ID goes on: Now there is IF!
-
bugDanny wrote:
But it would make an interesting theory.
And we could call it the 'Other' theory of space-time curvature! Or maybe the 'Not Quite So Relative' theory. :rolleyes: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Austin wrote:
There is no such thing as 'Zero G.'
Forgive me. Yes, I think you're right. And time goes slower in higher gravity. I wasn't trying to make a point about 'Zero G', but about how gravity affects time.
Chris Austin wrote:
You really need to pick up a physics book.
Thanks for the insult. I realize what I posted doesn't exactly fall into the physics book.
Chris Austin wrote:
General Relativity does not do away with gravational forces but rather explains them within new limits.
Reread my post. I don't believe I said "General Relativity". I was reiterating another theory that mass curves space-time and it's this curvature that we observe as gravity. You like to contradict my post saying, "No, you're wrong, this is how this theory says it is." But my post was, "This is how a different theory says it could be", which maybe could even be incorporated in General Relativity. I've studied General and Special Relativity, too. I, too, like to use it and explain it to make myself appear smarter to others. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
Reread my post. I don't believe I said "General Relativity". I was reiterating another theory that mass curves space-time and it's this curvature that we observe as gravity.
No need to. General Relativity predicts the curvature of Space-Time due to massive objects traveling through space. If there is another such 'theory' that seems to plagiaries General Relativity I'd love to hear about is so I can introduce it to my students at Thursday's recitation.
bugDanny wrote:
which maybe could even be incorporated in General Relativity
It already has. It is called a Gravational Lens. This is all supported and predicted by Einstein's theory.
bugDanny wrote:
I, too, like to use it and explain it to make myself appear smarter to others.
Unlike you I use it because I love it. I love it so much that I teach without compensation to undergrad students once a week. I love it so much that when it is being clearly misrepresented and misunderstood I correct those who are wrong least they continue to spread misunderstanding. In fact, I think it is people spreading ‘bad’ physics helps these wakos with their pseudo sciences like ID. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton -- modified at 15:02 Monday 14th November, 2005 oops I don't know how or why the spell checker would suddenly convert gravity to gradiant :)
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
My FF just doesn't want to play nice with the
LOL Reminds me of the usability conversation we had about FF. :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
My FF just doesn't want to play nice with the
LOL Reminds me of the usability conversation we had about FF. :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
bugDanny wrote:
Reread my post. I don't believe I said "General Relativity". I was reiterating another theory that mass curves space-time and it's this curvature that we observe as gravity.
No need to. General Relativity predicts the curvature of Space-Time due to massive objects traveling through space. If there is another such 'theory' that seems to plagiaries General Relativity I'd love to hear about is so I can introduce it to my students at Thursday's recitation.
bugDanny wrote:
which maybe could even be incorporated in General Relativity
It already has. It is called a Gravational Lens. This is all supported and predicted by Einstein's theory.
bugDanny wrote:
I, too, like to use it and explain it to make myself appear smarter to others.
Unlike you I use it because I love it. I love it so much that I teach without compensation to undergrad students once a week. I love it so much that when it is being clearly misrepresented and misunderstood I correct those who are wrong least they continue to spread misunderstanding. In fact, I think it is people spreading ‘bad’ physics helps these wakos with their pseudo sciences like ID. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton -- modified at 15:02 Monday 14th November, 2005 oops I don't know how or why the spell checker would suddenly convert gravity to gradiant :)
Forgive me for not knowing it as deeply as you do. I also love it. I made that comment because the tone of your post was that you were trying to make me fell like an idiot, rather than actually being benevelant and helping me to understand the theory better, as you try to come off in this post. Yes, I know about Eintein's Theory of Relativity and the curvature of space-time. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the theory, I was just speculating that maybe it wasn't some unknown 'gravitational force' that curves space-time. Is it possible to expand Eistein's theory to allow for what we observe as gravity not to be a force as we think it to be, but to be an effect of the curvature of space-time? Far be it from me to step on your all-too-knowing toes. That's why I opened it up for comment. As far as from what I've read, it still hasn't been explained how gravity acts instantaneously on an object, effectively traveling faster than the speed of light. That's what I was trying to touch on in my post. Instead of immediately coming down on me because you are so much smarter and better than me, why couldn't you try to as generous as you try to make yourself sound and correct me tactfully. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Well, I am A Physicst so I guess I will tune in. The 'theory" that is being referenced is General Realtivity. But, I have to say this is more than just a 'theory'; it's predictions has been found reliable and repeatable often.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK,
The key concept it that 'gravatiton' is a property of all massive matter. The curvature of space-time (at least in this context) is a result due to a massive object travleing through space "dragging" it along. Think of placing a bowling ball on a mattres. You see that the mattress will 'warp' aroung the bowling ball.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around. May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Goodness sakes! You all-knowing physicists need to lighten up a little bit!
