In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Einstein died in 1955 and was cremated with his ashes thrown on a nearby river. Many people in Europe were claiming to be "fathered" by Dr. Albert so cremation did away with the vital evidence of his DNA.
That page suggests that the Earth is fixed in space. Do you believe the Sun goes round the Earth then?
Not that part, this:
Who discovered the formula E=MC2????
The theory of relativity is just a hodgepodge of bizarre ideas having to do with the behavior of objects which move at or close to the speed of light. The Einsteinian universe is an unbelievably huge place filled with black holes, quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants-almost like an asylum run by the inmates. Relativity did not make Einstein however; it was the formula E=MC2 or that matter can be changed into energy at the incredible rate of the square of the speed of light (186,282,397 miles per second, or 299,792,458 meters per second). Sir Isaac Newton said in his Optiks published in 1704:
and theres other sites about his plagiarisms, but that one goes into how they are just wrong. I don't know I haven't tested it.
Relativity did not make Einstein however; it was the formula E=MC2 or that matter can be changed into energy at the incredible rate of the square of the speed of light (186,282,397 miles per second, or 299,792,458 meters per second).
dude, this alone should be enough to discredit whatever else is blabbered about on that page. they have no grasp of physics whatsoever. they might as well be talking about alphabet letters, saying this also means C-A-T is spelled sqrt(E/M)-A-T and there's now a different way to pronounce everything.
Interesting subject but where are the people complaining about the dead horse?
Perhaps there are infinately small objects that travel faster than light. Perhaps that is the reason we cannot even detect or be aware of such fast objects.
neh, it doesn't matter how small a peice of matter is. anything at all made of matter will become infinitely massive. so that's an impossibility.
in fact, the physical impossibility lies in this:
the equation shows that as you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity.
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
therefore, you can never have infinite mass. proof of that is that less-than-speed-of-light travel is done with measurable mass.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
neh, it doesn't matter how small a peice of matter is. anything at all made of matter will become infinitely massive. so that's an impossibility.
in fact, the physical impossibility lies in this:
the equation shows that as you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity.
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
therefore, you can never have infinite mass. proof of that is that less-than-speed-of-light travel is done with measurable mass.
so you can't travel at the speed of light.
Do you agree that if matter were able to go faster than light, then most likely at that point the physical laws govenening that matter would change to something much different than we now have? Much like the physical laws were probably much different before the Big Bang?
that's really a tough question to tackle and give a decent answer.
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
Science does not trump God. If you think nothing exceeds the speed of light you have not tried this.
Take you wife or girlfriend to a very nice public place that requires evening formal dress. Have a wonderful time, eat a nice dinner, dance and adore her. Then, about an hour before you are scheduled to go home turn to her and tell her you wish she had a body that would fit into the dress of a nice hottie three tables away. Furthermore; you should add that her hair really does not flatter her chubby face.
I assure you she will go from very nice and warm to wanting to kill you with blunt force trauma much faster than light will ever go.
Warp drive is the most common method of faster-than-light (FTL) travel in the Star Trek universe. Warp engines allow a spacecraft to create a field or bubble around the hull of the ship. This field "warps" space ahead and behind the ship, propelling it faster than the speed of light.
quote:Originally posted by helicopter_pilot
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
Only if mass increases linearly.
oh yeah! duh. you're right. but you get the picture. it would be some fraction as calculated by the equation.
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
I wonder why 'theories' are called theories until they are disproved?
Read up on strings.
They're still theories after they've been disproved. They're just incorrect theories. A theory is 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena'. The Theory of Relativity has held up through thousands or millions of experiments and challenges -- at least on the macro scale. Newton's theories hold up until things get really big. Where the ToR falls down is on the subatomic level. Does this mean that Einstein's and Newton's theories are wrong? No. They have not been disproved for the phenomena they attempt to explain. But they are incomplete, since they don't explain what happens when things get really small. At present, there is no Theory of Everything.
I like M Theory. IANAPhysicist, but it makes sense to my layman's brain. The propblem with M Theory is that its hypotheses can't really be tested. If they cannot be tested, then they can neither be proved nor disproved. It may be that M theory is correct. But if you can't test it, how do you know? Perhaps the new supercollider will provide some insight. Or not.
Here's a thought about M Theory: We know that everything is made up of atoms. We know that atoms are made of a nucleus with particles orbiting it. But most of an atom is empty space. So the basic building block of everything is nothing! And then if you get down to strings, the tiniest particles are made up of even more nothing! (If I were a stoner this would provide hours of mindblowing entertainment! )
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
that's really a tough question to tackle and give a decent answer.
