Jump to content

NowThatWeKnow

Senior Members
  • Posts

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NowThatWeKnow

  1. Or maybe there aren't an "infinite number of universes".


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    I really do not see why every scenario would have to happen even if there were infinite universes. just like you would never run out of numbers when counting, they could all be different.

  2. You have to keep in mind that it is not only the space twin's clock that is running slow relative to the Earth twin's clock. The space twin would not have time for as many "events" as the Earth twin. It may take a week (of Earth time) just to brush your teeth at relativistic speeds but would seem like normal time to you. Relative to the space twin, the Earth twin would be like a movie on fast forward.

  3. My cousin has a 10" and I was impressed with what I could see. He indicated that would be a maximum size for most home astronomers. You really need to be away from city lights for best results. Setting one up each time you use it does require some work because of alignment and tracking motors.

  4. I do not question the evidence of slower running clocks but am unable to reconcile time as measured by clocks with the progression of “now”.

     

    If you had several clocks running at different speeds you could compare the "nows" but they would all be different nevertheless. Just like if you had several cars moving at different speeds on the road. They would all be someplace at a particular time but not at the same place. Just trying to think of different ways to look at "now".

     

    [math]Now = t_{ship} = T_{Earth}[/math]

  5. The expansion of space can cause two galaxies to separate from each other faster then the speed of light. However, the common belief is that any thing with mass is restricted to less then light speed because of what insane_alien said.

  6. I'll try to help you get a better grasp of redshift and figure out something to say in cases like this...

    It's not a trivial problem.

     

    I was afraid there was going to be a problem and that is why I added "Corrections or additions welcome." I am slow to learn sometimes. :)

     

    Moderator - Is there a reason why I can only edit a post for a short period of time after posting before the "edit button" disappears?

  7. I know you dissagree. But I would think that the twins would age by a universal clock. I have trouble with a universe where every bit of matter moving reletive another, as they all are, is ageing at its own rate.

     

    The GPS satellite clocks have to be adjusted for speed and gravity and that is a matter of fact that is not open for debate.

  8. I've been studying hubbles law red shift e.c.t but I still carn't see how this proves the universe is expanding

     

    The "red shift" (or blue shift) comes from the Doppler effect created by an object moving towards us or away from us. The Doppler concept is also used in police radar and has been proven very accurate.

     

    Supernovae are also used to determine the expansion of space. The initial bright phase of a supernova exploding close by may last two weeks. We may see a distant supernova that has an initial bright phase of three weeks because of the expansion of space while the light traveled towards us.

     

    Either one will show that space is expanding. Corrections or additions welcome. :)

  9. I hate to go back to this,but how would the twins age, by their clocks or by the progression of "nows" ?

     

    Each of them would age according to their own clocks and "nows" but NOT according to the other twins clocks or "nows". I have to admit you are persistent. :D

  10. This is science. One must be constrained by the reality we observe and measure.

     

    But as Martin pointed out. "The issue of time in physics has not been settled and the prevailing concepts of time are constantly being challenged." More then one view can fit "science" so should we keep an open mind?

  11. Unless someone could put together the progression of "now" and the diffrent running clocks.

     

    Did you read the second link Martin posted? Much of it was above me but it seems to resemble your thinking of "now". It starts off with "THE NEED TO FORGET TIME and TIME AS THE INDEPENDENT PARAMETER FOR THE EVOLUTION" and then goes on to say "what we call “time” is the thermal time of the statistical state in which the world happens to be,...".

     

    Most people here go with the current theory that fits with SR and GR but we must remember it is just a THEORY. The way things really work may surprise us all. :eek:


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, time is not absolute. The twins both observe the effect simultaneously. They disagree on what time it is. There is no such thing as absolute time. The rate at which time passes depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

     

     

    Agree, agree, agree. I am thinking along these lines when I post but always seem to leave a "fly in the ointment". I know it is hard for some of you all to think outside of your mathematical box. :)

  12. Now I'm somewhat remorseful I jumped in on this thread because NowThat was taking care of business very well, as it stood...

     

    ...Can anybody supply these figures? I should give NowThat a chance since it's partly his thread.

     

    z=7.6 puts the galaxy 3.4208 billion light years away when it omitted the light we see today.

     

    Martin, much of what I know about cosmology has come from reading your post. It will be awhile before I can fill in for you so don't leave me hanging too long. :D I probably know about [math]7.6^{-10}[/math] as much as you.

×
×
  • 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.