Chris Austin wrote:
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around.
The very foundation of Relativity is that the truth is relative, depending on the observer. Could it be that it just appears to be this way? :P
Chris Austin wrote:
May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math
I've studied Relativity. I like science theory like that. First of all, apparently no one begins to consider how maybe Einstein had it right, and yet there's still more to understand. And you're not completely right. Last I checked, General and Special Relativity are still considered theories, albeit well-supported theories. There's much about Einstein's theories that explain what we can observe very well, but still has not been directly observed and proven. Consider, black holes, wormholes, etc. While well accepted in the scientific field, they still haven't been observed and proven. Since you are so much smarter than me, and better than me, can you please explain how the force of gravity acts faster than light, in fact, instantaneously across vast distances? That was really my point in this thread. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me! -- modified at 15:35 Monday 14th November, 2005
-
bugDanny wrote:
Reread my post. I don't believe I said "General Relativity". I was reiterating another theory that mass curves space-time and it's this curvature that we observe as gravity.
No need to. General Relativity predicts the curvature of Space-Time due to massive objects traveling through space. If there is another such 'theory' that seems to plagiaries General Relativity I'd love to hear about is so I can introduce it to my students at Thursday's recitation.
bugDanny wrote:
which maybe could even be incorporated in General Relativity
It already has. It is called a Gravational Lens. This is all supported and predicted by Einstein's theory.
bugDanny wrote:
I, too, like to use it and explain it to make myself appear smarter to others.
Unlike you I use it because I love it. I love it so much that I teach without compensation to undergrad students once a week. I love it so much that when it is being clearly misrepresented and misunderstood I correct those who are wrong least they continue to spread misunderstanding. In fact, I think it is people spreading ‘bad’ physics helps these wakos with their pseudo sciences like ID. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton -- modified at 15:02 Monday 14th November, 2005 oops I don't know how or why the spell checker would suddenly convert gravity to gradiant :)
Chris Austin wrote:
In fact, I think it is people spreading ‘bad’ physics helps these wakos with their pseudo sciences like ID.
But only a century ago there were those who would have considered relativity pseudo science. So, you do have to give wiggle room to those who promote wacko physics. You just never know when one of them might just turn out to be correct. I have a few wacko theories of my own regarding physics - but I keep them to myself. :~ "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Forgive me for not knowing it as deeply as you do. I also love it. I made that comment because the tone of your post was that you were trying to make me fell like an idiot, rather than actually being benevelant and helping me to understand the theory better, as you try to come off in this post. Yes, I know about Eintein's Theory of Relativity and the curvature of space-time. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the theory, I was just speculating that maybe it wasn't some unknown 'gravitational force' that curves space-time. Is it possible to expand Eistein's theory to allow for what we observe as gravity not to be a force as we think it to be, but to be an effect of the curvature of space-time? Far be it from me to step on your all-too-knowing toes. That's why I opened it up for comment. As far as from what I've read, it still hasn't been explained how gravity acts instantaneously on an object, effectively traveling faster than the speed of light. That's what I was trying to touch on in my post. Instead of immediately coming down on me because you are so much smarter and better than me, why couldn't you try to as generous as you try to make yourself sound and correct me tactfully. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
As far as from what I've read, it still hasn't been explained how gravity acts instantaneously on an object, effectively traveling faster than the speed of light. That's what I was trying to touch on in my post.
It doesn't. You postulated that "gravity" acted instantaneously without providing proof of the concept. And that "proof" would be rather complicated. Without going into details the speed of light also is the speed limit for propagation of information - any information. For example if Proxima Centauri exploded today it would be over 4 years or so before we could possibly know about it and , as far as we were concerned IT WOULD STILL EXIST for that period of time and proving that it exploded would be impossible until the information reached us. The information of its demise, both in terms of gravitational and other forms of data, would not arrive for that period of time. There would be no instantaneous change outside of the stars light cone. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
bugDanny wrote:
As far as from what I've read, it still hasn't been explained how gravity acts instantaneously on an object, effectively traveling faster than the speed of light. That's what I was trying to touch on in my post.
It doesn't. You postulated that "gravity" acted instantaneously without providing proof of the concept. And that "proof" would be rather complicated. Without going into details the speed of light also is the speed limit for propagation of information - any information. For example if Proxima Centauri exploded today it would be over 4 years or so before we could possibly know about it and , as far as we were concerned IT WOULD STILL EXIST for that period of time and proving that it exploded would be impossible until the information reached us. The information of its demise, both in terms of gravitational and other forms of data, would not arrive for that period of time. There would be no instantaneous change outside of the stars light cone. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Chris Austin wrote:
In fact, I think it is people spreading ‘bad’ physics helps these wakos with their pseudo sciences like ID.
