5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> End Of The World?
fkalich
post Sep 16 2008, 04:23 PM
Post #61


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 10:01 AM) *
Jeff - do we really know what's in a Taco Bell either (and perhaps more importantly would we ever really want to know wink.gif )?

Cheers,
Tony


I am sure they don't want you to know. I am a serious label reader now, always read the nutritional info anymore. It means I won't eat a lot, and I just hope I did not do to much damage from past junk I ate.

Cheese is the hardest to cut down on. But wow, saturate fat levels, it don't take much with cheese. That is sad.

But that is why God created mushrooms and bell peppers and corn and carrots sauted in just a little canola oil with onions and garlic, and just one tablespoon of steak sauce in it. If you work on it, you can make healthy yummy stuff.

We have a grocery store that has pretty good fresh salmon, I go at night and get the stuff they have to sell in the next few days, they mark down the price. Still good. That is why God created salmon, because that way you don't have to eat beef. Rarely eat beef anymore. <sound of cheering cows clapping>

edit: forgot to mention the black pepper in the recipe. a lot of pepper.

we need a healthy food GMC recipe thread.

QUOTE (Jeff @ Sep 16 2008, 10:18 AM) *
That's the beauty of it, Tony! You see, the three things that would survive are 1.) Taco Bell food products, 2.) Twinkies and 3.) cockroaches! I am thinking that consuming Taco Bell get's you the food and cockroaches all at once. And, nothing can destory a Twinkie. Plus, they all taste great! biggrin.gif


you know there are 4 cockroach types in the US

1) Waterbugs...people call them that. They are asian cockroaches
2) German...little brown ones
3) American cockroach...big and brown

there is another, but it is in the far south I think, like Florida. Forget the name. Just so you know what you are eating when you eat processed meat and fast food.

When I used to eat fast food, I always was realllll nice to the people serving me. Real respectful. I feared them.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Sep 16 2008, 04:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saoirse O'Shea
post Sep 16 2008, 04:42 PM
Post #62


Moderator - low level high stakes
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 6.173
Joined: 27-June 07
From: Espania - Cadiz province
Member No.: 2.194



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 03:08 PM) *
... If they did, they would work harder to try and get rid of these things.


Difficulty there fkalich is, as with the wind in Pandora's Box, once out of the box there is no undoing it. Even if we removed all atomic weaponry and destroyed the information on how to build them there would still be some individuals who would want to re-create it knowing that it had already been done before.

Also, sadly some people work with the best intent but - as you said early in the thread - that intention is perverted by others, be they individuals or institutions and so too much scientific endeavor is put to ill use...

Since we can't ever undo history it perhaps becomes even more important to learn from it. Sadly, to my mind at least, and despite all our protestations to be 'enlightened' we don't. To do so would require of us a much more fundamental paradigm shift than that between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics.

Cheers,
Tony


Off topic again (sorry all)

Never eaten a Taco Bell - or Twinkie - in my life Jeff so I guess I'll just have to die never knowing wink.gif .

It's one thing I love about the bit of Spain that I live in - fast food is freshly made tapas and there isn't a Golden Arch (or any permutation like it on fast food) for miles smile.gif . Same as fkalich I sort of prefer my food fresh and identifiably part of the food chain cool.gif .

Cheers,
Tony

ps what is a Twinkie? Sounds pretty yeucky to me laugh.gif .


--------------------
Get your music professionally mastered by anl AES registered Mastering Engineer. Contact me for Audio Mastering Services and Advice and visit our website www.miromastering.com

Be friends on facebook with us here.

We use professional, mastering grade hardware in our mastering studo. Our hardware includes:
Cranesong Avocet II Monitor Controller, Dangerous Music Liasion Insert Hardware Router, ATC SCM Pro Monitors, Lavry Black DA11, Prism Orpheus ADC/DAC, Gyratec Gyraf XIV Parallel Passive Mastering EQ, Great River MAQ 2NV Mastering EQ, Kush Clariphonic Parallel EQ Shelf, Maselec MLA-2 Mastering Compressor, API 2500 Mastering Compressor, Eventide Eclipse Reverb/Echo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Cockburn
post Sep 16 2008, 05:03 PM
Post #63


Moderation Policy Director
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 10.459
Joined: 6-February 07
From: CT, USA
Member No.: 1.167



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 10:49 AM) *
I never fully understood why you could not go faster than the the speed of light. Why the equation E=mc^2 implied you approach infinite mass when you do so. Turns out, the equation does not imply that. Einstein went back to Newton mechanics for that. Maybe some math guy out here will say "elementary my dear fkalich" but I find this interesting. An object's energy in E=mc^2 does not mean just nuclear energy. It means all energy, ncluding Kinetic. I had assumed E was just nuclear energy. I expect most others also have that false assumption.
...


