126 replies to this topic

[Sir Bandelot]

The galaxies wouldn't actually "fly apart" though. The stars in the galaxies would still orbit the supermassive black hole at the core of each galaxy. The problem is in the speeds of the orbits. Starts further out orbit faster than they would be expected to if the only mass they were orbiting was the visible mass. Hence the need for some kind of matter that exerts a gravitational force but cannot be detected optically, that is, "dark matter".

Same thing as what I was saying. At the speed at which they are currently rotating, they should fly apart because there does not appear to be enough mass there to provide the gravity needed to keep them in orbit. Something unknown (presumably, gravity but now that is not so certain) is holding them together. Hence the theory that there is dark matter.

The LHC hasn't even been run at full power yet. It won't be til 2014 according to the current timeline. From then, it will take 2-3 more years til enough data is in. I wouldn't expect an answer anywhere close to "definitive" on the existence of the Higgs Boson until 2017 at the earliest. The range has been narrowed, true, but the LHC was built to collide 7 TeV/nucleon beams for a reason, and has so far only used collision energies of 3.5 TeV/nucleon.

True, and I'm surprised they could day this so early on in the experiments. But that's what the propeller head boys are saying. Maybe the article is wrong or misleading. However Hawking himself has responded so there must be something to it.

It's not a done deal but early indications are negative, and they know it's about statistics that there is no expected sharp cutoff between 3.5 TeV and 7 TeV.

I agree, it would be exciting times. In the late 19th century, scientists believed physics was all but "done". Just a few "minor problems" were left to solved, like the derivation of the black body spectrum. When that didn't pan out, we saw the emergence of the revolutionary fields of relativity and quantum mechanics, which led to previously unforeseeable technological advances. The same happening again in the 21st century would be very interesting indeed.

I recall scientists say similar things in the late 1990's. We joked about it in our laboratory. "Scientists can all go home".

[Pliny]

They are of the physical universe. That's how we measured that they must compose 23% and 73% of the physical universe, respectively.
Life is not "scientifically called" dark matter or dark energy.

What it is called is not the important point. The important point is that since time is a physical universe manifestation it means the physical universe has an origin. The thing, if I may call it that, that existed before time and brought time into existence has no physical universe properties. If you are calling dark matter or dark energy a part of the physical universe, then that is not what I am talking about.

I have the same problem explaining to an adherent of religion that God does not sit on a throne in heaven and there is no hell, if he holds those concepts. If one holds the concept there is only the physical universe and parts of it we haven't discovered then that is that persons concept and I won't get across the idea that there is a "thing" that is not a part of the physical universe. Or maybe you could get the idea but reject it, not dissimilar to holding the idea of a God sitting on a throne will invite the rejection of other ideas.

Science and religion both exist for the same purpose, to offer an explanation of the universe around us. Science currently supercedes religion, only because it can explain more physical universe phenomena than religion which is tied to older concepts, and is based upon observation but scientific observation is always done with physical universe instruments so science will never rise to an understanding of anything immeasurable so finds itself looking for tinier and tinier particles with larger and larger energies. Although, I have never seen an idea measured I know they exist - are they the tiniest particle science is elusively looking for? You might argue an idea is, and can change and is therefore not life and you would be correct. Existence, introduces time, so it is perhaps the first idea and closest to a description of the thing called life.

[Pliny]

I guess the scientists all went home?

Remember the old theory that if there were a set of twins and one went into a spaceship and travelled close to the speed of light around the uiverse and came back forty earth years later he would have aged less than his twin brother who had remained on Earth. Ha, ha. Isn't that funny. Almost as bad as believing the Earth only started 6000 years ago.

[Bonam]

I guess the scientists all went home?

Remember the old theory that if there were a set of twins and one went into a spaceship and travelled close to the speed of light around the uiverse and came back forty earth years later he would have aged less than his twin brother who had remained on Earth. Ha, ha. Isn't that funny. Almost as bad as believing the Earth only started 6000 years ago.