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
What is the speed of gravity?
this question is a great opportunity to show you how difficult questions are figured out and discoveries can be made in great leaps.
first you must have a firm grasp on what I told you! did you understand how that was the boundary of existence? do you understand how that works? and what can and cannot be done?
then can you tell me why you want to know what the speed of gravity is? are you suspecting that it goes at C, or do you suspect that gravity acts instantly? are you merely asking how fast it is, or did you want to in turn make some kind of conclusion?
do you know the mechanism behind gravity? an example of "mechanism" would be all that we have discussed about light so far. can you discuss the workings of gravity as comprehensively as you discuss the workings of light?
and finally, most importantly, since your question was to further the discussion of the mechanics of light (the paragraph you responded to) you should look to improve that concept we were talking about (speed of light as the boundary for existence)- that is the boudary of existence, could the speed of gravity maybe show that there is a different type of boundary, or even show that it makes some kind of limitation that gives rise to our 4 dimensional universe? or instead show how gravity is inconsequential to existence?
you must throroughly know the mechanics of light and gravity so that you can see what concepts about them are important. then you will understand what are the important questions to ask and have the means to answer them. and you will come up with valuable, important discoveries.
such as my understanding that the speed of light as the boundary to existence was an important enough concept to point that out to you (and everybody else), and my capability to give you some example questions, and my capability to lead you in this direction. without a firm grasp on the mechanics of light you or I could not ask such questions. we wouldn't know what to do.
these are not trifles. relatively simple concepts such as what we are talking about here make the most important discoveries of understanding. and you can figure them out without having to be some wiggy post-doctoral scientist scribbling equation upon equation on a blackboard for only other scientists to understand. yes they do that and many times the long scenic route is what's needed to come to the simple conclusion that can be put into terms that anybody can understand. E=MC^2 is an example.
and it is a good example. since childhood Einstein had wondered about the speed of light when, for example, you are standing on a boxcar on a train and pointing a flashlight ahead. simple question, no? years later after much education and blackboard scribbling he came up with the theory of relativity. which could have been deduced by merely common sense and dogged pursuit. the proof of that is in the explanation- once he came up with relativity, it's now explained in common sense terms. one guy is floating in outer space and another guy passes by at high speed, what happens. yada yada. it's described in common sense terms, which could have been figured out in common sense terms.
so, barzilla, I want you to answer the question and more. you know what needs to be done.
what is the speed of gravity, how is it relevant to the mechanics of light, what is the implication on the boundary of existence, what important concepts can you discover?
quote:Where no other theory is specified, discussion of the speed of gravity is normally in reference to general relativity, which predicts it to equal c.
<snip>
In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.
Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly misinterpreted the results of their measurements. However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case. (See the citations below for the details of the arguments pro and con.)
It is important to understand that none of the participants in this controversy are claiming that general relativity is "wrong". Rather, the debate concerns whether or not Kopeikin and Fomalont have really provided yet another verification of one of its fundamental predictions.
Here's a thought about M Theory: We know that everything is made up of atoms. We know that atoms are made of a nucleus with particles orbiting it. But most of an atom is empty space. So the basic building block of everything is nothing! And then if you get down to strings, the tiniest particles are made up of even more nothing! (If I were a stoner this would provide hours of mindblowing entertainment! )
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
I think that since matter and energy have been shown to be equivalent, just expressed in different ways, I think that subatomic particles are really peices (quanta) of radiation that are wadded up in their own little localized ball of time. that would also explain how it is that what is made up of energy, otherwise expressed as radiation, doens't have to travel at the speed of light like normal radiation does. it can just sit there, confined to its own self.
and I think it the "boundary of existence" described by normal light as it normally travels, would be related to such a "boundary of existence" described by the radiation making up a subatomic particle. if true, once we understand the mechanics of the b.o.e. of a subatomic particle we would quite throughly understand that of normal light. the mechanics of the subatomic particle would be key to understanding the overall mechanics of light. but that's a damn difficult one and what we have so far, the mechanics of normal radiation, isn't enough- it's only a clue. but at least that clue points us in the direction of looking at subatomic particles. again, "the boundary of existence" must be a very important concept. I really think that understanding such mechanics will unlock the composition of matter. it's made of energy, and the equivalence will finally be understood completely.
and again, it should all be able to be described in common sense terms. just as even today we could (at length) explain an atom to any caveman that understood our language, even though he knows about nothing but fire, sticks and stones. it can be done. it's there.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
A theory that can be renormalized so that the infinities can be absorbed into a redefinition of a small number of parameters in the theory, such as the mass and charge of an electron, changes the theory by definition.
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
A theory that can be renormalized so that the infinities can be absorbed into a redefinition of a small number of parameters in the theory, such as the mass and charge of an electron, changes the theory by definition.
Where is the theory then?
[:D]
Some theories are more robust than others. They can be revised when new information is received, as long as the new information does not contradict it. To date, the General Relativity Theory has been augmented with lots of new information; but it hasn't been disproved. Other theories are not robust, and the discovery of new information will show that they are incorrect. People will still hold these theories and vigorously argue them in the face of evidence. It's still a theory, but it's wrong.