This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.


--------------------
Check out my Instructor profile
Live long and prosper ...

My Stuff:

Electric Guitars : Ibanez Jem7v, Line6 Variax 700, Fender Plus Strat with 57/62 Pickups, Line6 Variax 705 Bass
Acoustic Guitars : Taylor 816ce, Martin D-15, Line6 Variax Acoustic 300 Nylon
Effects : Line6 Helix, Keeley Modded Boss DS1, Keeley Modded Boss BD2, Keeley 4 knob compressor, Keeley OxBlood
Amps : Epiphone Valve Jnr & Head, Cockburn A.C.1, Cockburn A.C.2, Blackstar Club 50 Head & 4x12 Cab
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jeff
post Sep 16 2008, 05:17 PM
Post #64


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 877
Joined: 25-April 06
From: Virginia, US
Member No.: 706



QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 10:42 AM) *
Off topic again (sorry all)

Never eaten a Taco Bell - or Twinkie - in my life Jeff so I guess I'll just have to die never knowing wink.gif .

It's one thing I love about the bit of Spain that I live in - fast food is freshly made tapas and there isn't a Golden Arch (or any permutation like it on fast food) for miles smile.gif . Same as fkalich I sort of prefer my food fresh and identifiably part of the food chain cool.gif .

Cheers,
Tony

ps what is a Twinkie? Sounds pretty yeucky to me laugh.gif .


Sorry for being off topic again as well, since I started it.. Anyway this is all you need to know about Twinkies http://www.twinkiesproject.com/ and yeah they are bad for you! laugh.gif
I agree about the fast food. It's really more of a joke on my part too. I prefer fresh foods!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saoirse O'Shea
post Sep 16 2008, 05:32 PM
Post #65


Moderator - low level high stakes
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 6.173
Joined: 27-June 07
From: Espania - Cadiz province
Member No.: 2.194



QUOTE (Jeff @ Sep 16 2008, 04:17 PM) *
Sorry for being off topic again as well, since I started it.. Anyway this is all you need to know about Twinkies http://www.twinkiesproject.com/ and yeah they are bad for you! laugh.gif
I agree about the fast food. It's really more of a joke on my part too. I prefer fresh foods!


laugh.gif Thanks Jeff, I think wink.gif . I particularly like the 'rapid oxidation test' laugh.gif.

I really shouldn't have asked though and now, just like the wind in Pandora's box or the image of the A bomb explosion, I can't ever forget ohmy.gif . laugh.gif

Cheers,
Tony


--------------------
Get your music professionally mastered by anl AES registered Mastering Engineer. Contact me for Audio Mastering Services and Advice and visit our website www.miromastering.com

Be friends on facebook with us here.

We use professional, mastering grade hardware in our mastering studo. Our hardware includes:
Cranesong Avocet II Monitor Controller, Dangerous Music Liasion Insert Hardware Router, ATC SCM Pro Monitors, Lavry Black DA11, Prism Orpheus ADC/DAC, Gyratec Gyraf XIV Parallel Passive Mastering EQ, Great River MAQ 2NV Mastering EQ, Kush Clariphonic Parallel EQ Shelf, Maselec MLA-2 Mastering Compressor, API 2500 Mastering Compressor, Eventide Eclipse Reverb/Echo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blindwillie
post Sep 16 2008, 08:39 PM
Post #66


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.533
Joined: 28-March 07
From: Luleå, Sweden
Member No.: 1.434



QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Sep 16 2008, 06:03 PM) *
This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.

This simply isn't true and everyone can prove it by simple experiments. If I sitt perfectly (infinitly) still I will get infinitly bored and I will move infinitly slow through time. But if move around and am very active, maybe even hyper active, and have tons (see? mass matters) fun I will move much faster through time. Science. BAH!

(But I must admit that was very interesting and I found logic in it. I never heard that one before)


--------------------

Schecter C1 Hellraiser EMG 81/85, replaced with JB/Jazz (SH4/SH2n) w. coilsplit
Schecter Revenger HB-105, replaced with EMG 81/85
Stratocaster Deluxe Players Noiseless
Ibanez 2550z
Blackstar HT5H, Blackheart BH5H w. BH112, Laney LX35D, Line6 Pod XT, Marshall MS-2
Headphones: Sennheiser RS120

Stay tuned...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blindwillie
post Sep 16 2008, 09:07 PM
Post #67


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.533
Joined: 28-March 07
From: Luleå, Sweden
Member No.: 1.434



Darn Andrew! You got me hooked on this.

