Well, if it turns out there's light conservation, then it'll be twice as bright half the time, and twice as dark for the other.
Or - you know - not.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
2012 2 suns
- Thread starter davidnmegan6907
- Start date
Well, if it turns out there's light conservation, then it'll be twice as bright half the time, and twice as dark for the other.
Or - you know - not.
Well, if it turns out there's light conservation, then it'll be twice as bright half the time, and twice as dark for the other.
Or - you know - not.
On a serious note - a lot of people don't buy into the idea that gravity is a force, I'm one of them.
If matter is truly nothing more than a certain interesting twisting of spacetime involving strange geometries, then gravity is an attribute of that - it's a symptom. Unless someone ever finds the elusive graviton, I'll be sticking with that.
Snedd
Well-Known Member
Martimus
One bite at a time...
Personally I like the idea within m-theory to help explain why gravity is weak compared to the other measurable forces in the universe. Why? Because gravity is believed to be sourced in another dimension and by the time it makes it's way to us it's lost much of it's strength.
On the other hand what I also find amusing is that theoretical physicists seem to believe that our dimension (out of the 11 identified within m-theory) is the primary spatial dimension in the universe and many/most of the others exist but are extremely small in size. Wouldn't it be amusing if someday they found out that the dimension we live in might be one of those extremely small dimensions compared to all of the others.
One of the great things about theoretical physics is that no theory is inherently bad until the mathematics proves it otherwise...
Oh and to the poster back in January who made reference to the laws of the Universe... they're actually theories. Physical laws require substantiation and proof, and we still have barely scratched the surface of our solar system... let alone the Milky Way galaxy... and the universe (or maybe multi-verse) that we live in.
Outlaw71
Android Expert
If history has taught us anything, it's that we need to constantly reassess scientific facts and theories. Because every now and again we make a scientific breakthrough that proves something we'd believed to be fact up until then, to be wrong after all. Still, it's not like we need to check once a year to make sure 2 + 2 really equals 4.
Ok so on the topic of the speed of light... if I'm driving down the highway at 100 mph and I turn on my headlights, is the speed of that light going the speed of light + 100 mph?
Lol, just kidding.
But there are several area's in science where there have been several unproven theories swirling about (and could very well never be proven either way in the entire life span of our civilization since there's very little we can do BUT theorize about them) that are fun to take sides on. For example the open universe vs the closed universe.
They say that most physicists have now dismissed the closed universe, and now believe only the open universe theory could be possible. But to me the closed universe theory makes sooo much more sense than the open universe theory. They said they couldn't find enough dark matter to make the closed universe theory possible. But I have a hard time comprehending how scientists could sufficiently study the entire universe from this tiny little planet, and actually believe they know enough about it to make that call.
I can understand the rational behind wondering if light travels at the same speed everywhere around the universe. Couldn't it be possible that the laws of physics here in the Milky Way galaxy could differ from the laws of physics in other galaxies? While it is indeed far fetched, given the size of our universe, I don't see how we could ever say it isn't possible. I also find if absolutely impossible to believe that physicists say they can see the boarders of our universe by the red shift of the stars that exist there. How could we ever know that there is nothing beyond that? If the universe is indeed infinite (which I believe), then who in their right mind could ever believe for a second that we could come up with the tecnology to see as far as space stretches?
That would be absolutely impossible. There's no way we, or any other form of intelligence could ever hope to create that kind of technology. No matter which way you cut it, anything we could ever come up with to either physically see with, or the technology to measure with, will have a limited distance from the earth in which it can travel. I find it absurd to think we've seen the outer edges of our universe and therefore know approximately how big it is. That is to say, if by the definition of universe, you mean EVERYTHING that exists.
However, I could fully subscribe to the theory that there are infinite 'closed universes' out there. And if it were somehow possible to travel to the edge of our universe and then keep going, you would eventually find another universe. And if you could travel all the way through that universe on the other side of it you'd run into another one, and so on and so forth. And that we're surrounded on all sides by an infinite amound of closed universes that expand and contract and expand and contract... yeah, I can wrap my head around that theory.
