Superstition
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Given our current physical constants, the probability approaches, but does not get to, one. If the constants differed by much, the current wisdom is that life would not be possible.
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
No offense taken, and none meant here: I personally believe that a lot of atheists disbelieve because they do not want to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, that if they thought they had a reason for being here, they would have to go out of their way to figure out what it was and accomplish it.
I'm sure there are some like that. Personally, I "disbelieve" because the idea of a deity just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't need a religion to give me a reason to live. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think there's a "reason" for humanity. Humans are just animals, and we live because our instincts drive us to live. Of course, everyone needs their own reason to persevere, and I think we each need to find our own. I've decided that my reason for living is to contribute to society as much as I can, in the short time I have. Right now, I do that with my novels, since my programming skills have so far just amounted to moving numbers around for rich people... Heh. My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
RichardM1 wrote:
But for the same reason I won't accept 'above unity generators', I won't accept my disbelief. For me, the data does not support it.
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Above unity generator claims to produce more energy than is put into the system. The street name is perpetual motion machine.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
See, that's what bugs me... I have trouble coming to terms with time dilation.
That is definitely one of the hard-to-get-your-head-around parts! Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible. 'Time' seems to be a constant for all things in your frame of reference. I used to fall into the 'perception' trap - it 'looks' short coming at you, since it almost catches up with it's own light, or something. Here is the learning course on relativity! On sale! $35 download, 12 hours of lecture in MP3[^] The guy knows his stuff, and there are other good courses.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible.
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down... I wonder if measurement devices on-board would be affected in a similar way... Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows... I don't know... Just random thoughts.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Above unity generator claims to produce more energy than is put into the system. The street name is perpetual motion machine.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
I don't know... All we can do is speculate... Who knows how the basic laws of physics would be effected by a completely different universe?
RichardM1 wrote:
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die" :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
I don't know... All we can do is speculate... Who knows how the basic laws of physics would be effected by a completely different universe?
RichardM1 wrote:
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die" :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die"
I think the point is more : "If I'm in trouble, who can I count on to help me?" I help people, as much as I can. US and foreign. Who can I count on to help me when I'm down? Everyone else doesn't need to die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible.
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down... I wonder if measurement devices on-board would be affected in a similar way... Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows... I don't know... Just random thoughts.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9_c_ wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Currrent theory does not support that. Maybe there was, but the atheist invoking this argument is going outside of nature, into the realm of the supernatural, which the atheist does not believe in.
Current theory can't explain anything from before the big bang. All we can do is speculate.
RichardM1 wrote:
What we know is pertinent to the universe, it is all we can observe. God is clearly external to the universe, and does not have the same constraints.
Or from the perspective of an atheist, "God" is whatever you define him to be.
RichardM1 wrote:
Current theory, says there is a beginning, and might define the end as heat death.
Who says the big bang was the beginning, or that the "heat death" (I assume you mean the theorized big crunch) is the end? Maybe it just keeps imploding and exploding, and has been doing so infinitely in both directions. I'm not saying I believe this to be true, as I neither believe nor disbelieve it... I'm saying science simply can't give an answer to this, and may never be able to.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is a lot of maybes, all of which fall outside of current theory. I don't mind if you speculate, but understand that it is either fantastic, or religious, speculation.
It's entirely speculation, as I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever... The point I'm trying to make is that we simply don't know what's "outside" the universe, if there is an "outside"... Claiming the existence of a "creator" is no more credible than claiming the existence of other dimensions or infinite time.
RichardM1 wrote:
The best current theory on God is "I don't know", unprovable and all.
Agreed. I won't go as far to say that "god" definitely does not exist, as I don't think that statement is any more sensible than saying one definitely does exist. I just think it unlikely. I look at nature and physics and such, and it all seems simple and mechanical, even if I'm not very good with the equations... It seems like everything is just an extension of particle physics, and there's no room for any sort of "creator" pulling the strings. I'd welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but I don't think that likely to happen.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who says the big bang was the beginning, or that the "heat death" (I assume you mean the theorized big crunch) is the end?
"Heat death" is not big crunch. Big crunch is now much lower probability, as the discovery of negative energy makes it higher probably that the universe will continue to accelerate its expansion. Eventually, entropy will be maximized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that we simply don't know what's "outside" the universe, if there is an "outside"... Claiming the existence of a "creator" is no more credible than claiming the existence of other dimensions or infinite time.
There is no evidence for anything outside of the universe. If photons got from it could get here, it would be would be in the universe, by definition. I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claims to have it
I know it has it. You disbelieve, so YMMV. [shrug]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I look at nature and physics and such, and it all seems simple and mechanical, even if I'm not very good with the equations... It seems like everything is just an extension of particle physics, and there's no room for any sort of "creator" pulling the strings
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff. I think that stuff you think fills up the room is the product of God. So is all the stuff we don't understand. Calculus is part of what convinced me that God exists.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die"
I think the point is more : "If I'm in trouble, who can I count on to help me?" I help people, as much as I can. US and foreign. Who can I count on to help me when I'm down? Everyone else doesn't need to die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well I can't speak to the original quote, but the way my grandfather saw it, and the way I see it, is as I said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who says the big bang was the beginning, or that the "heat death" (I assume you mean the theorized big crunch) is the end?