That implies something I've been thinking. How to define time. That time is the fourth dimension.
Time differs from the others as you can't quantify time. Time doesn't have a physical attribute you can measure. You can only compare time against an imaginary graded axis and only in one dimension.
Because time is another dimension! It runs through and surrounds all the other three dimensions.

Time is just a distance from somethings birth to it's cease to exist. Time is totally relative. If there is nothing, there is no time.

I'm onto something now. Or going nuts. I hit the showers now, that usually helps.

/edit: hmmm... yes. I've got the basics figured out now.

This post has been edited by blindwillie: Sep 16 2008, 10:00 PM


--------------------

Schecter C1 Hellraiser EMG 81/85, replaced with JB/Jazz (SH4/SH2n) w. coilsplit
Schecter Revenger HB-105, replaced with EMG 81/85
Stratocaster Deluxe Players Noiseless
Ibanez 2550z
Blackstar HT5H, Blackheart BH5H w. BH112, Laney LX35D, Line6 Pod XT, Marshall MS-2
Headphones: Sennheiser RS120

Stay tuned...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MickeM
post Sep 16 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #68


Born of NWOBHM, Moderation Team Leader
*

Group: Members
Posts: 8.562
Joined: 9-January 07
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 1.062



QUOTE (blindwillie @ Sep 16 2008, 10:07 PM) *
Darn Andrew! You got me hooked on this.

That implies something I've been thinking. How to define time. That time is the fourth dimension.
Time differs from the others as you can't quantify time. Time doesn't have a physical attribute you can measure. You can only compare time against an imaginary graded axis and only in one dimension.
Because time is another dimension! It runs through and surrounds all the other three dimensions.

Time is just a distance from somethings birth to it's cease to exist. Time is totally relative. If there is nothing, there is no time.

I'm onto something now. Or going nuts. I hit the showers now, that usually helps.

/edit: hmmm... yes. I've got the basics figured out now.

Bartender, I'm having whatever these guys are having! cool.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saoirse O'Shea
post Sep 16 2008, 11:24 PM
Post #69


Moderator - low level high stakes
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 6.173
Joined: 27-June 07
From: Espania - Cadiz province
Member No.: 2.194



Perhaps Willie - following Henri Bergson - there is more than one time. There's the clock time that marks the minutes and hours and that science uses to measure and record. There's a subjective time that we experience that you acknowledge - sitting bored in my chair the experience of '1 second' has an infinitely long duration compared with 2 hours playing in the garden with my daughter.

But also from Bergson 'both' these 'times' are part of Time (capital 'T' to mark its transcendent quality) as Time that contain all that is, was and will be - including all potentialities. As all potentialities Time is more like a river and what we talk of about as 'time' (clock or subjective) is at best only a very small part of that. As a river it's also one where we cannot see the start, the end or even either bank. At best we have a vague understanding of what it is and a very vague understanding of why it is. It's transcendental to us - beyond us and our understanding and control. In such terms it is arguably not that there is no time but that we don't understand Time - it is too much for us.

Further as transcendent Time as what was, is and will be etc is outside 'time' for Time Everything is present - all pasts, all futures, all presents, all possibilities. Everything exists as potential and what is at issue is how 'easy' it is to get from one potential to the next - some 'jumps' are more difficult and require more 'energy' to actualise than others but nothing is impossible. The further a possibility is from your 'present' state the harder it is to realise/actualise - but not impossible. Some states of being are more likely. BUT none are impossible. Time here isn't a linear flow (as with clock time, and even subjective time) but more an open constellation of points of stability. You can go in any 'direction' and any 'distance' provided you can overcome the potential energy required. BTW -As an open constellation it isn't just past, future, present but ALL pasts, futures, presents - parallel Universes/times etc

In regard to their being nothing - that's a somewhat different spin on it - and perhaps a little less nihilistic, though some will still perhaps see this as nihilistic: rather than there is nothing (which is a very Sartrean argument - why is there anything rather than nothing) and more a case of Kierkregaard: find a meaning for your existence whilst faced with a potential of nothing or do nothing. In terms of time we could also rethink this in terms of Nietzsche's 'eternal return'. If anything that you do was to be returned to you infinitely then what would you do? Choose wisely. Think 'Groundhog day'.

Heidegger (if we can set aside his politics) had an interesting spin on Time and Being as Being only given and received because of Time. Being is present in and through Time and Time and time is only realised by Being when being reaches beyond itself because of time to achieve its Being as potential.

Or somewhat differentially - we reach our potential through time as our ability to become better than ourselves. To 'transcend' marks us as human and requires time. Without time we are nothing. Time however requires us to conceive it as Time. (cf Nietzsche - 'man is a bridge' ie a potential.) A cat is a cat is a cat. A human baby carries all the hopes, desire and wants of its parents and the potential to be all of these, or different and/or something more but only if it lives it's life which requires Time... (cf Heidegger's Sein und Zeit and later works where he goes over and develops and matures his argument - something I haven't done any justice to...)