Let's say you define an AC Cobra as a two-seat roadster that is shaped a certain way, performs a certain way, and so on. You have an AC Cobra (don't you wish!) and you replace certain components on it with aftermarket ones. Is it still an AC Cobra? Of course it is. But what if you built an exact replica of an AC Cobra that meets all specifications in our definition. Only someone says, 'The AC Cobras were built by this company between these dates. Your car does not meet these criteria, therefore it is not an AC Cobra.' Even though the car meets every other criterion, it fails on the 'new information'. It's the same with theories. New information can modify the theory, or it can invalidate it.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
that's really a tough question to tackle and give a decent answer.
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
Here's a thought about M Theory: We know that everything is made up of atoms. We know that atoms are made of a nucleus with particles orbiting it. But most of an atom is empty space. So the basic building block of everything is nothing! And then if you get down to strings, the tiniest particles are made up of even more nothing! (If I were a stoner this would provide hours of mindblowing entertainment! )
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
I think that since matter and energy have been shown to be equivalent, just expressed in different ways, I think that subatomic particles are really peices (quanta) of radiation that are wadded up in their own little localized ball of time. that would also explain how it is that what is made up of energy, otherwise expressed as radiation, doens't have to travel at the speed of light like normal radiation does. it can just sit there, confined to its own self.
and I think it the "boundary of existence" described by normal light as it normally travels, would be related to such a "boundary of existence" described by the radiation making up a subatomic particle. if true, once we understand the mechanics of the b.o.e. of a subatomic particle we would quite throughly understand that of normal light. the mechanics of the subatomic particle would be key to understanding the overall mechanics of light. but that's a damn difficult one and what we have so far, the mechanics of normal radiation, isn't enough- it's only a clue. but at least that clue points us in the direction of looking at subatomic particles. again, "the boundary of existence" must be a very important concept. I really think that understanding such mechanics will unlock the composition of matter. it's made of energy, and the equivalence will finally be understood completely.
and again, it should all be able to be described in common sense terms. just as even today we could (at length) explain an atom to any caveman that understood our language, even though he knows about nothing but fire, sticks and stones. it can be done. it's there.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
quote:Where no other theory is specified, discussion of the speed of gravity is normally in reference to general relativity, which predicts it to equal c.
<snip>
In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.
Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly misinterpreted the results of their measurements. However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case. (See the citations below for the details of the arguments pro and con.)
It is important to understand that none of the participants in this controversy are claiming that general relativity is "wrong". Rather, the debate concerns whether or not Kopeikin and Fomalont have really provided yet another verification of one of its fundamental predictions.
Simply put, light "pushes" and gravity "pulls". The pulling would seem to make gravity a kind of motive power source. IOW, if you could harness gravity to your craft, (perhaps let a black hole pull you close, but not into it) you could in theory achieve the speed of light. Or close to it.
Perhaps that very effect is being conducted on various space objects (meteors, etc) and black holes now.
Time requires a minimum of two objects, observer and observed.
In a postulated singularity, there is no "other". Gets kind of dicy suggesting that there are even any parts to the singularity.
Hence, no time, hence no speed. No place to go, no one to see, no time to waste, so to speak.
No such restrictions on consciousness, no prohibitions.
I like ontology.
what are you talking about??
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
not familiar with that idea, but it sounds easily disproven. wouldn't there still be a black hole where the big bang was? (there isn't) at the centers of galaxies there are lots of massive black holes, but galaxies are spread out all over and I don't think there are a pile of galaxies left over in the middle of the universe. I don't think.
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up? they don't know- nobody said there was a big ball of matter. it could have been a giant nose for all we know. but, we do know the explosion blew out only radiation, because temperatures were waayy way fantastically too hot for even an atom to exist. after a short time things cooled down for the radiation to begin forming matter. so, together with the fact that (as you said) even light can't escape a black hole (which there would have been with that much matter) it leads one to believe that somehow, it started off with no matter present. just a huge ball of radiation- which would have no mass, and therefore could not create a black hole.
this would be in keeping with my Big Wave theory, that whatever it was that blew up to make the Big Bang, was 1 big huge energy wave that shattered.
this Big Wave would have been (my guess) constructed much like subatomic particles are in our modern universe. an electron, for example, has a wavelength that can be calculated, I think it was with Hamiltonian equations. physical chemists see it as a localized energy wave.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
yes, yes, yes. and there's a lot of empty space in it.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
yup. why should he listen when what he already knows makes more sense to him.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up?
This is a mistake many people make. There wasn't anything that exploded. That implies that the singularity was floating out there in the universe and it blew up populating the universe with gasses that became stars, etc. This is incorrect. The singularity was the universe. There was no space for it to be floating in because space didn't exist before it. In fact there was no 'before' the Big Bang, since the Big Bang created space/time. (Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. There is no north of the North Pole.) There are other models the postulate a never ending sequence of expansions and contractions, and that we're just in one of the expansion phases now, but that is not the consensus view.