"Heat death" is not big crunch. Big crunch is now much lower probability, as the discovery of negative energy makes it higher probably that the universe will continue to accelerate its expansion. Eventually, entropy will be maximized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that we simply don't know what's "outside" the universe, if there is an "outside"... Claiming the existence of a "creator" is no more credible than claiming the existence of other dimensions or infinite time.
There is no evidence for anything outside of the universe. If photons got from it could get here, it would be would be in the universe, by definition. I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claims to have it
I know it has it. You disbelieve, so YMMV. [shrug]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I look at nature and physics and such, and it all seems simple and mechanical, even if I'm not very good with the equations... It seems like everything is just an extension of particle physics, and there's no room for any sort of "creator" pulling the strings
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff. I think that stuff you think fills up the room is the product of God. So is all the stuff we don't understand. Calculus is part of what convinced me that God exists.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Fair enough.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff.
Not quite. I think there's no room for a creator, because I look at what we do understand, and see the trend. I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9_c_ wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
But that's not time speeding up. That's our perception of time being altered. It seems to move slower or faster, because the light that we use to perceive its speed has a finite limit. The time in transit should still be the same...
RichardM1 wrote:
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9c wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
That's another thing that bugs me... I understand the concept, but it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right? Everything else goes by simple forces and inertia... Apply a force vector, and you change the velocity... So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)... And faster-than-light travel... General relativity talks about how as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity... I have a lot of trouble accepting that. Seems to me that no matter how fast you're going, if you shoot something out the back, it'll accelerate you. Again and again, I come back to the so-called "dark matter"... Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave. Maybe general relativity is just explaining how friction with this unseen material affects good ol' F=ma... Or maybe I'm completely wrong... *shrug*
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
But that's not time speeding up. That's our perception of time being altered. It seems to move slower or faster, because the light that we use to perceive its speed has a finite limit. The time in transit should still be the same...
RichardM1 wrote:
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9c wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
That's another thing that bugs me... I understand the concept, but it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right? Everything else goes by simple forces and inertia... Apply a force vector, and you change the velocity... So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)... And faster-than-light travel... General relativity talks about how as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity... I have a lot of trouble accepting that. Seems to me that no matter how fast you're going, if you shoot something out the back, it'll accelerate you. Again and again, I come back to the so-called "dark matter"... Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave. Maybe general relativity is just explaining how friction with this unseen material affects good ol' F=ma... Or maybe I'm completely wrong... *shrug*
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right?
Not that rule, because that is not the controlling rule. The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9_c_, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference. Because I am not going 0.9c! I am going 0.9_c_ relative to you! You are going 0.9_c_ relative to ME!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity
f=ma: 1 kg m/s^2 requires 1 newton. A kg approaches c relative to you At some point, for you, its time dilation reaches 10. You apply a newton to the 1 kg You expect its acceleration to be 1m/s^2. And it is. But it's time dilation is 10, so 10 seconds of your time pass for 1 sec to pass for it, and before its velocity has increased by 1m/s. Turn it around, you have to apply 10 newtons for 1 second of your time to get that same 1m/s change in v. So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave.
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Fair enough.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff.
Not quite. I think there's no room for a creator, because I look at what we do understand, and see the trend. I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right?
Not that rule, because that is not the controlling rule. The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9_c_, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference. Because I am not going 0.9c! I am going 0.9_c_ relative to you! You are going 0.9_c_ relative to ME!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity
f=ma: 1 kg m/s^2 requires 1 newton. A kg approaches c relative to you At some point, for you, its time dilation reaches 10. You apply a newton to the 1 kg You expect its acceleration to be 1m/s^2. And it is. But it's time dilation is 10, so 10 seconds of your time pass for 1 sec to pass for it, and before its velocity has increased by 1m/s. Turn it around, you have to apply 10 newtons for 1 second of your time to get that same 1m/s change in v. So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave.
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9c, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference.
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other... But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
RichardM1 wrote:
So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
But again... That's perceived acceleration... If your destination is 0.9 light minutes away, and you're moving at 0.9c... If you apply an additional force, will you crash into the planet at your destination in one minute or less than one minute, as observed by a third party? For some reason, I keep coming back to things crashing into each other... I must be in a weird mood...
