ID goes on: Now there is IF!
-
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
-
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
-
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!
Cool :rose: Not to Flame. But..... :)
bugDanny wrote:
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).
I have been around chemists, engineers, and biologist since I was 18 and I have not known a one that subscribes to ID. In fact, I was often made fun of by my class mates and my thesis advisor because I always have been a Catholic. 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
-
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
Er... Truth is in the eye of the beholder? Let me get this straight, the length of an object can be observed to be one length, when traveling at the same speed as the object, and another length when stationary relative to the object. In fact, the object gets shorter as it goes faster, correct? So what is the true length of the object? When you have to say, "It depends", then the truth, in this sort of a case is relative, even though it is behaviing in a predictable way based on the known velocity. Therefore, truth may be relative. Such as in the case of gravity, the true nature of gravity may be relative to whether the gravity is acting on us, or not (which is what I meant). I'm not saying you're wrong or any of the other physicists are wrong. I'm not even saying I think I'm right, or could be right. I'm just opening up question on the matter. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
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
Chris Austin wrote:
The whole situation with ID just gets me terribly worked up.
Just give it time. The idiots will eventually go away. Remember what Uncle Albert taught us: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning. " As a mind experiment just think of the turmoil and disarry that the discovery of extraterristral life is gonna do to organized religion. Its a matter of when not if. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Cool :rose: Not to Flame. But..... :)
bugDanny wrote:
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).
I have been around chemists, engineers, and biologist since I was 18 and I have not known a one that subscribes to ID. In fact, I was often made fun of by my class mates and my thesis advisor because I always have been a Catholic. 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
Very nice, Austin. :rose: I don't consider this flaming. This is just reasoning and submitting opinion. It's flaming when the insults start flying or there's condescension. As far as your point, it's possible that those people, too, were afraid of being criticised (flamed?), but I've read articles and I also know a chemist and others who would subscribe to ID. So to me, sounds like we're two sides of the coin here. And I wouldn't blame them for making fun of you for being Catholic.;P Just kidding, Chris. No offense intended. I don't think ID should be taught in schools either, even though I believe in it. But I do object to how evolution is taught, at least, how it was taught to me in my school. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Chris Austin wrote:
The whole situation with ID just gets me terribly worked up.
Just give it time. The idiots will eventually go away. Remember what Uncle Albert taught us: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning. " As a mind experiment just think of the turmoil and disarry that the discovery of extraterristral life is gonna do to organized religion. Its a matter of when not if. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Richard Stringer wrote:
As a mind experiment just think of the turmoil and disarry that the discovery of extraterristral life is gonna do to organized religion. Its a matter of when not if.
I love statistics and probability. It is going to shatter some peoples fragile wrold view. 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
-
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[^].
John Theal wrote:
bugDanny wrote: Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? I think you are referring to frame dragging[^].
No, not meaning frame dragging. I mean how time actually gets slower with higher gravity (I said faster, but I meant slower), so that, for example, the closer you get to a black hole, the slower time goes. And talking about the whole Relativity thing. A person in a space ship entering a black hole would seem to hit the event horizon very fast, whereas a person looking on from a distance should see the space ship traveling slower and slower as it neared the event horizon. Isn't that right? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Er... Truth is in the eye of the beholder? Let me get this straight, the length of an object can be observed to be one length, when traveling at the same speed as the object, and another length when stationary relative to the object. In fact, the object gets shorter as it goes faster, correct? So what is the true length of the object? When you have to say, "It depends", then the truth, in this sort of a case is relative, even though it is behaviing in a predictable way based on the known velocity. Therefore, truth may be relative. Such as in the case of gravity, the true nature of gravity may be relative to whether the gravity is acting on us, or not (which is what I meant). I'm not saying you're wrong or any of the other physicists are wrong. I'm not even saying I think I'm right, or could be right. I'm just opening up question on the matter. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
Therefore, truth may be relative.
Truth as expressed by physical, not philosphical, measurement is relative to the observer, yes. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
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
Chris Austin wrote:
Well, I am A Physicst so I guess I will tune in.
Same here. What's your field?