Anyway - it's up to you what, if anything you take from the above. I'm just summarising, paraphrasing and simplifying. My main point is that in philosophy, unlike science, there is more than a single unified concept of time and these have not been adequately addressed by science.



Cheers,
Tony

QUOTE (MickeM @ Sep 16 2008, 09:33 PM) *
Bartender, I'm having whatever these guys are having! cool.gif


Meet me in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe mate and I'll stand you one wink.gif


--------------------
Get your music professionally mastered by anl AES registered Mastering Engineer. Contact me for Audio Mastering Services and Advice and visit our website www.miromastering.com

Be friends on facebook with us here.

We use professional, mastering grade hardware in our mastering studo. Our hardware includes:
Cranesong Avocet II Monitor Controller, Dangerous Music Liasion Insert Hardware Router, ATC SCM Pro Monitors, Lavry Black DA11, Prism Orpheus ADC/DAC, Gyratec Gyraf XIV Parallel Passive Mastering EQ, Great River MAQ 2NV Mastering EQ, Kush Clariphonic Parallel EQ Shelf, Maselec MLA-2 Mastering Compressor, API 2500 Mastering Compressor, Eventide Eclipse Reverb/Echo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blindwillie
post Sep 17 2008, 07:44 AM
Post #70


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.533
Joined: 28-March 07
From: Luleå, Sweden
Member No.: 1.434



Haha! You guys are crazy. Or at least one of us is crazy and it might not be any of you... smile.gif

Thanks Tony. Very interesting sum up.
You guys have studied stuff. Whish I had as these things interest me, but I'm just trying to use my own twisted logic.
I've heard about some of the guys you mention, some not. I've heard the general talk about Einsteins theories but never studied them.
Just trying to make my own conclusions.
My take is that Einstein was on to something but some conclusions are just too far fetched. Either he is not telling us everything or he is missing important pieces.
Some things that disturbs me are speed of light, is it constant or not? I doubt it is.
Time. What is time?

After Andrew's post I started to think (leaving the philosophical aspects aside for now) of time as an attribute of every existing object. Just like mass, speed, energy and such. Something that reminds of electromagnetical fields in it's nature. When two objects interact their "timefields" flow through each other and effects both objects. Have to think more about that.

The philosophic side then.
We can't interact with time. We can only observe and experience a fraction of time. Time is always (and never?). Something like the river you talked about. If we move away really fast from earth we could observe another part of time because of the "slowness" of lights speed. The "denseness" of light "thins" out with distance because it radiates from one point and spreads in all directions so the same amount of light occupies a bigger space. Just like a gas, or magnetism. Does time "thin" out?

So, is there different kinds of time? That too was a new one to me.
I'm not sure of that. We sure percieve time differently.
The other types of time, apart from the clock time, yes, we percieve them but do the exist? And if they do, is it time? Maybe we need other names for them because they represent something completly different? Hard to say since I haven't defined the concept "Time" yet smile.gif Clock time is just our attempt to understand and measure time but how do we measure something we don't know the nature or characteristics of? What properties and rules that apply to it?
We can only look at a piece of time (that have already passed) and say "Hey! Look! That was one second!".
Is clock time an attemt to measure aging/decay/changes? You where talking about something similar too earlier?

Things that make me go "Hmmmm..." tongue.gif

If I ever meet you Micke I'll mix up a grogg for you and we'll have a blast. biggrin.gif

/edit: "volume" didn't feel right. replaced it with "denseness".

This post has been edited by blindwillie: Sep 17 2008, 07:51 AM


--------------------

Schecter C1 Hellraiser EMG 81/85, replaced with JB/Jazz (SH4/SH2n) w. coilsplit
Schecter Revenger HB-105, replaced with EMG 81/85
Stratocaster Deluxe Players Noiseless
Ibanez 2550z
Blackstar HT5H, Blackheart BH5H w. BH112, Laney LX35D, Line6 Pod XT, Marshall MS-2
Headphones: Sennheiser RS120

Stay tuned...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jesse
post Sep 17 2008, 08:20 AM
Post #71


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.348
Joined: 5-July 08
From: Enschede/overijssel/Nederland
Member No.: 5.426



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 04:49 PM) *
Muris has a good read.

I figured this out yesterday. I think this is interesting. A person should really try to understand Relativity before that other stuff. Actually I think you have to look at a lot of it mathematically, no other way.

