming our current models and not some wormhole or 10dimensional position model, whereby correlation, entangled particles become the same particle, and since any object equals itself regardless of where it is in space, we measure the phenomena as being seemingly instantaneously upheld independently of its position in space.
0 
Length contraction does not happen because atoms pack themselves more tightly. It happens because the geometry of space/time changes with relative motion. Nothing becomes denser in it's own frame of reference.
:
Not only did I already state that the atomic structures contract according to relativity which makes your first point moot (even though they DO actually pack more tightly to increase density as well and relativistic mass increases even more), I already demonstrated a mathematical equation that accurately models that density varies from a wide variety of other frames. There's no reason to talk about what the nearlight object sees from it's own frame if we're talking about what other frames see. You keep bringing that point up, but the basis even for proper time isn't what something measures from it's own frame, it's what something measures something else it as if that something else were in an inertial frame from the original something's frame. It doesn't matter if something isn't denser from it's own frame, I'm also not in a position I'm not, and x=x. But that doesn't matter from other frames, because as the equation points out, density of something will change in the frame of something that see's that object moving, and if it's inertial, it's still an outside view that's saying it's inertial, and all views will be simultaneously correct about their observations.
0 
but a communicative relation between masses post setup happens superluminally
Except that it isn't "communication," it's "correlation," a fundamentally different property which doesn't deal with traveling any distance over any time. Do I need distance over time for 4*3 to = 12? Nope. You don't need time simply for things to specially exist.
0 
So if I took a rod that had a 4 inches in radius and 5 meters long, and dropped it on a 4inch radius black hole that hovers above ground (lets assume we have enough force to prevent the Earth from being sucked into it and to keep boht the Earth and the black hole stationary to a scientist testing the situation) in such a way that the centerofmassline that ran through he rod was perpendicular to the surface of the black hole, what exactly would I see? Part of the rod would look indefinitely frozen and indefinitely shrink in time while the rest of it continue to fall to the ground or something?
0 
Alright, we have a better answer thanks to bickering in some other thread.
If we assume the aliens never saw the nuclear fuel ignite, then from hysor's frame even though the nuclear storage does gain density as it contracts and atoms appear to move closer together, the physical dimensions of the atoms themselves also shrink by the same proportion from the length contraction, therefore they will never come into a proportionally closer contact that allows pieces of nuclei to travel with enough relative energy and with enough probability of hitting another nucleus to allow the reaction to go critical.
To boil it down, throwing a beach ball in a room can have the same probability of ending up somewhere in its domain as throwing a marble in a small box, so in this case the probability of a smaller neutron/proton hitting a smaller nucleus in a smaller volume yields the same or at least in some way similar probability as a big neutron/proton hitting a big nucleus in a big volume, thus not allowing the reaction to go critical no matter how great the contraction is.
0 
but to keep the orbits in their proper positions, doesn't gravity have to communicate change in strength faster than C?
IF there's a change, sure, but if there is no change, then no, there's no communication happening whatsoever, gravity instantaneously has an indefinite effect on all massbearing objects in space it has already propagated too. Similarly, dimensions constitute space at all points they already exist at, and there is no measured point where space doesn't already exist. In fact, it would be impossible to measure the absence of dimension.
0 
And I'm not claiming that scenarios can't be investigated mathematically.
Then we have nothing to disagree on.
0 
Both I and ACG52 will agree that Delta1212 is mistaken as are you Sam. Density is frame INDEPENDANT.
In other words, relativistic length contraction and mass increase DO NOT affect the density of an object as they do not change in their own frame.
They are only RELATIVE ( to other frames ) effects.
Hence the name
Actually, all 4 of you are wrong, maybe even I was too, I derived the equation for relative density. If we assume a cubical object with the x and y components forming a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion, and we call one side K1 and another K2 (which are both constants), then the relative density can be modeled as follows:
[math] Mo/(K1*K2*Lo)*(1/(1V^2/C^2)) = (m/v)' [/math] or [math] D' = Do/(K1*K2(1/1v^2/c^2))[/math]
So these means density definitely varies, and in fact, you get an increased mass in an even smaller volume. So now all that's left is to show with some equation that relates density to the distance between atoms and mass that forms a finite volume that the atoms will shrink as they approach the speed of light in such a way that length the cube is contracted by will be less than the proportion of the proportion of the relative distance between atoms and the new dimensional size of the atoms themselves that show their electromagnetic fields will also contract in the direction of motion therefore inhibiting matter from reaching a degenerate state.
0 
Well, yes. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the confusion here is.
The difference is you didn't really explain why a contracted star is guaranteed to not become a black hole, you just said a black hole contracts and a star contracts, and there's some relation between the way a star contracts and the way a black hole does.
Also, every frame behaving exactly the same way within said frame is one of the central pillars of relativity. If different (inertial) frames behaved differently to observers within those frames, that would undermine relativity, not give rise to it.
But it's not the pillar of relativity, it's the pillar of logic and reasoning itself, relativity already assumes it in the same way that it assumes 1+1=2. There's already no logical way something can be outside of its own frame.
0
Computational Theory of Mind
in General Philosophy
Posted · Edited by SamBridge
You can post any equation you want, but as with any mathematical model that is applied to the universe, it's just a matter of if whether or not or how big the difference between that equation and any given relevant physical observation and if it is 0 or greater, or an infinite amount of nines after 99%, thus proving they are the same, which as per your liking I suppose I can model with arithmetic: Expr1  Expr2 = 0, > Expr1 = Expr2, or "the difference between expression one and expression two is zero, therefore expression one equals expression two."
But we still have further to go as I said, we'll always have further to go when we try and boil everything down to just functions as ordered pairs. As long as there is a lack of proof that someone can't tell a difference between having freedom and having no freedom, computational theory of the mind will never have a chance of being fully accurate. If you have statistics, that's getting better, it's getting closer to reality, you might be able to accurately model probability with 99% accuracy in a closed system,