-
Er... Truth is in the eye of the beholder? Let me get this straight, the length of an object can be observed to be one length, when traveling at the same speed as the object, and another length when stationary relative to the object. In fact, the object gets shorter as it goes faster, correct? So what is the true length of the object? When you have to say, "It depends", then the truth, in this sort of a case is relative, even though it is behaviing in a predictable way based on the known velocity. Therefore, truth may be relative. Such as in the case of gravity, the true nature of gravity may be relative to whether the gravity is acting on us, or not (which is what I meant). I'm not saying you're wrong or any of the other physicists are wrong. I'm not even saying I think I'm right, or could be right. I'm just opening up question on the matter. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
If you look at a pencil in front of you it's length depends on it's orientation with your eyes. If someone else looks at the pencil from another vantage point they will see the pencil has a different length. The length of the pencil never changes, yet the two observers view two differrent projected views of the pencil. One of the hardest parts of learning to draw is working around your brain's tendency to translate the forshortened object so that you always percieve it to be the same length. Learning Relativity is the opposite problem. We are hard wired to view a moving pencil as shrinking and changing size when the pencil has a constant length in 4 space, the 2 observers just have different views of the same object. The mathemtatics are very similar in the 2 cases. For Euclidiean geometry a line is the shortest distance between 2 points, for space-time directions it is the longest.
bugDanny wrote:
So what is the true length of the object? When you have to say, "It depends", then the truth, in this sort of a case is relative, even though it is behaviing in a predictable way based on the known velocity.
To put it sucinctly: There is a higher truth. It is hidden from us and all we see are it's shadows. If you've read Plato it's esentialy his argument for a higher plane.
bugDanny wrote:
Therefore, truth may be relative. Such as in the case of gravity, the true nature of gravity may be relative to whether the gravity is acting on us, or not (which is what I meant). I'm not saying you're wrong or any of the other physicists are wrong. I'm not even saying I think I'm right, or could be right.
Words get in the way. The mathematics of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics for that matter make exact predictions for how these object all interact together. Things get confusing when you translate them to everyday experience and language and then try to reason about them there. Differential geometry doesn't have a simple set of axioms like Euclidiean 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
-
bugDanny wrote:
Therefore, truth may be relative.
Truth as expressed by physical, not philosphical, measurement is relative to the observer, yes. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Length in the space direction is changes, the points in space-time just rotate relative to each other. Whether you call the space-time points philosophical or real is philosophy. :^)
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
-
Length in the space direction is changes, the points in space-time just rotate relative to each other. Whether you call the space-time points philosophical or real is philosophy. :^)
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
Well, than, I stand corrected relative to my previous post. I think... :confused: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
John Theal wrote:
bugDanny wrote: Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? I think you are referring to frame dragging[^].
No, not meaning frame dragging. I mean how time actually gets slower with higher gravity (I said faster, but I meant slower), so that, for example, the closer you get to a black hole, the slower time goes. And talking about the whole Relativity thing. A person in a space ship entering a black hole would seem to hit the event horizon very fast, whereas a person looking on from a distance should see the space ship traveling slower and slower as it neared the event horizon. Isn't that right? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
Ah, then you are referring to time dilation.
-
Richard Stringer wrote:
As a mind experiment just think of the turmoil and disarry that the discovery of extraterristral life is gonna do to organized religion. Its a matter of when not if.
I love statistics and probability. It is going to shatter some peoples fragile wrold view. 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
Chris Austin wrote:
I love statistics and probability. It is going to shatter some peoples fragile wrold view.
Especially if their first message is "Repent or burn in hell, you heathens!" :laugh: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Well, than, I stand corrected relative to my previous post. I think... :confused: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
There is a philisophical question of the existance of mathematical objects. The Platonic view is that these objects exist outside of our universe and are intependent of reality. Other philosophers believe that they are just abstract constructs based on our universe. If our reality ceased to exist then they would disappear along with us. The invariants of relativity are 4 vectors and 4 dimensional length. We are incapable of physically observing them, just like we cannot observe a quantum mechanical wave function. If these objects exist they only exist in the mathematical models that we use to model our physical observations. I try to ignore all this as much as possible since it doesn't affect the mathematics or science any more then imagining some unobservable designer.
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