I never fully understood why you could not go faster than the the speed of light. Why the equation E=mc^2 implied you approach infinite mass when you do so. Turns out, the equation does not imply that. Einstein went back to Newton mechanics for that. Maybe some math guy out here will say "elementary my dear fkalich" but I find this interesting. An object's energy in E=mc^2 does not mean just nuclear energy. It means all energy, ncluding Kinetic. I had assumed E was just nuclear energy. I expect most others also have that false assumption.

The key is this formula which tells you that as speed approaches infinity, the Kinetic energy approaches infinity. E_k = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}} - m c^2 .


So going back to E=mc^2, we flip that around, m= E/c^2. Well as we approach the speed of light, we know from above the E goes to infinity, so M must also go to infinity.

What always threw me was the speed of light (c^2) in the formula. It has no significance here at all for that equation, it is a constant, and just is ignored as you go to infinity. No matter how big, the biggest number you can imagine is insignificant as you approach infinity.

Now I was trying to figure out why gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. General Relativity is grounded in that. Turns out nobody knows, it is not a matter of theory. It is an assumption, because that is just the way it always appears. Einstein just assumed it.

I read a lot on this kind of thing. Books. Wikipedia helps to supplement this. Probably nothing bad happens in the next few years. But the time may come. I don't trust scientists like most people seem to. Anymore than politicians or anyone else. I think that confidence is misplaced. You can't always count on a whistle blower to show up.


Someone above said they don't believe in parallel universes. See, the concept of space itself is just connected with matter. Without matter, there is no space. It is not like there is this space and all this matter in it like a box. Space is tied to matter, without matter, there is no space. In the beginning with the singularity, what was there? You can't even say there was nothing. This stuff gets real weird. I am just speculating here, but I don't think we would think of them exactly as parallel. That is probably a bad term for it. Matter creates its own space. That does not mean 2 Universes are side by side in a spacial sense. I would think that on this level, the laws of physics as we know them all break down, you can't look at these things in terms of the laws of physics that rule our universe. At least that seems reasonable to me. Just be glad anti-fkalich has not joined GMC forum.
You probably know what Im gonna say HOLY *********


--------------------
Don't just play it. Feel it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Sep 17 2008, 08:51 AM
Post #72


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Sep 16 2008, 11:03 AM) *
This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.



this thread is getting hard. I was reading Tony below and I am taking a brain break to ask a question. This throws me. Ok, as in the thought experiment. A person is on a moving train, and a beam a flashlight is turned on at the other end of the car. Someone else on the ground with the train approaching. When the beam of light reaches the guy on the train, it will have traveled a shorter distance than it will have traveled from the perspective of the person standing off the train. As the speed of light is a constant, this implies that time has slowed down for the guy on the train, relative to the guy off the train. So time slows for those moving relatively faster.

But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?

QUOTE (blindwillie @ Sep 17 2008, 01:44 AM) *
but some conclusions are just too far fetched. Either he is not telling us everything or he is missing important pieces.
Some things that disturbs me are speed of light, is it constant or not? I doubt it is.
Time. What is time?


I used to do what you are doing there. It made some studies difficult for me, I would get stuck. Relativity has been shown to be correct in the universe. It works. It explains things. It is a model that always takes you to the right place. That is the way you have to look at it. It does not explain things on the sub atomic level. Quantum physics does that. And that is just as strange. In that the Quantum model electrons move from spot to spot but in doing so, they do not pass between the two spots. It would be like you moving yourself from the chair to the sofa, but never being on the floor. Just you vanish from the sofa, and you are then in the chair. These theories sound strange but observations confirm them to explain things.

Today Physicists are trying to unify the two theories. Well some feel they have. But up to now, they have no evidence that they are correct. They hope that the new experiments we have talked about will give them some answers.

But the point is, General Relativity and Quantum Physics all give correct answers in the real world. That is just the way it is. Nobody has yet come up with anything to show them to be incorrect. Of course somebody will. Just as up to a certain time, Newtonian laws were not disproved by anything.

Theories are not reality, they are our best explanation of reality. Which is what I was getting at and Tony was also saying, one day we will find out that we did not understand things as well as we think we do, and we may find that out the hard way at some future date.


QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 05:24 PM) *
Anyway - it's up to you what, if anything you take from the above. I'm just summarising, paraphrasing and simplifying. My main point is that in philosophy, unlike science, there is more than a single unified concept of time and these have not been adequately addressed by science.


you made me work, but very interesting. time to get out wikipedia and read more on some of that stuff. my oldest brother was into all that, so I heard all the names, and read a bit, but wikipedia is great for the lazy guy, some articles are quite good.