It's very hard for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of 'nothing'. We might say that there's nothing in a box, but the inside of the box still has dimensions. Space/time exists within the box, even if it's s sealed acrylic box with a perfect vacuum in it. You look inside and you see nothing is in it. Your pressure gauge shows it's as empty as it can be. But it still has dimensions. There were no dimensions before the Big Bang. The universe -- space -- didn't exist, and then it did. 'Let there be light.'
quote:Originally posted by helicopter_pilot
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up?
This is a mistake many people make. There wasn't anything that exploded. That implies that the singularity was floating out there in the universe and it blew up populating the universe with gasses that became stars, etc. This is incorrect. The singularity was the universe. There was no space for it to be floating in because space didn't exist before it. In fact there was no 'before' the Big Bang, since the Big Bang created space/time. (Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. There is no north of the North Pole.) There are other models the postulate a never ending sequence of expansions and contractions, and that we're just in one of the expansion phases now, but that is not the consensus view.
It's very hard for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of 'nothing'. We might say that there's nothing in a box, but the inside of the box still has dimensions. Space/time exists within the box, even if it's s sealed acrylic box with a perfect vacuum in it. You look inside and you see nothing is in it. Your pressure gauge shows it's as empty as it can be. But it still has dimensions. There were no dimensions before the Big Bang. The universe -- space -- didn't exist, and then it did. 'Let there be light.'
I understand that quite well. so then, what was it that blew up?
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
Speed of gravity?
Slower than consciousness.
Speed requires time as an element.
Time requires a minimum of two objects, observer and observed.
In a postulated singularity, there is no "other". Gets kind of dicy suggesting that there are even any parts to the singularity.
Hence, no time, hence no speed. No place to go, no one to see, no time to waste, so to speak.
No such restrictions on consciousness, no prohibitions.
I like ontology.
what are you talking about??
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
not familiar with that idea, but it sounds easily disproven. wouldn't there still be a black hole where the big bang was? (there isn't) at the centers of galaxies there are lots of massive black holes, but galaxies are spread out all over and I don't think there are a pile of galaxies left over in the middle of the universe. I don't think.
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up? they don't know- nobody said there was a big ball of matter. it could have been a giant nose for all we know. but, we do know the explosion blew out only radiation, because temperatures were waayy way fantastically too hot for even an atom to exist. after a short time things cooled down for the radiation to begin forming matter. so, together with the fact that (as you said) even light can't escape a black hole (which there would have been with that much matter) it leads one to believe that somehow, it started off with no matter present. just a huge ball of radiation- which would have no mass, and therefore could not create a black hole.
this would be in keeping with my Big Wave theory, that whatever it was that blew up to make the Big Bang, was 1 big huge energy wave that shattered.
this Big Wave would have been (my guess) constructed much like subatomic particles are in our modern universe. an electron, for example, has a wavelength that can be calculated, I think it was with Hamiltonian equations. physical chemists see it as a localized energy wave.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
yes, yes, yes. and there's a lot of empty space in it.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
yup. why should he listen when what he already knows makes more sense to him.
-but the point was it's not beyond understanding.
Yes, but couldn't radiation escape from a black hole? Since it has no mass?
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
I understand that quite well. so then, what was it that blew up?
I really don't like 'blew up'. It's too easy to imagine something... well, blowing up -- expanding into space. Only there was no space. There was Nothing.
What expanded is the universe. Before it expanded it had not dimension, therefore it didn't 'exist' anywhere. At the instant it started to expand, 'anywhere' was -- and is -- everywhere. And since it's everywhere, there is no 'outside' of the universe; so it's not expanding (blowing up) into anything.
Comments
"Professor" Albert Einstein Unmasked At Last
Something else not taught in college
"Professor" Albert Einstein Unmasked At Last
That page suggests that the Earth is fixed in space. Do you believe the Sun goes round the Earth then?
From the link above:
quote:Einstein died in 1955 and was cremated!!
Einstein died in 1955 and was cremated with his ashes thrown on a nearby river. Many people in Europe were claiming to be "fathered" by Dr. Albert so cremation did away with the vital evidence of his DNA.
DNA profiling wasn't developed until 1984.
Where's the 'laughing me * off' smiley?
quote:Originally posted by Amish
Something else not taught in college
"Professor" Albert Einstein Unmasked At Last
That page suggests that the Earth is fixed in space. Do you believe the Sun goes round the Earth then?
Not that part, this:
Who discovered the formula E=MC2????
The theory of relativity is just a hodgepodge of bizarre ideas having to do with the behavior of objects which move at or close to the speed of light. The Einsteinian universe is an unbelievably huge place filled with black holes, quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants-almost like an asylum run by the inmates. Relativity did not make Einstein however; it was the formula E=MC2 or that matter can be changed into energy at the incredible rate of the square of the speed of light (186,282,397 miles per second, or 299,792,458 meters per second). Sir Isaac Newton said in his Optiks published in 1704:
and theres other sites about his plagiarisms, but that one goes into how they are just wrong. I don't know I haven't tested it.