But only a century ago there were those who would have considered relativity pseudo science. So, you do have to give wiggle room to those who promote wacko physics. You just never know when one of them might just turn out to be correct. I have a few wacko theories of my own regarding physics - but I keep them to myself. :~ "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I agree with you 100% Stan. At the local physics department I am flooded with papers and theories from non physics people. I try to read as much of them as I can. The key difference in my opinion between the wacko / pseudo and the valid theories is real repeatable observational data or, in it absence well formed and reasoned mathematical arguments. The question is of course can the new theories be tested and survive peer review. Esp peer review, that to me is the key. That is while to me ID is nothing more than people giving up on scientific enquiry because it hurts their heads.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have a few wacko theories of my own regarding physics - but I keep them to myself.
I have my own as well. But, until I can cite repeatable observational data I have little but a working hypothesis. Man, this whole ID thing just gets me worked up. :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Goodness sakes! You all-knowing physicists need to lighten up a little bit!
Chris Austin wrote:
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around.
The very foundation of Relativity is that the truth is relative, depending on the observer. Could it be that it just appears to be this way? :P
Chris Austin wrote:
May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math
I've studied Relativity. I like science theory like that. First of all, apparently no one begins to consider how maybe Einstein had it right, and yet there's still more to understand. And you're not completely right. Last I checked, General and Special Relativity are still considered theories, albeit well-supported theories. There's much about Einstein's theories that explain what we can observe very well, but still has not been directly observed and proven. Consider, black holes, wormholes, etc. While well accepted in the scientific field, they still haven't been observed and proven. Since you are so much smarter than me, and better than me, can you please explain how the force of gravity acts faster than light, in fact, instantaneously across vast distances? That was really my point in this thread. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me! -- modified at 15:35 Monday 14th November, 2005
bugDanny wrote:
Since you are so much smarter than me, and better than me, can you please explain how the force of gravity acts faster than light, in fact, instantaneously across vast distances? That was really my point in this thread.
Gravity doesn't travel faster then the speed of light. It moves at the speed of light. Which is somewhat of a confusing name, because the speed is really a property of space, light just travels at that speed becuase it has no rest mass. Gravity travels at that speed because that is the speed that ripples in spacetime moves. Gravity produces waves like light. The effect of the gravitational radiation on stars has been observed, but an actual gravity wave striking earth has not been observed yet. There are several experiments to observe them currently underway.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
bugDanny wrote:
Since you are so much smarter than me, and better than me, can you please explain how the force of gravity acts faster than light, in fact, instantaneously across vast distances? That was really my point in this thread.
Gravity doesn't travel faster then the speed of light. It moves at the speed of light. Which is somewhat of a confusing name, because the speed is really a property of space, light just travels at that speed becuase it has no rest mass. Gravity travels at that speed because that is the speed that ripples in spacetime moves. Gravity produces waves like light. The effect of the gravitational radiation on stars has been observed, but an actual gravity wave striking earth has not been observed yet. There are several experiments to observe them currently underway.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Hmmm... Interesting. Sounds like I'm a couple years behind. I don't really have the funds to subscribe to science journals, but do you have any free sources that you'd recommend (that is legitimate science), maybe on the web? (Worth a shot.) Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
bugDanny wrote:
As far as from what I've read, it still hasn't been explained how gravity acts instantaneously on an object, effectively traveling faster than the speed of light. That's what I was trying to touch on in my post.
It doesn't. You postulated that "gravity" acted instantaneously without providing proof of the concept. And that "proof" would be rather complicated. Without going into details the speed of light also is the speed limit for propagation of information - any information. For example if Proxima Centauri exploded today it would be over 4 years or so before we could possibly know about it and , as far as we were concerned IT WOULD STILL EXIST for that period of time and proving that it exploded would be impossible until the information reached us. The information of its demise, both in terms of gravitational and other forms of data, would not arrive for that period of time. There would be no instantaneous change outside of the stars light cone. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Richard comes to the Rescue! Usually, I am level headed about things like this. The whole situation with ID just gets me terribly worked up. Maybe it's that a few of the HelpDesk people here are Theology Students that refuse to consider the rational universe. Cheers Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Hmmm... Interesting. Sounds like I'm a couple years behind. I don't really have the funds to subscribe to science journals, but do you have any free sources that you'd recommend (that is legitimate science), maybe on the web? (Worth a shot.) Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
Danny, If you have access to a public libray you usually can get ahold of Physics Today via a near by University. I allowed my subscription to lapse long ago but pick an issue usually once a month. BTW sorry for coming across as harsh. I get terribly worked up over ID. The thought that these kids are going to get subjected to that crap makes me so angry that I can frigging scream. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
:laugh:
-
Goodness sakes! You all-knowing physicists need to lighten up a little bit!