I don't disagree on the time thing. I doubt relativity has a firm hold on that forever, and that eventually man will discover that, no, it was not that simple, just as they did with Newton. I say simple tongue in cheek. A person has to either be a serious math guy, or work hard at it to understand Relativity. A lot of Physicists never bought into it. And Einstein never bought into Quantum theory, even though it was experimentally consistently correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blindwillie
post Sep 17 2008, 10:03 AM
Post #73


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.533
Joined: 28-March 07
From: Luleå, Sweden
Member No.: 1.434



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 09:51 AM) *
this thread is getting hard. I was reading Tony below and I am taking a brain break to ask a question. This throws me. Ok, as in the thought experiment. A person is on a moving train, and a beam a flashlight is turned on at the other end of the car. Someone else on the ground with the train approaching. When the beam of light reaches the guy on the train, it will have traveled a shorter distance than it will have traveled from the perspective of the person standing off the train. As the speed of light is a constant, this implies that time has slowed down for the guy on the train, relative to the guy off the train. So time slows for those moving relatively faster.

But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?


This is getiing fun, hehe.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Stuff like the above quote makes me go "Iiiiik! This doesn't compute!"
Another thought experiment, which Andrew inspired, and now it gets heavy:
In any given moment everything is moving at the speed of light. This makes sense in another way. There will always in any given time be light moving away from the place we are. From where we view ourselves. Even if we percieve we are not moving, relatively we are. We can change viewpoint and look at ourselves from the particle moving away from us or from a planet besides us and we will percieve that it is us moving away from the particle at the speed of light.

Now.
If, by that, everything is constantly moving through space at the speed of light, what is speed? Everything is moving at the same speed. If so we could define a new "origo" for speed and say speed of light is "Speed 0", the reference. Since speed of light is constant (?) it confirms that everything is moving at Speed 0. Since everything then moves at Speed 0, the same for everything, what is speed? You can't deviate from Speed 0 since the speed of light, Speed 0, is constant.

There is no need for speed!

/edit: Forgot to sum this up:
Would that make speed just a one dimensional vector giving a direction?
Speed could be measured as angles?

This post has been edited by blindwillie: Sep 17 2008, 10:12 AM


--------------------

Schecter C1 Hellraiser EMG 81/85, replaced with JB/Jazz (SH4/SH2n) w. coilsplit
Schecter Revenger HB-105, replaced with EMG 81/85
Stratocaster Deluxe Players Noiseless
Ibanez 2550z
Blackstar HT5H, Blackheart BH5H w. BH112, Laney LX35D, Line6 Pod XT, Marshall MS-2
Headphones: Sennheiser RS120

Stay tuned...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saoirse O'Shea
post Sep 17 2008, 10:59 AM
Post #74


Moderator - low level high stakes
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 6.173
Joined: 27-June 07
From: Espania - Cadiz province
Member No.: 2.194



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 07:51 AM) *
... As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?

...


One response - and it's the one leveled by Bergson to Einstein - is that Einstein's General Relativity Theory isn't relative enough. (Bergson was a contemporary of Einstein and the two exchanged views.) To whit your example fkalich underscores the Lorentz transformation paradox (the one about twins where one goes off in a faster than light spaceship and the other remains on earth so the two age at different rates...) Bergson's contention is that Einstein implicitly preferences one twin in order to demonstrate the paradox. In so doing he isn't relative enough as neither should be preferenced and hypostasised. For full relativity there is no preference and no objectified position from which to observe the paradox from within Time. The accusation is of course that Einstein slides into science's paradigm of a belief in objectivity. For Bergson the only fulcrum from which to observe objectively exists outside Time - a transcendental position held only by God and not one that we can adopt.

That there is no objective position within Time in order to study it rather implies that 'subjective time' and 'clock/scientific time' are at best minimal abstractions of Time. At worst a human conceit and nothing to do with Time at all. In either case you can't get to a better understanding of Time using either concept as your ground. Thus one conclusion we might draw from this is that we really don't know anything (much) about Time - hence all the on-going arguments, debates and theories wink.gif . Doesn't however stop us trying though smile.gif.

An understanding of Time becomes a major issue (at least within philosophy) given Heidegger's contention that Time operates as the originary ground of Being. And this is why, despite all the problems with trying to understand Time, it is important that we attempt to understand It - we know nothing fundamental of ourselves without reference to Time even though we don't understand Time (So as Sartre said 'Man is an empty passion') . If you want to understand, at least phenomenologically, what being is then it requires passim an attempt to understand what grounds Being. To uncover/reveal - or more precisely to allow Time to reveal itself and appear - requires (phenomenologically) that we do not impose upon it our conceits. In that sense we should not presume what Time is but allow it to reveal itself in its own terms and only from that givenness may we then aperceive Time. Bleh, horrible, dense stuff this bit - very reliant on Husserl, Heidegger and even Jean-luc Marion - and as such pretty opaque. An over simplification is that what we think is Time carries all of our prejudices and beliefs and really is thus only our prejudices and beliefs rather than what Time is - we are so blind that we cannot see.