Which one wins?
Dark eats light for breakfast.
dude, this alone should be enough to discredit whatever else is blabbered about on that page. they have no grasp of physics whatsoever. they might as well be talking about alphabet letters, saying this also means C-A-T is spelled sqrt(E/M)-A-T and there's now a different way to pronounce everything.
Not that part, this:
I'd still like an answer to my question though.
Thank you in advance.
Perhaps there are infinately small objects that travel faster than light. Perhaps that is the reason we cannot even detect or be aware of such fast objects.
in fact, the physical impossibility lies in this:
the equation shows that as you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity.
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
therefore, you can never have infinite mass. proof of that is that less-than-speed-of-light travel is done with measurable mass.
so you can't travel at the speed of light.
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
Only if mass increases linearly.
neh, it doesn't matter how small a peice of matter is. anything at all made of matter will become infinitely massive. so that's an impossibility.
in fact, the physical impossibility lies in this:
the equation shows that as you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity.
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
therefore, you can never have infinite mass. proof of that is that less-than-speed-of-light travel is done with measurable mass.
so you can't travel at the speed of light.
Do you agree that if matter were able to go faster than light, then most likely at that point the physical laws govenening that matter would change to something much different than we now have? Much like the physical laws were probably much different before the Big Bang?
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
Speed of light is slow you ever see the flash of light when you fart?
That is called "Bio-luminessence"[:D]
Science does not trump God. If you think nothing exceeds the speed of light you have not tried this.
Take you wife or girlfriend to a very nice public place that requires evening formal dress. Have a wonderful time, eat a nice dinner, dance and adore her. Then, about an hour before you are scheduled to go home turn to her and tell her you wish she had a body that would fit into the dress of a nice hottie three tables away. Furthermore; you should add that her hair really does not flatter her chubby face.
I assure you she will go from very nice and warm to wanting to kill you with blunt force trauma much faster than light will ever go.
http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Warp_drive#Warp_Theory
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
I wonder why 'theories' are called theories until they are disproved?
Read up on strings.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
notice that the equation does not provide for infinite mass. if it did, you could say "yeah, I travelled at the speed of light and my mass was infinite"; ok then, if you travel at half the speed of light, your mass would be half of infinity. which is still infinity.
Only if mass increases linearly.
oh yeah! duh. you're right. but you get the picture. it would be some fraction as calculated by the equation.
I wonder why 'theories' are called theories until they are disproved?
Read up on strings.
They're still theories after they've been disproved. They're just incorrect theories. A theory is 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena'. The Theory of Relativity has held up through thousands or millions of experiments and challenges -- at least on the macro scale. Newton's theories hold up until things get really big. Where the ToR falls down is on the subatomic level. Does this mean that Einstein's and Newton's theories are wrong? No. They have not been disproved for the phenomena they attempt to explain. But they are incomplete, since they don't explain what happens when things get really small. At present, there is no Theory of Everything.
I like M Theory. IANAPhysicist, but it makes sense to my layman's brain. The propblem with M Theory is that its hypotheses can't really be tested. If they cannot be tested, then they can neither be proved nor disproved. It may be that M theory is correct. But if you can't test it, how do you know? Perhaps the new supercollider will provide some insight. Or not.
Here's a thought about M Theory: We know that everything is made up of atoms. We know that atoms are made of a nucleus with particles orbiting it. But most of an atom is empty space. So the basic building block of everything is nothing! And then if you get down to strings, the tiniest particles are made up of even more nothing! (If I were a stoner this would provide hours of mindblowing entertainment!
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
that's really a tough question to tackle and give a decent answer.
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
What is the speed of gravity?
this question is a great opportunity to show you how difficult questions are figured out and discoveries can be made in great leaps.
first you must have a firm grasp on what I told you! did you understand how that was the boundary of existence? do you understand how that works? and what can and cannot be done?
then can you tell me why you want to know what the speed of gravity is? are you suspecting that it goes at C, or do you suspect that gravity acts instantly? are you merely asking how fast it is, or did you want to in turn make some kind of conclusion?
do you know the mechanism behind gravity? an example of "mechanism" would be all that we have discussed about light so far. can you discuss the workings of gravity as comprehensively as you discuss the workings of light?
and finally, most importantly, since your question was to further the discussion of the mechanics of light (the paragraph you responded to) you should look to improve that concept we were talking about (speed of light as the boundary for existence)- that is the boudary of existence, could the speed of gravity maybe show that there is a different type of boundary, or even show that it makes some kind of limitation that gives rise to our 4 dimensional universe? or instead show how gravity is inconsequential to existence?
you must throroughly know the mechanics of light and gravity so that you can see what concepts about them are important. then you will understand what are the important questions to ask and have the means to answer them. and you will come up with valuable, important discoveries.
