Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 214 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#44917 - 08/22/12 02:42 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
the energy the laser absorbed from the molecule it was cooling ends up as heat in the laser cavity.


that would be a really neat trick orac !

so the absorbed energy that the atom absorbs from the photon is also absorbed by the laser cavity from the same photon?

how exactly does that work there orac?

in QM does absorb still mean absorb?

or does absorb mean bounce back through all the mirrors and splitters to the laser cavity , if thats even possible.

or does QM just transport the photon back inside the laser cavity?

beam me up scotty!


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#44918 - 08/22/12 02:54 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Usually in laser cooling the laser is simply bouncing off a mirror back into the laser cavity because otherwise you have a laser beam going off into space until it runs into something to absorb it which is hopefully not human flesh.

Netherless as I said if you want to one side the laser your photon absorbed the energy from your molecule and heads off into space.

It matters not that photon gained energy and has slightly more mass and it is still definitely in the universe so the molecule lost some mass the photon gained some mass the mass of the universe stayed constant.

You can't dance around it Paul nothing changes for the universe heat exchange does not change the mass of the universe because the energy stays in the universe.

Beginning to see how hard it is to change the mass of the universe, to do it I think you would have to prove that energy mass equivalence is wrong and that is a tough technical hurdle I can take you thru it if you want.


Edited by Orac (08/22/12 03:02 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44919 - 08/22/12 02:59 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
it must be pretty late there or pretty early , you should delete your last post and start over again tomorrow.

I cant understand it.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44920 - 08/22/12 03:08 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
usually a laser cooling setup looks like this


LASER MODULE ========== MOLECULE ========== MIRROR

So any energy picked up by photons from laser ends up back in the laser cavity. We do this for obvious safety reasons.


I assume you objection is because you want to cool like this


LASER MODULE =========== MOLECULE ============> OUT TO SPACE


From a universe perspective it makes no difference.

In the lower example the photon goes past the molecule takes some energy from the molecule and therefore your molecule lost mass.

However your photon picked up energy and is continuing out into space with that extra energy it therefore gained mass.

From the universe perspective a molecule lost some mass a photon gained some mass the mass of the universe did not change at all.

You can take the process out as big and complex as you like so long as you can't lose heat or energy outside the universe by energy mass equivalence the universe mass remains static and constant.

You said you accepted the mass energy equivalence so therefore you are as they say "stuffed" because the only way you can now make the universe mass change is by losing or gaining energy outside the universe.


Edited by Orac (08/22/12 03:28 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44921 - 08/22/12 04:29 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Socratus unlike others you have at least made efforts to read and understand.
So lets see if I can get you a bit futher along.

Lubos Motl did a really good article on why quantum mechanics
has to be complex and linear. It has some heavy mathematics
but the mathematics is not essential to the understanding.

Read around the mathematics and see if you can follow the
science logic of how and why QM works.

The last few paragraphs spell it out for you very neatly
and concisely.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/why-quantum-mechanics-has-to-be-complex.html

Feel free to ask about anything you don't get.


The author of
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/why-quantum-mechanics-has-to-be-complex.htm
try to explain:
Why real numbers aren't good enough in QT
(in Schrödinger's equation, Feynman's path integral,
and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ) .
Why pure imaginary numbers are needed in QT
Why complex numbers are fundamental in physics .

This is another specific theme.
==.
P.S.
As regarding imaginary numbers I agree with G. Leibniz,
who wrote in 1702 that
‘ Imaginary numbers are beautiful and wonderful asylum
of divine spirit almost amphibian of genesis with non genesis’.
==.


Edited by socratus (08/22/12 04:31 AM)

Top
#44923 - 08/22/12 04:58 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
See socratus the real science answers maybe not as scary to religion as you may think.

As scientists we don't know why we end up in the world of imaginary numbers for Quantum Mechanics and we can't make the real world translations using real numbers and we can't make the world solid no matter what our eyes and senses tell us.

You are at least reading and attempting to understand what the science evidence says which as humans is all we can do.

The next post I am about to supersize Paul's problem and show him the real background to universal mass it may interest you.

If you follow the logic you will understand as physicists it is dam hard to change the mass of the universe and why we say the universe can't have infinite mass or infinite energy it most definitely has to be finite.

The gotcha for me as a scientist is if the mass of the universe can't be change where the hell did the mass we now see come from.

So perhaps there is a god and he made the universe with approximately 3E54 Kg of mass that is one possible answer that is entirely consistant with science.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44924 - 08/22/12 05:11 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Okay Paul I am going to supersize your problem.

I am hoping you realize our sun sheds mass every second to make the light and radiation we take for granted in it's fusion reaction.

Infact from survey we know it consumes around 4 million metric tons of matter per second. So the sun is getting lighter by 4 million metric tons every second and will eventually burn out and collapse.

So you say the sun is changing mass therefore that is definite proof that the universe is changing mass in this case by 4 million metric tons per second.

NO ... run around collect all the energy and radiation it spews per second and you would find it weighs exactly 4 million metric tons by energy mass equivelance.

The universe has the exact same mass your sun got lighter and there is some mass thrown off into wider space but nothing from a total universe perspective changed.