Chris Austin wrote:
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around.
The very foundation of Relativity is that the truth is relative, depending on the observer. Could it be that it just appears to be this way? :P
Chris Austin wrote:
May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math
I've studied Relativity. I like science theory like that. First of all, apparently no one begins to consider how maybe Einstein had it right, and yet there's still more to understand. And you're not completely right. Last I checked, General and Special Relativity are still considered theories, albeit well-supported theories. There's much about Einstein's theories that explain what we can observe very well, but still has not been directly observed and proven. Consider, black holes, wormholes, etc. While well accepted in the scientific field, they still haven't been observed and proven. Since you are so much smarter than me, and better than me, can you please explain how the force of gravity acts faster than light, in fact, instantaneously across vast distances? That was really my point in this thread. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me! -- modified at 15:35 Monday 14th November, 2005
I wanted to adderess this as well, but got sidetracked in my earlier post.
bugDanny wrote:
The very foundation of Relativity is that the truth is relative, depending on the observer. Could it be that it just appears to be this way
Special Relativity states that some proprties of matter like length, time, energy and relative velocity depend on the relative velocity of an observer. In Galileian Relativity all these properties are independent of the velocity of the observer. "Truth" is not relative. All these properties behave in a predictable manner based on the known relative velocities of the observed and observer. The objects just need to be understood in the context of a larger space-time geometry whose rules are just as absolute as those of Euclidean geometry.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
Indeed Newton's classical theory of gravity is flawed. General Relativity (GR) is what you are thinking of. In GR, an object possessing mass distorts space-time, curving the fabric of space and time around itself. Thus, object fall along "curves" (otherwise know as the geodesic) in space-time (defined mathematically as a differentiable manifold). This theory is due to Einstein.
bugDanny wrote:
Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G?
I think you are referring to frame dragging[^].
-
I agree with you 100% Stan. At the local physics department I am flooded with papers and theories from non physics people. I try to read as much of them as I can. The key difference in my opinion between the wacko / pseudo and the valid theories is real repeatable observational data or, in it absence well formed and reasoned mathematical arguments. The question is of course can the new theories be tested and survive peer review. Esp peer review, that to me is the key. That is while to me ID is nothing more than people giving up on scientific enquiry because it hurts their heads.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have a few wacko theories of my own regarding physics - but I keep them to myself.
I have my own as well. But, until I can cite repeatable observational data I have little but a working hypothesis. Man, this whole ID thing just gets me worked up. :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
In the end, no worries Chris. I can understand getting worked up about the subject. My posts on this thread were not to comment on ID, but to throw out some of my own wacky (psuedo?) science theories. ;P (You have to give me some slack, too. I write science fiction. ;) ) The thing that gets me is how evolution is taught in schools, and mostly the reason behind teaching. I agree that ID probably shouldn't be taught in schools, but just something to think about...
Chris Austin wrote:
Esp peer review, that to me is the key. That is while to me ID is nothing more than people giving up on scientific enquiry because it hurts their heads.
There are actually many legitimate scientists that see the evidence leading to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent designer. Not to get in a debate with you on what's right and wrong (Can't we all just be friends. :D ) but it would go well to note that there's more scientists that believe in intelligent design than the media would let on, and probably more than would even admit it (due to criticism). But please, let's not flame over this! It just gets me that sometimes people on this forum get condescending, instead of reasoning, but I also understand what the heat of the moment can do. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Danny, If you have access to a public libray you usually can get ahold of Physics Today via a near by University. I allowed my subscription to lapse long ago but pick an issue usually once a month. BTW sorry for coming across as harsh. I get terribly worked up over ID. The thought that these kids are going to get subjected to that crap makes me so angry that I can frigging scream. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Hmmm... Interesting. Sounds like I'm a couple years behind. I don't really have the funds to subscribe to science journals, but do you have any free sources that you'd recommend (that is legitimate science), maybe on the web? (Worth a shot.) Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
Here is a link about one of the gravity wave experiments http://policy.iop.org/v_production/v10.html[^] I found it on PhysicsWeb: http://physicsweb.org/bestof/astro[^] I also think this is a decent introduction to the subject: Journey into Gravity and Spacetime[^]
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-- modified at 16:35 Monday 14th November, 2005