Interestingly there have been somewhat of a resurgence of interest in Bergson in the last decade both within philosophy and in some areas of science. Some cosmologists have gone so far as to revisit the Lorentz issue and also argue for a relativity theory beyond Einstein's that in many aspects are pretty close to Bergson.

Again I'm over simplifying and perhaps distorting the argument somewhat as it's many years since I 'read' either science or philosophy properly.

Cheers,
Tony


--------------------
Get your music professionally mastered by anl AES registered Mastering Engineer. Contact me for Audio Mastering Services and Advice and visit our website www.miromastering.com

Be friends on facebook with us here.

We use professional, mastering grade hardware in our mastering studo. Our hardware includes:
Cranesong Avocet II Monitor Controller, Dangerous Music Liasion Insert Hardware Router, ATC SCM Pro Monitors, Lavry Black DA11, Prism Orpheus ADC/DAC, Gyratec Gyraf XIV Parallel Passive Mastering EQ, Great River MAQ 2NV Mastering EQ, Kush Clariphonic Parallel EQ Shelf, Maselec MLA-2 Mastering Compressor, API 2500 Mastering Compressor, Eventide Eclipse Reverb/Echo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OrganisedConfusi...
post Sep 17 2008, 11:08 AM
Post #75


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5.635
Joined: 29-November 07
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 3.401



I'm a huge fan of fringe science. I read about stuff into it all the time. Nanotechnology is really interesting also.

I eat fast food a lot also but I don't care what I eat to be honest as I get lots of exercise. I have fast food 3 days a week and healthy home cooked meals the other 4 days with fresh ingredients. When I go to stay in London my relatives own an allotment so I get really fresh veg smile.gif


--------------------
Gear
Guitars:- Caparison Horus Snowcloud, Parker Nitefly M, Parker Nitefly SA, Gibson SG, Parker P10e, 40 Year Old Spanish Acoustic
Amps:- Framus Ruby Riot 2x12" stack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unreal
post Sep 17 2008, 11:50 AM
Post #76


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 25-February 08
From: Innsbruck, Austria
Member No.: 4.374



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 09:51 AM) *
But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?


I think the very trick about resolving this paradox is, that clocks cannot be simply compared when they move with respect to each other. To make a real clock comparison (in the sense that we are used to in everyday life), the two guys have to be at rest to each other, that means, the train has to stop at some point again.
Here comes the crucial point: velocities are relative, meaning, nobody can say 'i am at rest and the other is not', but accelerations are something absolute, because they go along with a force. And these accelerations are different for the guy in the train and for the guy on the ground, and they distinguish them, and lead ultimately to the 'younger twin' who was on the train.
So while the train is going, either of the two guys is right about saying: the clock of my brother/sister twin is going slower than mine, but at that time the clock times are just not comparable, they are only comparable when the clocks are at rest with respect to each other, and then the paradox is resolved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Sep 17 2008, 04:31 PM
Post #77


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (unreal @ Sep 17 2008, 05:50 AM) *
I think the very trick about resolving this paradox is, that clocks cannot be simply compared when they move with respect to each other. To make a real clock comparison (in the sense that we are used to in everyday life), the two guys have to be at rest to each other, that means, the train has to stop at some point again.
Here comes the crucial point: velocities are relative, meaning, nobody can say 'i am at rest and the other is not', but accelerations are something absolute, because they go along with a force. And these accelerations are different for the guy in the train and for the guy on the ground, and they distinguish them, and lead ultimately to the 'younger twin' who was on the train.
So while the train is going, either of the two guys is right about saying: the clock of my brother/sister twin is going slower than mine, but at that time the clock times are just not comparable, they are only comparable when the clocks are at rest with respect to each other, and then the paradox is resolved.


Excellent! So you are saying we can look at it as one or the other is impacted by force, in an absolute sense. experiencing acceleration, and thus change in relative velocity. That moves me ahead.

I am not sure about the not being able to compare clocks unless they are at rest. Take for example, a space ship going very fast to a spot in space. . It radios back to earth the time. Now since the speed of the waves is a constant, earth will be able to figure the time it takes the waves to travel to them (knowing the distance), so can compare it to earth clocks.




QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 17 2008, 04:59 AM) *
One response - and it's the one leveled by Bergson to Einstein - is that Einstein's General Relativity Theory isn't relative enough. (Bergson was a contemporary of Einstein and the two exchanged views.) To whit your example fkalich underscores the Lorentz transformation paradox (the one about twins where one goes off in a faster than light spaceship and the other remains on earth so the two age at different rates...) Bergson's contention is that Einstein


good stuff, including the things I don't show. I am going to look further into the names you mention.

even though I sort of get the explaining from "unreal", still, I get what you are saying. It goes back to maybe the theory works for our needs so far, and we can't it not working, that does not mean we have a final answer.