So a slightly unorthodox but not incorrect way to view a sun is a stellar body that spews part of its mass constantly out into the universe.

Hopefully by now you are seeing just how hard it is going to be to change the mass of the universe because energy or mass is going to have to enter or leave the universe.

The big issue for science which I can not answer is where the energy/matter we see today came from because we can't just make the stuff and that is the real problem for science not some hangup you have with some concept of infinite mass.


Edited by Orac (08/22/12 05:16 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44929 - 08/22/12 06:59 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
LASER FIRES PHOTON---------->ATOM ABSORBS PHOTON

atom absorbs photon because of frequency / wavelength same.
if photon wavelength not same atom wavelength, photon bounce off.

the atom has absorbed the kinetic energy of the photon.
the photon looses its kinetic energy to the atom.

as a result of the atom absorbing the kinetic energy of the photon, the kinetic energy of the atom is reduced and the atom slows down.

because atom go slow , atom cool.

-----PHOTON-------><-------ATOM-----

that's pretty clear , we dont need some law trying to change that reality.

laws in the hands of some people can cause accidents.
mostly because logic is required to properly use those laws
and logic is a not a tool that everyone has.

most people just know how to read the laws
but they don't know how to apply those same laws.
yet they are constantly harping about the words in the laws.
and how the laws cant be violated when they see or read
something that their amount of logic cannot comprehend.

its just a collision , orac.

nothing more than that.
no reason to invoke laws.
or get concerned about law violations.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44930 - 08/22/12 07:39 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul and Orac. I'm beginning to wonder if each of you has lost sight of what the other is really saying.

Here's a suggestion: You each have 50 words in which to say exactly what your point is. If you still disagree, keep going; if not, flogging a dead horse comes to mind once again. frown
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#44931 - 08/22/12 07:54 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I thought up a simple example.

in space where there is no gravity.

two bullets traveling towards each other.

they each have a mass of 2 kg

if they did not have motion their mass would be 1 kg each.

because they have motion their combined mass is 4 kg

when they collide they stick to each other and all of the
kinetic energy is lost.

the two bullets are now stuck together but are motionless.

they now have a combined mass of 2 kg.

2 kg mass was lost because the kinetic energy was lost.

thats pretty easy to see.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44933 - 08/22/12 10:46 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
the two bullets are now stuck together but are motionless.

they now have a combined mass of 2 kg.

2 kg mass was lost because the kinetic energy was lost.

thats pretty easy to see.


Yes Paul, the 2 bullets lost their kinetic energy. However, the energy of the universe didn't change, because the kinetic energy was converted to heat, which was then radiated away. The total energy is the same.

An example. Did you ever hit something hard and solid, say a nail, with a hammer? Try it and then feel the spot that you hit. The spot will be warmer, and the place on the hammer head will be warmer. That is the energy that was the kinetic energy of the hammer.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#44934 - 08/23/12 12:47 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
thank you Bill.

I was wondering when someone would realize that and
say something , because that's the stopper.

think of the universe as being the atom.

if the universe were to slow like the atom slowed.

the kinetic energy would be lost.

if all motion in the universe stopped for any reason
then all the kinetic energy in the universe would be
lost and only the base state energies would remain.

the universe could not transfer heat to something if there were
no other universes close to this universe.

so the mass of the universe is not finite.

unless this is wrong...

Quote:
the relativistic mass is greater than the rest mass by an amount equal to the mass associated with the kinetic energy of the object. As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass grows infinitely, because the kinetic energy grows infinitely and this energy is associated with mass.


perhaps kinetic energy isnt really energy.
so mass should not be associated with motion (kinetic energy).

and therefore >c is achievable...

and that would nix the E=mc^2 bit


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44937 - 08/23/12 01:55 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul

perhaps kinetic energy isnt really energy.
so mass should not be associated with motion (kinetic energy).

If kinetic energy isn't really energy then if I hit you with a baseball traveling at about 10 miles an hour and then throw it again at 100 miles an hour you won't even notice the difference.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#44939 - 08/23/12 02:34 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Okay Paul it's not important how we got there you have realized the important bit so long as you accept energy mass equivalence (E=MC2) you are stuffed the mass of the universe is constant.

From science point of view we accept it so for us we don't care if there is no matter and no kinetic energy in the universe (so everything is all energy) or the universe is a solid compact not moving brick (so no visible energy) or anthing in between he mass of the universe because E=MC2 is EXACTLY the same.

Now you are saying that you don't accept E=MC2 or energy/mass equivalence then knock yourself out have an infinite universe.

In future if you get involved in discussion don't get involved about kinetic energy and mass and examples just simply say I don't accept E=MC2 and therefore .......(explain away)

I never understood your want to make the universe infinite and any intimation that science says that is a lie it explicitly says the opposite and that was my argument with Socratus.

Travelling around the universe and whether we can observe the entire universe is another issue entirely and in those cases the universe can most definitely become infinite for science.

However observation is always pragmatic do you know what is happening specfically on the other side of the world right this second, a meteor could have just impacted and removed a huge chunk right now.