RichardM1 wrote:
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Understood... Just heading off the obvious "It only moves at 3x10^8m/s in a vacuum" nitpick :)
RichardM1 wrote:
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
The way I've always understood it was that c ~= 3x10^8m/s = Speed of light in a vacuum. It's a constant. Light travels slower than c through a denser medium.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard? (Sorry, it just popped into my head) That the entire universe is actually about to be sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure? (There, made up for it with a H2G2 reference) There's no way to disprove any of those theories. Basically, since we have no way of knowing what's outside the universe, if anything, then any theory has an equal probability. Since the number of possible theories is limited only by our imagination, I think we can assume that number to be, for all intents and purposes, infinite. If all theories are equally likely, than the chance of a particular theory being correct is inversely proportional to the number of theories, hence it approaches zero. Of course, one theory has to be correct, by definition, though we may not have thought of it yet. Until we have some sort of evidence to adjust the probabilities, I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable. EDIT: Stupid typo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 4:12 PM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard? (Sorry, it just popped into my head) That the entire universe is actually about to be sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure? (There, made up for it with a H2G2 reference) There's no way to disprove any of those theories. Basically, since we have no way of knowing what's outside the universe, if anything, then any theory has an equal probability. Since the number of possible theories is limited only by our imagination, I think we can assume that number to be, for all intents and purposes, infinite. If all theories are equally likely, than the chance of a particular theory being correct is inversely proportional to the number of theories, hence it approaches zero. Of course, one theory has to be correct, by definition, though we may not have thought of it yet. Until we have some sort of evidence to adjust the probabilities, I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable. EDIT: Stupid typo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 4:12 PM
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard?
Yes. You assign their probabilities the same designation: You admit that we don't know the probability of any particular metaphysical possibility. On the other hand, anything that is part of the created universe is known to have a zero chance of having created the universe. Except Chuck Norris.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable.
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard?
Yes. You assign their probabilities the same designation: You admit that we don't know the probability of any particular metaphysical possibility. On the other hand, anything that is part of the created universe is known to have a zero chance of having created the universe. Except Chuck Norris.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable.
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another. Without any data, the "creator" theory is no more likely than the "snot" theory, which is no more likely than the "airport locker" theory (Men in Black 2).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9c, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference.
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other... But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
RichardM1 wrote:
So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
But again... That's perceived acceleration... If your destination is 0.9 light minutes away, and you're moving at 0.9c... If you apply an additional force, will you crash into the planet at your destination in one minute or less than one minute, as observed by a third party? For some reason, I keep coming back to things crashing into each other... I must be in a weird mood...
RichardM1 wrote:
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Understood... Just heading off the obvious "It only moves at 3x10^8m/s in a vacuum" nitpick :)
RichardM1 wrote:
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
The way I've always understood it was that c ~= 3x10^8m/s = Speed of light in a vacuum. It's a constant. Light travels slower than c through a denser medium.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other...
"SHOULD be" is in non-relativistic terms. I can't give you the equations for this, but I know that applying special relativity gives you an approach velocity of less than c but greater than 0.9_c_. There is time dilation and space contaction going on between the two ships, not just between the other observer and the ships.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9_c_, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9_c_, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other...
"SHOULD be" is in non-relativistic terms. I can't give you the equations for this, but I know that applying special relativity gives you an approach velocity of less than c but greater than 0.9_c_. There is time dilation and space contaction going on between the two ships, not just between the other observer and the ships.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9_c_, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9_c_, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9c, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9c, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Ok, now you've lost me completely. Forget how they see each other for a second, and focus on the stationary observer... They reach the starting line, going 0.9c, at the same time he starts his stopwatch. Each is going 0.9c, and they're 0.9 light minutes apart. Ignoring the fact that they're near light speed, they would each reach the center in 30 seconds, and the explosion would be very entertaining... So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another. Without any data, the "creator" theory is no more likely than the "snot" theory, which is no more likely than the "airport locker" theory (Men in Black 2).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another.
Right. Unknown. You can't say they are different. You can't say they are the same. Unknown.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Hmm... Ok, point ceded. Technically, we can't assign a statistical probability. The earlier point remains though... What makes the "creator" theory any more plausible than the "airport locker" theory, for example? Why does the "creator" theory merit being disproved instead of ignored, while the "airport locker" theory is simply disregarded? Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9c, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9c, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Ok, now you've lost me completely. Forget how they see each other for a second, and focus on the stationary observer... They reach the starting line, going 0.9c, at the same time he starts his stopwatch. Each is going 0.9c, and they're 0.9 light minutes apart. Ignoring the fact that they're near light speed, they would each reach the center in 30 seconds, and the explosion would be very entertaining... So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
There is nothing special about him. Things will have certain measures in his frame of reference. The distance is 0.9 light minutes between the two ship. The ships are each moving 0.9_c_ relative to the him. The time is 30 seconds to impact in his frame of reference. Only one of these are true for the other two frames of reference. Each other frame of reference see the center guy moving at 0.9_c_, relative to themselves. The measured distance between ships is not 0.9 light minutes in their frame of reference. The distance to impact is less than 0.45 light minutes. The time to impact is less than 30 seconds. All these measurements are correct. Both distance and time change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.