As incomprehendible that might be to some, to me it makes more sense then there being a point in time (or no point in time since time would not have existed then) when there was just nothing. Then suddenly everything exploded out of a spec of dust and created everything in our universe... I mean that is like craziness when I try to believe that theory. Nothing about that seems possible. I know if follows the laws of nature where everything has a beginning, and an end. But for me, as difficult as it is to fathom the thought that there is no beginning... that all matter has existed forever... as hard as that is to imagine, it's still easier for me to go with that, then it is to imagine nothing existing, and in the blink of an eye, suddenly everything did.
These are all my opinions of course. But I do find these things fascinating to discuss with other people and get their take on it since nobody can say absolutely which theory is right and which is wrong. We will never PROVE either of them to be fact. So the debate between them will rage on and on until we cease to be.
Ok so on the topic of the speed of light... if I'm driving down the highway at 100 mph and I turn on my headlights, is the speed of that light going the speed of light + 100 mph?
Lol, just kidding.
But there are several area's in science where there have been several unproven theories swirling about (and could very well never be proven either way in the entire life span of our civilization since there's very little we can do BUT theorize about them) that are fun to take sides on. For example the open universe vs the closed universe.
They say that most physicists have now dismissed the closed universe, and now believe only the open universe theory could be possible. But to me the closed universe theory makes sooo much more sense than the open universe theory. They said they couldn't find enough dark matter to make the closed universe theory possible. But I have a hard time comprehending how scientists could sufficiently study the entire universe from this tiny little planet, and actually believe they know enough about it to make that call.
I can understand the rational behind wondering if light travels at the same speed everywhere around the universe. Couldn't it be possible that the laws of physics here in the Milky Way galaxy could differ from the laws of physics in other galaxies? While it is indeed far fetched, given the size of our universe, I don't see how we could ever say it isn't possible. I also find if absolutely impossible to believe that physicists say they can see the boarders of our universe by the red shift of the stars that exist there. How could we ever know that there is nothing beyond that? If the universe is indeed infinite (which I believe), then who in their right mind could ever believe for a second that we could come up with the tecnology to see as far as space stretches?
That would be absolutely impossible. There's no way we, or any other form of intelligence could ever hope to create that kind of technology. No matter which way you cut it, anything we could ever come up with to either physically see with, or the technology to measure with, will have a limited distance from the earth in which it can travel. I find it absurd to think we've seen the outer edges of our universe and therefore know approximately how big it is. That is to say, if by the definition of universe, you mean EVERYTHING that exists.
However, I could fully subscribe to the theory that there are infinite 'closed universes' out there. And if it were somehow possible to travel to the edge of our universe and then keep going, you would eventually find another universe. And if you could travel all the way through that universe on the other side of it you'd run into another one, and so on and so forth. And that we're surrounded on all sides by an infinite amound of closed universes that expand and contract and expand and contract... yeah, I can wrap my head around that theory.
As incomprehendible that might be to some, to me it makes more sense then there being a point in time (or no point in time since time would not have existed then) when there was just nothing. Then suddenly everything exploded out of a spec of dust and created everything in our universe... I mean that is like craziness when I try to believe that theory. Nothing about that seems possible. I know if follows the laws of nature where everything has a beginning, and an end. But for me, as difficult as it is to fathom the thought that there is no beginning... that all matter has existed forever... as hard as that is to imagine, it's still easier for me to go with that, then it is to imagine nothing existing, and in the blink of an eye, suddenly everything did.
These are all my opinions of course. But I do find these things fascinating to discuss with other people and get their take on it since nobody can say absolutely which theory is right and which is wrong. We will never PROVE either of them to be fact. So the debate between them will rage on and on until we cease to be.
Knewz
Android Expert
Yes. Because in my motorcycle manual from the Georgia DMV they say if i'm going too fast i can outrun my headlights.
Covart
Android Enthusiast
This makes no sense. It appears to me, from that linked paper, that assumptions are being made to produce a theory with no actual way to verify the results. And gravity is not a theory; it can be measured based on the mass of an object, distance from object to object, etc... In fact the existence of Neptune was predicted before it was ever discovered based on the gravitational pull it exerted on Uranus.