It's not a theory, it's a direct consequence of relativity, which has been directly and experimentally confirmed (using twin clocks, not twin humans).

[Pliny]

It's not a theory, it's a direct consequence of relativity, which has been directly and experimentally confirmed (using twin clocks, not twin humans).

Really, all that time is is a measurement of the change of position of physical particles in relation to each other. Eighty years is eighty years. The clocks may have different times but one is not older than the other.

Apparently, there is an astronaut that is a couple of seconds younger than everyone else on Earth.
yuk yuk.

[The_Squid]

Really, all that time is is a measurement of the change of position of physical particles in relation to each other. Eighty years is eighty years. The clocks may have different times but one is not older than the other.

Apparently, there is an astronaut that is a couple of seconds younger than everyone else on Earth.
yuk yuk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Eighty years is not eighty years, depending on how fast you are moving.

Summary

A moving clock runs more slowly than one that is stationary with respect to the person observing the clocks.  At normal speeds, the effect is very small, but as speeds approach those of the speed of light, the effect becomes more pronounced.

. http://www.marts100.com/timedil.htm

[Pliny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Eighty years is not eighty years, depending on how fast you are moving.

. http://www.marts100.com/timedil.htm

An object that is far away looks smaller than when it is closer. Is that space dilation or is it just a point of reference. Space and distance are the factors in determining size. We could predict the apparent size of an object at different distances but it is always the same size relative to itself.

Speed and motion are the factors used to predict the location of something in space at a particular time. When you are using light it is funny but say, in the example given in this cite you posted www.marts100.com/timedil.htm of the ball going up and down from the point of view of someone under the ball and traveling in a zigzag pattern to someone seeing the person and ball going by sees the time going slower as it appears to be travelling farther. Time dilation.

The fact is if you take person A the one under the ball he is viewing different light than the one that is observing them going by. So we have to look at what light we are using to measure time dilation.
It is just measuring speed of light at different reference points. The speed of the light between two mirrors is not the same light from our observation point.

Basically, eighty years is eighty years. If you want to look at it from some different reference point you can.

There was an experiment with two, I think atomic time clocks. One of the clocks was put on a plane and the other stayed in New York. The plane went around the world and the clock that was on it was 59 nanoseconds slower than the one that remained in New York. That 59 nanoseconds is supposed to indicate time went slower. Simply looked at, if time went slower then the object itself would be in a different time, 59 nanoseconds behind everything else, it obviously isn't. Well, I wonder if that's been duplicated? It exsits now not 59 nanoseconds later. Can I see something that is one second out of time? Only if I recall it. Mathematically it all makes sense just like space dilation. It's all relative.

[kimmy]

I can't stop laughing...

-k

[Pliny]

I can't stop laughing...

-k

Wait til the scientists come back. I'll really have you on the floor.

[Sir Bandelot]

Can we watch?

[Pliny]

Is there some absurdity in the fact that all matter and space and energy are only now?

My body is in a particular location now and was approximately in the same location a second ago. Some portions of it haven't moved. All of me is now and none of me is in the past. Everything that was in the past is now in now. How could they be in a different time? Only what is occurring now is all that is occurring with me. The past is gone and the future is yet to be created.

You have to be a physics scientist, and have a complicated concept of space/time as sort of fabric where the past, present and future exist simultaneously in order to not see that. From the physics view that would mean the future is destined, already occured, and time has a beginnning and an end. It's essentially saying, as I did, there is only now, with the qualification that the past and the future are all happening simultaneously. Time travel would mean that the past and the future exist as they are which refutes the possiblity of time travel. Obviously, if the future and the past existed as they are you wouldn't be in the future or the past, you would be here, now.

The only logical conclusion is that there is only now.

Boy, kimmy - wait until I get to the real heavy stuff. Nyuk! Nyuk!