such as my understanding that the speed of light as the boundary to existence was an important enough concept to point that out to you (and everybody else), and my capability to give you some example questions, and my capability to lead you in this direction. without a firm grasp on the mechanics of light you or I could not ask such questions. we wouldn't know what to do.
these are not trifles. relatively simple concepts such as what we are talking about here make the most important discoveries of understanding. and you can figure them out without having to be some wiggy post-doctoral scientist scribbling equation upon equation on a blackboard for only other scientists to understand. yes they do that and many times the long scenic route is what's needed to come to the simple conclusion that can be put into terms that anybody can understand. E=MC^2 is an example.
and it is a good example. since childhood Einstein had wondered about the speed of light when, for example, you are standing on a boxcar on a train and pointing a flashlight ahead. simple question, no? years later after much education and blackboard scribbling he came up with the theory of relativity. which could have been deduced by merely common sense and dogged pursuit. the proof of that is in the explanation- once he came up with relativity, it's now explained in common sense terms. one guy is floating in outer space and another guy passes by at high speed, what happens. yada yada. it's described in common sense terms, which could have been figured out in common sense terms.
so, barzilla, I want you to answer the question and more. you know what needs to be done.
what is the speed of gravity, how is it relevant to the mechanics of light, what is the implication on the boundary of existence, what important concepts can you discover?
quote:Where no other theory is specified, discussion of the speed of gravity is normally in reference to general relativity, which predicts it to equal c.
<snip>
In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.
Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly misinterpreted the results of their measurements. However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case. (See the citations below for the details of the arguments pro and con.)
It is important to understand that none of the participants in this controversy are claiming that general relativity is "wrong". Rather, the debate concerns whether or not Kopeikin and Fomalont have really provided yet another verification of one of its fundamental predictions.
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
I think that since matter and energy have been shown to be equivalent, just expressed in different ways, I think that subatomic particles are really peices (quanta) of radiation that are wadded up in their own little localized ball of time. that would also explain how it is that what is made up of energy, otherwise expressed as radiation, doens't have to travel at the speed of light like normal radiation does. it can just sit there, confined to its own self.
and I think it the "boundary of existence" described by normal light as it normally travels, would be related to such a "boundary of existence" described by the radiation making up a subatomic particle. if true, once we understand the mechanics of the b.o.e. of a subatomic particle we would quite throughly understand that of normal light. the mechanics of the subatomic particle would be key to understanding the overall mechanics of light. but that's a damn difficult one and what we have so far, the mechanics of normal radiation, isn't enough- it's only a clue. but at least that clue points us in the direction of looking at subatomic particles. again, "the boundary of existence" must be a very important concept. I really think that understanding such mechanics will unlock the composition of matter. it's made of energy, and the equivalence will finally be understood completely.
and again, it should all be able to be described in common sense terms. just as even today we could (at length) explain an atom to any caveman that understood our language, even though he knows about nothing but fire, sticks and stones. it can be done. it's there.
Senior Member
1154 Posts
Posted - 07/12/2008 : 11:44:15 PM Show Profile Reply with Quote
Dark is stronger than light. Go into any cave and look around.
Which one wins?
Dark eats light for breakfast.
Go to Top of Page
Dark is the absense of light. in the cave, dark only takes over the area,light inhabits, when the flashlight is shut off.
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
Where is the theory then?
[:D]
A theory that can be renormalized so that the infinities can be absorbed into a redefinition of a small number of parameters in the theory, such as the mass and charge of an electron, changes the theory by definition.
Where is the theory then?
[:D]
Some theories are more robust than others. They can be revised when new information is received, as long as the new information does not contradict it. To date, the General Relativity Theory has been augmented with lots of new information; but it hasn't been disproved. Other theories are not robust, and the discovery of new information will show that they are incorrect. People will still hold these theories and vigorously argue them in the face of evidence. It's still a theory, but it's wrong.
Let's say you define an AC Cobra as a two-seat roadster that is shaped a certain way, performs a certain way, and so on. You have an AC Cobra (don't you wish!) and you replace certain components on it with aftermarket ones. Is it still an AC Cobra? Of course it is. But what if you built an exact replica of an AC Cobra that meets all specifications in our definition. Only someone says, 'The AC Cobras were built by this company between these dates. Your car does not meet these criteria, therefore it is not an AC Cobra.' Even though the car meets every other criterion, it fails on the 'new information'. It's the same with theories. New information can modify the theory, or it can invalidate it.
that's really a tough question to tackle and give a decent answer.
as it is, matter can't go faster than light (C)- it simply can't. it's an impossibility like saying "what if I could reach my arm out so fast, it would all of a sudden stretch out to china". it just doesn't work that way.
so, saying "what if matter could travel faster than light, then..."
it would have to become something else besides matter. it's a physical impossibility for matter to travel faster than C in this universe. it would have more than infinite mass. impossible to exist.