Additionally, you say gravity is weak compared to other measurable forces in the universe? What other measurable forces are you referring to?
----------------------------------
As for the speed of light... it is not constant. Any medium can alter the speed of light, even if it is by fractions. Additionally, gravity wells bend the spacetime continium, and by proxy, photons.
Of the four modern classical forces, the strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, (or electroweak merging the last two), and gravity, gravity is the weakest.
When we refer to the speed of light being constant, that's referenced in a vacuum, more specifically to state that it's isotropic. See my link earlier in this thread, it's not a speed at all, it's a conversion factor.
Many don't consider gravity an actual force because of its noncompliance with quantum theory.
As for m-theory or big bang arguments, space here precludes a simple rebuttal to partially reported details out of context and improperly presented in the public press.
When we refer to the speed of light being constant, that's referenced in a vacuum, more specifically to state that it's isotropic. See my link earlier in this thread, it's not a speed at all, it's a conversion factor.
Many don't consider gravity an actual force because of its noncompliance with quantum theory.
As for m-theory or big bang arguments, space here precludes a simple rebuttal to partially reported details out of context and improperly presented in the public press.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
This two sun talk reminds me of the old movie 2010. Did NASA find a monolith? lol
I always thought of dark matter as a growth industry in physics - took a lot of heat for it. It came about because existing models could not explain galactic rotation rates with calculated galactic mass.
So - if you give them credit for being able to get galactic rotation rates right, there may be something to other observations.
Saying closed makes more sense is like the thinking that Einstein regretted when he modified his equations to support a static universe - because God would make it that way - and introduced the cosmoslogical constant into his equations. He called that the greatest blunder of his career. Fortunately, the cosmoslogical constant became a growth industry, too.
The reason we must constantly re-assess what we know is that we have a tendency to make breakthroughs in math or observation that solve old problems - but we either miss them - or when we incorporate them hidden biases creep in that seem ever so perfectly common-sensical at the time, but tend to really only serve to contaminate thinking for decades.
It takes time for the aura of the discoverer and then his followers teaching new scientists, protecting their jobs, funding and growth industries by promulgating those discoverer's charismatic ideas to get that ever-needed stake through the heart so science can move on.
Every scientist strives to be open-minded in a way that doesn't translate well to the public. A good scientist might appear wishy-washy because they ought well be prepared to simply discard decades of beliefs over a single paper, say in child-like fashion, oh, wow, good idea, and then just move on as if what they thought earlier was as important as yesterday's newspaper.
When we don't act that way, scientists are a danger to themselves.
When we do act that way, we're aware of it and proud that we're upholding a principle ideal - but in so doing, we're dangerous to the public, who doesn't really care for not being able to understand things and whose press loves nothing better than to completely mis-represent things. (Einstein examples again - he was absent minded and quirky: no, he would get mentally busy solving a problem. You wouldn't interrupt a bricklayer when he's working, but it seems to make sense to just talk to a guy who looks like he's daydreaming. My favorite - relativity was discovered by a patent clerk. No - he already had his doctorate and because of politics and personalities, couldn't find a university job and had a wife to support - and like a good guy, flipped burgers (worked in a patent office) to make ends meet while pursuing his career.)
So the idea that everyone, even a clerk, can make good in the science biz is just wrong.
The language of air traffic controllers is English. The language of physicists and cosmologists is math. Without it, the conversation cannot be followed. The only exterior understanding that can be offered is by way of simile, metaphor and analogy.
But all things come full circle, hence Arthur C. Clarke's insistence that if you can't explain what you're doing to a child then you don't know what you're doing. It's not that scientists are necessarily bad at explaining - it's that the press often likes to listen to those who don't know what they're doing - or being angered at being spoken to like a child will embellish the explanation so "it gets better" when in fact that just makes their story wrong and also gets them never spoken to by decent scientists again.
That happened to me - last time I spoke to the press was maybe two decades ago and my colleagues all but disowned me. I was saved by insisting the interview take place by email - what I answered was not close to what was attributed to me - and that's how reporters only get the ones not knowing what they're doing to talk to half the time - most of us are disgusted and gunshy. And when the press is left to vote between which guys they're interviewing or paraphrasing are for real and which are just lousy scientists - the lay reader doesn't stand a chance.