QUOTE (OrganisedConfusion @ Sep 17 2008, 05:08 AM) *
I'm a huge fan of fringe science. I read about stuff into it all the time. Nanotechnology is really interesting also.

I eat fast food a lot also but I don't care what I eat to be honest as I get lots of exercise. I have fast food 3 days a week and healthy home cooked meals the other 4 days with fresh ingredients. When I go to stay in London my relatives own an allotment so I get really fresh veg smile.gif


I eat something with more fat content maybe once a day. Basically I keep my intake of things under the US FDA recommended allowances for fats, saturated fats and salt. You blow by those so fast with fast food. But once in awhile I pig out. I don't worry so much about cholosterial intake, as my understanding is you don't need to, ingesting it is not really a problem, your body does not just store it. It creates it due to fats, especially saturated fats (or trans fats, always be on the lookout for those).

I exercise also, but that does not work forever, when you reach a certain age.

Also, there is sort of a good feeling you get from denying yourself. People used to do that. They would not eat all the time, and you would see old movies of people really getting hungry, and then eating dinner. But today we tend to just eat whenever we feel like it, or snack, and never really experience that. There is something to be said for denying yourself a bit like that, as people used to before plentiful snacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sigma7
post Sep 17 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #78


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.310
Joined: 17-April 08
From: Rhode Island USA
Member No.: 4.917



i am confused haha


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unreal
post Sep 18 2008, 07:59 AM
Post #79


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 25-February 08
From: Innsbruck, Austria
Member No.: 4.374



QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 05:31 PM) *
I am not sure about the not being able to compare clocks unless they are at rest. Take for example, a space ship going very fast to a spot in space. . It radios back to earth the time. Now since the speed of the waves is a constant, earth will be able to figure the time it takes the waves to travel to them (knowing the distance), so can compare it to earth clocks.

What I mean by 'not being able to compare clocks' is that for the guy in the space ship as well as for the guy on earth it will seem that the clock of the respective other person will be slower than their own clock. So they could argue forever about who is right, and both are.
Of course one can always compare clocks, but when the clocks are moving with respect to each other, the 'absolute' question 'whose clock is slower now' does not make sense, that question always has to be asked from some observer's position which can be moving or not with respect to either or both of the clocks. At least the theory of relativity doesn't give us an answer to that question. But you have answered this issue in your example already, when you said it could be compared to _earth_ clocks, taking the observer's position on earth.
Hope this makes sense, otherwise correct me please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Sep 18 2008, 10:22 AM
Post #80


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (unreal @ Sep 18 2008, 01:59 AM) *
What I mean by 'not being able to compare clocks' is that for the guy in the space ship as well as for the guy on earth it will seem that the clock of the respective other person will be slower than their own clock. So they could argue forever about who is right, and both are.
Of course one can always compare clocks, but when the clocks are moving with respect to each other, the 'absolute' question 'whose clock is slower now' does not make sense, that question always has to be asked from some observer's position which can be moving or not with respect to either or both of the clocks. At least the theory of relativity doesn't give us an answer to that question. But you have answered this issue in your example already, when you said it could be compared to _earth_ clocks, taking the observer's position on earth.
Hope this makes sense, otherwise correct me please.


I would not correct you. good responses. as you know, it is something you can go on and on with.

On the subject of unforeseen consequences, I was reading about telepathic sub atomic particles, which nobody understands, how they communicate with each other over distances instantaneously, so speed of light limit does not apply. And the mystery of all this, and it just reinforced my view that as man continues to push the envelope, he is bound sooner or later to step on a time bomb that he did not even know was out there.

Here is a good example, this one man is responsible for more environmental damage than is imaginable of one person, both the ozone destruction, and the high concentration of lead in the air we breath. I wonder if the fact that all of us are breathing 400 times the concentration of lead that man used to breath, and the Alzheimer's epidemic are connected. I have not read anything on it, but it is not like they can run studies with controls, all of us are breathing it.
And even today, much of the world continues to use the fluorocarban's and lead in gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

I don't feel sorry for how this guy died, I think it was a fitting end, considering the destruction he caused.

edit: if anyone is interested in that link (some with more morbid curiosity might be) you have to cut and paste it. The forum software does not like something about the characters in the address. I may sound mean saying he met a fitting end, but I can't help it, the guy did so much damage to the earth.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Sep 18 2008, 10:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th January 2017 - 03:13 PM