also impossible because the peice of matter gets infinitely heavier without limit, so it never could become traveling at C. so, you see, it's a barrier. it would stay "matter" and could not become something else simply by going faster than C- because it can't go faster than C.
in fact, since C is the upper limit for speed, you can say that "nothing exists" going faster than the speed of light. where is it? it's nowhere. "space doesn't exist faster than the speed of light". that is the boundary of existence. I think I mentioned that at the beginning of this post. that's a very important concept.
also impossible when you consider the relativistic aspect. from its inertial frame, it's just sitting there and the rest of the universe is flying by faster and faster, approaching the speed of light. how could it become something else by just sitting there with a rocket bolted to its *? it won't.
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
Here's a thought about M Theory: We know that everything is made up of atoms. We know that atoms are made of a nucleus with particles orbiting it. But most of an atom is empty space. So the basic building block of everything is nothing! And then if you get down to strings, the tiniest particles are made up of even more nothing! (If I were a stoner this would provide hours of mindblowing entertainment!
neh. that would be like saying "styrofoam is made of nothing!" atoms are made up of something, it's sufficient to say that there's a lot of empty space in them.
I think that since matter and energy have been shown to be equivalent, just expressed in different ways, I think that subatomic particles are really peices (quanta) of radiation that are wadded up in their own little localized ball of time. that would also explain how it is that what is made up of energy, otherwise expressed as radiation, doens't have to travel at the speed of light like normal radiation does. it can just sit there, confined to its own self.
and I think it the "boundary of existence" described by normal light as it normally travels, would be related to such a "boundary of existence" described by the radiation making up a subatomic particle. if true, once we understand the mechanics of the b.o.e. of a subatomic particle we would quite throughly understand that of normal light. the mechanics of the subatomic particle would be key to understanding the overall mechanics of light. but that's a damn difficult one and what we have so far, the mechanics of normal radiation, isn't enough- it's only a clue. but at least that clue points us in the direction of looking at subatomic particles. again, "the boundary of existence" must be a very important concept. I really think that understanding such mechanics will unlock the composition of matter. it's made of energy, and the equivalence will finally be understood completely.
and again, it should all be able to be described in common sense terms. just as even today we could (at length) explain an atom to any caveman that understood our language, even though he knows about nothing but fire, sticks and stones. it can be done. it's there.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
The Speed of Gravity
quote:Where no other theory is specified, discussion of the speed of gravity is normally in reference to general relativity, which predicts it to equal c.
<snip>
In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.
Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly misinterpreted the results of their measurements. However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case. (See the citations below for the details of the arguments pro and con.)
It is important to understand that none of the participants in this controversy are claiming that general relativity is "wrong". Rather, the debate concerns whether or not Kopeikin and Fomalont have really provided yet another verification of one of its fundamental predictions.
Simply put, light "pushes" and gravity "pulls". The pulling would seem to make gravity a kind of motive power source. IOW, if you could harness gravity to your craft, (perhaps let a black hole pull you close, but not into it) you could in theory achieve the speed of light. Or close to it.
Perhaps that very effect is being conducted on various space objects (meteors, etc) and black holes now.
Slower than consciousness.
Speed requires time as an element.
Time requires a minimum of two objects, observer and observed.
In a postulated singularity, there is no "other". Gets kind of dicy suggesting that there are even any parts to the singularity.
Hence, no time, hence no speed. No place to go, no one to see, no time to waste, so to speak.
No such restrictions on consciousness, no prohibitions.
I like ontology.
what are you talking about??
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
not familiar with that idea, but it sounds easily disproven. wouldn't there still be a black hole where the big bang was? (there isn't) at the centers of galaxies there are lots of massive black holes, but galaxies are spread out all over and I don't think there are a pile of galaxies left over in the middle of the universe. I don't think.
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up? they don't know- nobody said there was a big ball of matter. it could have been a giant nose for all we know. but, we do know the explosion blew out only radiation, because temperatures were waayy way fantastically too hot for even an atom to exist. after a short time things cooled down for the radiation to begin forming matter. so, together with the fact that (as you said) even light can't escape a black hole (which there would have been with that much matter) it leads one to believe that somehow, it started off with no matter present. just a huge ball of radiation- which would have no mass, and therefore could not create a black hole.
this would be in keeping with my Big Wave theory, that whatever it was that blew up to make the Big Bang, was 1 big huge energy wave that shattered.
this Big Wave would have been (my guess) constructed much like subatomic particles are in our modern universe. an electron, for example, has a wavelength that can be calculated, I think it was with Hamiltonian equations. physical chemists see it as a localized energy wave.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
yes, yes, yes. and there's a lot of empty space in it.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
yup. why should he listen when what he already knows makes more sense to him.
-but the point was it's not beyond understanding.
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up?
