Jump to content

johan01

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About johan01

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. This i understand. I you say space is expanding , are the galaxies stretching or expanding as well, since they occupy space as well.
  2. Hi All its been a while since i thought about this so i need some insight.Here goes. If the furthest galaxies are receeding at nearly the speed of light, then for them we are receeding at the same speed. True or false? So then every body in space is actually moving APART " close to the speed of light " relative to any other body , PROVIDED IT IS FAR FAR AWAY" For me its strange that , this law " hubble's law " , that implies dark matter/energy, has no inverse law or observations. Why are there no galaxies moving toward each other at close to the speed of light. " In our Local near proximity" or even "far proximity" for that matter. Or has this been observed , if so how fast are they approching eachother at. Just another stupid thought. Further more , are all galaxies , say 14 billion light years from our galaxy , moving away from US at the same speed , how constant is this recession. Are all galaxies at 7 billion light years away also moving away from us at a constant velocity. how accurate are all these redshift measurments. Could gravitational lensing and "tired light theories " not play a part.
  3. My Definition Time is a manifestation , of energy being transferred , from one point in the universe to the other.The speed at which this transfer occurs relative to the observer , determines the magnitude of the time dialation( not sure about the spelling here) relative to the observer.
  4. okay im beginning to get the picture, but why axiom (iii) is axiom (iv) not the same thing?
  5. QUESTION how can one see beams moving ? if i shine avery powerful beam into direction x ( deep space) . and an observer perpendicular to me is at point y . would he see the beam propergating outward to x . I dont see how this is possible, unless there where atoms in the beams path reflecting them my way. But what if there were no atoms to reflect the beam? You would not see it , correct? Has there been any experiment done , where the propergating , beam has been captured . Say on video , like a beam reflecting back from the moon for instance?
  6. Originally Posted by johan01 everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me. That's quite the claim. Originally Posted by johan01 Is this not The " secret" ?. Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist. 12-10-2008 05:07 AM the point here is , it does not only hold for me , but for all concious beings if you do not exist , you are nothing.
  7. this leads to another question , the recipricol. if i get into my space ship and travel to deep isolated space . and then i jump out. will i be torn apart due to , near zero vaccuum?
  8. I still cannot see the light. is there a simple example of a " consistent" " complete" mathematical system. if i throw some numbers and symbols randomly onto a peice of paper am i making a statment that is false proving that the mathematical system is complete. i think the definitions of "consistent" and "complete" are confusing for me wrt a mathematical system. Q1 are binary numbers "consistent" -- i dont know, consistent with what? Q2 are binary numbers "complete"-- i dont know, why would they not be? Q3 are binary numbers considered as a mathematical system - i think so. How does one come to an incompleteness theorem - how do you even prove such a thing?
  9. " Originally Posted by johan01 It comes back to my assumption. Is there any volume in the universe where there is no heat, photon, particle or information. There isn't. First there is background radiation -- the cosmic background radiation, or the radiation from any box that is placed around it (which there will be, unless you can get a box at 0 Kelvin which is impossible). Then there are virtual particles, though I don't know if those are related to the background radiation or intrinsic to space itself. And even if there were totally empty space, you could observe things on either side of the empty space to tell if it is expanding. 12-10-2008 02:24 AM " my reasoning when we say the space between objects. and objects can be particles, photons or whatever form of energy that we can observe. or measure . then if we say that there is no place in the universe where there is no photon (CBR) . see above how can we have the space between the photons. to me it sounds like a contradiction.I mean how big is a photon and how much space does it require.
  10. Can anybody help i have been reading up on goedels incompleteness theorem, and still am not able to grasp its true meaning and implication. Is there somewhere , where i can try and understand it , in its simplest form with a simple example or application. regards
  11. if the universe is expanding , surely all the laws onf conservation are violated, "beginning"- singularity "expansion into nothing" open universe "the big rip" how can we assume any of these laws of the universe if these create the paradoxes we try to answer. Surely these laws are man made and have manifested themselves so that we can explain our small little insignificant part of the universe , with reasonable agreement amongst us. either they are universal or they are not. So if matter or space came from the singularity , how can there be a conservation of anything or the big bang could not have happened as we believe. your views ?
  12. "just the space between objects expands" is there space between objects? would it be true to say that at every point between two objects/ matter/ energy / photons. is another point with an "object/ matter/ energy / photon". and this is true for all the universe as we know , except mabey for the singularity at the black hole. like between any 2 rational numbers that are different , there exists another rational number.
  13. johan01

    math axioms

    thank you ...your response is simple yet logical and i happen to agree with your views.
  14. so as i understand , measuring temprature is proportional to measuring motion in molexules in a closed system pv = nrt but heat " transfer of energy" can pure energy exist in any other form other than photons or inside " nuclei " of atoms or rather molecules i.e nuclei and electrons
  15. johan01

    math axioms

    clearly im no mathematician , i mean any number that you can think 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.