That's fine, now we put it into an operational framework. If you're a scientist and that interests you, it's now your job to find observations or calculations based on observations to prove or disprove your idea.
Until you can prove your idea is possible and have it supported by independent, even hostile, review - it's not even a theory, it's just an idea that you're working on.
And if in the meantime, the rest of the community says that's not possible, that's just the way it is - those statements are based on observations and calculations based on observations - and part of your job is to respect that's how it works.
Good news is - if you're good at your job and discover that your idea is true, all of your naysaying colleagues (i.e., the good scientists) are likely to turn about face, and embrace you as really great at your job and all sins forgiven for any previous counter-thinking by anyone - it goes with the territory.
Kinda backwards - someone asked how big it was and it kept getting adjusted based on how far out we could see - and given that whole deal where the speed of light is really a dimensional conversion factor, size and age had to reconcile. Until the last few years, the discrepancy was on the order of 5 billion years or more, but we think we're pretty close now.
You have two common impediments - pick one to see the communication problem.
1. You've already announced your bias, you believe the universe is infinite. You're going to require too much proof - or you won't see the proof when it happens - to change your mind because your thinking is contaminated. According to your statement, you're already prepared to discount counter-views as not right-minded.
2. Define infinite. The infinity of points in a one-inch line? Or the infinity of points in the universe? Or the infinity of ideas and relationships? Infinity is a math term - how would you know if your idea of infinity is matching that being given you by an explanation of what was being said by some scientist?
If it makes you feel any better, ample math exists within our known concepts to show that the universe is simultaneously closed _and_ infinite.
No - to your thinking that would mean knowing everything that exists. To others less passionate, it would mean simply knowing size and age. And you'd be the type to vote against funding the instrumentation to get that job done, because you've tied it to your belief system - you believe ahead of time a thing is impossible.
There is a complementarity (a great truth whose exact opposite is also a great truth) of ideas to answer that -
1. It's impossible that man will ever fly, or break the sound barrier, or land on the moon, or carry a computer in his pocket.
2. Scientists are just people who are often wrong and if not pulled back by common-sensical voters and administrators from time to time will drive you to the poor house.
Take your pick.
Well, quantum theory suggests universes aren't packed like row homes, they're ever branching and bifurcating. M-theory suggest that some may be close enough to bump into each other and create new universes. Take your pick.
But as for linearly traveling to them that way - uh, I dunno. I like popular science fiction that has said (quite often) you just have to turn 90 degrees away from everything at once to travel over (Douglas Addams said you only had to turn a half-molecule's worth).
Ok - as I said - lot of good books out there.
Did you read the non-fiction one by Isaac Asimov who pointed out that black holes ought to have size, and if so, ought to have a kind of constant density for thermodynamic reasons? The one everyone dismissed and later seems to be true? At the end of that work, he pointed out that so far as he could figure, if there were a black hole the size of our universe, it would have the same amount stuff in it as our universe.
Ever consider that this entire universe you're worrying about is actually nothing more than the contents of a black hole, as seen from inside?
Cool, huh?
Likely the proofs in either direction will oscillate until exhausted - it's not that nothing can be proven - it's more like proofs are partial until results advance.
Many physicist buddies I've spoken with laugh at the old belief that space was once filled with the aether - mostly because when taught as science history today, it includes the name-calling. Read the original papers - that was great science, given the observations and math tools of its day.
That was disproven.
Not long ago, debates raged as to whether the correct number of dimensions was 4, 11, 13 or 26 - proofs finally happened.
The debate may not be solved in our lifetime - or it might, and then we'll debate about something else.
We never learn everything - we just learn how dumb our past questions really were (referring to scientists, not you personally).
Cheers, hope this was as enjoyable to read as it was to write.
edit and ps - I've used the word scientist indiscriminately to basically refer to physicists, cosmologists and the like - this was done in interest of readability. Well that or I'm biased (nah, j/k).