This is a mistake many people make. There wasn't anything that exploded. That implies that the singularity was floating out there in the universe and it blew up populating the universe with gasses that became stars, etc. This is incorrect. The singularity was the universe. There was no space for it to be floating in because space didn't exist before it. In fact there was no 'before' the Big Bang, since the Big Bang created space/time. (Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. There is no north of the North Pole.) There are other models the postulate a never ending sequence of expansions and contractions, and that we're just in one of the expansion phases now, but that is not the consensus view.
It's very hard for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of 'nothing'. We might say that there's nothing in a box, but the inside of the box still has dimensions. Space/time exists within the box, even if it's s sealed acrylic box with a perfect vacuum in it. You look inside and you see nothing is in it. Your pressure gauge shows it's as empty as it can be. But it still has dimensions. There were no dimensions before the Big Bang. The universe -- space -- didn't exist, and then it did. 'Let there be light.'
The Big Bang.
See also: Branes. (Heh. 'Braaaaaaanes!')
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up?
This is a mistake many people make. There wasn't anything that exploded. That implies that the singularity was floating out there in the universe and it blew up populating the universe with gasses that became stars, etc. This is incorrect. The singularity was the universe. There was no space for it to be floating in because space didn't exist before it. In fact there was no 'before' the Big Bang, since the Big Bang created space/time. (Asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. There is no north of the North Pole.) There are other models the postulate a never ending sequence of expansions and contractions, and that we're just in one of the expansion phases now, but that is not the consensus view.
It's very hard for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of 'nothing'. We might say that there's nothing in a box, but the inside of the box still has dimensions. Space/time exists within the box, even if it's s sealed acrylic box with a perfect vacuum in it. You look inside and you see nothing is in it. Your pressure gauge shows it's as empty as it can be. But it still has dimensions. There were no dimensions before the Big Bang. The universe -- space -- didn't exist, and then it did. 'Let there be light.'
I understand that quite well. so then, what was it that blew up?
Speed of gravity?
Slower than consciousness.
Speed requires time as an element.
Time requires a minimum of two objects, observer and observed.
In a postulated singularity, there is no "other". Gets kind of dicy suggesting that there are even any parts to the singularity.
Hence, no time, hence no speed. No place to go, no one to see, no time to waste, so to speak.
No such restrictions on consciousness, no prohibitions.
I like ontology.
what are you talking about??
Seems llike I read a short theory several years ago in that at the time of big bang, the matter that was created/exploded/launched/etc. had to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Reason being that otherwise, because the mass of matter was HUGE basically what existed at that moment was a HUGE black hole. And I believe nothing escapes from a black hold unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Do you know anything about that idea? Sorry to be so vague.
not familiar with that idea, but it sounds easily disproven. wouldn't there still be a black hole where the big bang was? (there isn't) at the centers of galaxies there are lots of massive black holes, but galaxies are spread out all over and I don't think there are a pile of galaxies left over in the middle of the universe. I don't think.
when the big bang happened, what was it that blew up? they don't know- nobody said there was a big ball of matter. it could have been a giant nose for all we know. but, we do know the explosion blew out only radiation, because temperatures were waayy way fantastically too hot for even an atom to exist. after a short time things cooled down for the radiation to begin forming matter. so, together with the fact that (as you said) even light can't escape a black hole (which there would have been with that much matter) it leads one to believe that somehow, it started off with no matter present. just a huge ball of radiation- which would have no mass, and therefore could not create a black hole.
this would be in keeping with my Big Wave theory, that whatever it was that blew up to make the Big Bang, was 1 big huge energy wave that shattered.
this Big Wave would have been (my guess) constructed much like subatomic particles are in our modern universe. an electron, for example, has a wavelength that can be calculated, I think it was with Hamiltonian equations. physical chemists see it as a localized energy wave.
Imagine the solar system as an atom analogue, with the Sun as the nucleus and the planets as electrons. The size of the atom would be the diameter of the orbit of the outer planet (Neptune or Pluto, or the edge of the Kuiper belt for that matter -- take your pick). Most of this 'atom' is empty space, or 'nothing'. Turn the disc into a sphere and you get a lot more empty space.
yes, yes, yes. and there's a lot of empty space in it.
While your statement appears reasonable and logical, I feel sure the caveman would ever believe what you were telling him. I think would be your theory meeting his reality.
yup. why should he listen when what he already knows makes more sense to him.
-but the point was it's not beyond understanding.
Yes, but couldn't radiation escape from a black hole? Since it has no mass?
I understand that quite well. so then, what was it that blew up?
I really don't like 'blew up'. It's too easy to imagine something... well, blowing up -- expanding into space. Only there was no space. There was Nothing.
What expanded is the universe. Before it expanded it had not dimension, therefore it didn't 'exist' anywhere. At the instant it started to expand, 'anywhere' was -- and is -- everywhere. And since it's everywhere, there is no 'outside' of the universe; so it's not expanding (blowing up) into anything.