[kimmy]

There was an experiment with two, I think atomic time clocks. One of the clocks was put on a plane and the other stayed in New York. The plane went around the world and the clock that was on it was 59 nanoseconds slower than the one that remained in New York. That 59 nanoseconds is supposed to indicate time went slower. Simply looked at, if time went slower then the object itself would be in a different time, 59 nanoseconds behind everything else, it obviously isn't. Well, I wonder if that's been duplicated? It exsits now not 59 nanoseconds later. Can I see something that is one second out of time? Only if I recall it. Mathematically it all makes sense just like space dilation. It's all relative.

Both clocks did, do, and will exist in the past, present, and future.

Both clocks arrive at Now. One is 59 nanoseconds younger when it gets to now than the other.

It's fairly absurd that you're attempting to present this nonsense with a straight face. But what's really absurd is that you're here positing yourself to be smarter than Albert Einstein and the many many scientists who have studied the theory of relativity in the past hundred years.

You have to be a physics scientist, and have a complicated concept of space/time as sort of fabric where the past, present and future exist simultaneously in order to not see that.

I can tell you're a physics scientist... I'm sure you got your degree from either the Bob Jones University School of Young Earth Creation and Geocentric Astronomy, or the Pliny College of Pulling Stuff Out Of Your Ass.

Boy, kimmy - wait until I get to the real heavy stuff. Nyuk! Nyuk!

I can hardly wait. I'm sure it's going to be even better than the time charter.rights explained how Quantum Mechanics proved that God and Mental Telepathy are real.

-k

[Pliny]

Both clocks did, do, and will exist in the past, present, and future.

The question is rather does the past still exist and the future already exist? We know for sure that "now" exists.

Both clocks arrive at Now. One is 59 nanoseconds younger when it gets to now than the other.

So is it still in the past as well as now?

It's fairly absurd that you're attempting to present this nonsense with a straight face. But what's really absurd is that you're here positing yourself to be smarter than Albert Einstein and the many many scientists who have studied the theory of relativity in the past hundred years.

Actually Edgar Allen Poe theorized the space/time continuum before it was mathematically proven in a work called "Eureka".
Eureka

Having a fundamental assumption wrong in any theory but assumed to be true will lead all astray until the fundamental assumption is corrected. It matters not how intelligent one is when his information is not correct. There are anomalies in Einstein's theory which indicates it is not entirely correct.
An entirely correct theory would leave no anomalies.

I can tell you're a physics scientist... I'm sure you got your degree from either the Bob Jones University School of Young Earth Creation and Geocentric Astronomy, or the Pliny College of Pulling Stuff Out Of Your Ass.

I suppose since you are stupider than a physics scientist it relieves you of ever having to think about it.

I can hardly wait. I'm sure it's going to be even better than the time charter.rights explained how Quantum Mechanics proved that God and Mental Telepathy are real.

-k

charter.rights said that? It is true by the way. God does exist and mental telepathy is real.

Are you of the "I am an animal" school?

[Peter F]

Fundemental Point Pliny is turning a blind eye to:

One of the clocks was put on a plane and the other stayed in New York. The plane went around the world and the clock that was on it was 59 nanoseconds slower than the one that remained in New York. That 59 nanoseconds is supposed to indicate time went slower.

It happened, Pliny. It happened. Relative to the clock at rest the clock in motion had time pass slower. It is - absolutely - 59 nanoseconds younger. Yet you insist the younger clock must not be able to exist in the present when it obviously does.

The two-clock experiment shows that the twin-paradox is a real physical phenomena. hyuk-hyuk.

[Peter F]

Fundemental Point Pliny is turning a blind eye to:

One of the clocks was put on a plane and the other stayed in New York. The plane went around the world and the clock that was on it was 59 nanoseconds slower than the one that remained in New York. That 59 nanoseconds is supposed to indicate time went slower.

It happened, Pliny. It happened. Relative to the clock at rest the clock in motion had time pass slower. It is - absolutely - 59 nanoseconds younger. Yet you insist the younger clock must not be able to exist in the present when it obviously does.

The two-clock experiment shows that the twin-paradox is a real physical phenomena. hyuk-hyuk.