Personally I think the enery/mass equivalence or conservation of energy which are really the same thing is real and exists for a very good reason it stops a universe spawning more and more mass or creating more and more energy and going into a chaotic runaway.

From a science perspective I often wonder are there certain defined sizes of universes like size of suns with particular physics that match the size. I know in your religious background such thought is probably forbidden but it is fun to theorise.

I still find it interesting that being religious you want an infinite universe rather than god "imprisoning" humans in a fixed spacetime. I use imprision because I am sorry with my english I don't know a better word.

Can I ask what is the appeal of infinite over a god enforced box?


Edited by Orac (08/23/12 02:35 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44940 - 08/23/12 02:52 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
unless this is wrong...
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44941 - 08/23/12 02:53 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
unless this is wrong...


I didnt say it was wrong , I said unless!!

its pretty easy to see that if a single atom can be slowed
then the universe can also be slowed.

so the mass of the universe is not constant , because if
the mass of the universe slows then its kinetic energy has decreased.

so your ranting serves no real purpose except to stuff yourself.

mass is not constant!

Quote:
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change


the system must be isolated / closed in order for mass to remain constant!

but here is something very interesting for you to think about.

suppose you were at the periphery of the universe.
and in your hand there was a flashlight.

you shine the flashlight outside the universe.

does the light go beyond the periphery?

you throw the flashlight beyond what you think is the barrier, what happens?

do you break down and cry if there really is no barrier
or do you just learn to live with it.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44943 - 08/23/12 04:04 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

its pretty easy to see that if a single atom can be slowed
then the universe can also be slowed.

so the mass of the universe is not constant , because if
the mass of the universe slows then its kinetic energy has decreased.


This is a very old argument called the bucket argument goes back to 16th century.

Ready here we go its a classic 3D argument.

If the universe is moving laterally into what and around in what is it moving ... your universe is therefore not complete and there is a universe that is larger than your universe. This is called a translation in 3D terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry))

If I can translate the universe by definition it can't be infinite because there is somethng bigger into which it is moving.

The universe can however be spining or as we say in 3D it has a rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(geometry))

If you look at the top right picture if you rotate about any other point other than the centre you universe has to rotate into something bigger than the universe so your universe is therefore not infinite.

So there is only one movement of an infinite universe possible and that is to rotate about a perfect centre point.

Here is the bucket argument and it essentially answers your problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument


The answer you come out with is if the universe is spinning the energy from an outside frame of reference may indeed be different but from within the reference frame it is fixed and agreed by all observers.

Ergo: If you have an outside reference frame the universe is therefore not infinite and from within a finite spinning universe all motions and therefore kinetic energy is agreed on by all observers.


Originally Posted By: paul

so your ranting serves no real purpose except to stuff yourself.


I am not sure why you get so upset and heated about what is nothing more than a simple discussion. I am not trying to upset you or anything these are very historic and long settled science concepts and arguments.


Originally Posted By: paul

mass is not constant!


Unless you can isolate a reference frame outside the universe than from a reference within the universe it has to be constant. As discussed if you can find a reference outside the universe then the universe by definition is not infinite.

Originally Posted By: Paul

the system must be isolated / closed in order for mass to remain constant!


The universe by your definition has to be closed otherwise there is something outside the universe and it can not be infinite. Anything that is infinite has to be closed because there is nothing outside it.


Originally Posted By: Paul

but here is something very interesting for you to think about.

suppose you were at the periphery of the universe.
and in your hand there was a flashlight.

you shine the flashlight outside the universe.

does the light go beyond the periphery?

you throw the flashlight , what happens?


Again this is a very old and historic argument and the answer is very simple you can't do it space is a 3D manifold it has no edges :-)

In a 2D sense try finding the edge of earth in the dark ages you could sail off the edge of earth you know :-)


Originally Posted By: paul

do you break down and cry if there really is no barrier
or do you just learn to live with it.


Again I ask why all the emotion these are very basic science and logic discussions there is nothing really at stake here.

I am a very logical person if you have a sound logical argument you can convince me I have no ideological or religious reason to believe what I do it is simply based on the facts and logic.

You still havent answered the question why is an infinite universe so important to you? I have explained E=MC2 is why the argument is important to science.

All arguments involving an infinite universe always break down under logic surely you have got that by now.

If we go back to your statement which is at the heart of your argument.

Originally Posted By: paul

its pretty easy to see that if a single atom can be slowed
then the universe can also be slowed.


To slow the atom we exchanged energy outside the atom but inside the universe to slow our movement in the universe. To slow a car we exchange energy outside a car but within the universe to slow our movement in the universe.

Logic tells you to slow a universe you must exchange energy outside the universe and within what???? to slow our movement within what ??????

Can a universe that is within the what???? be infinite and that is the very bottom of logic of this argument.

I have been consistant with you all along if you can exchange energy outside the universe you can have what you want and as I said above just say that don't try and find examples because you are going to struggle because as scientists we have been unable to find any examples of what you want no matter how hard we look. Our law is based on observation and logic not because we like the idea or anything and it leaves us with a nasty problem how the hell did the universe get here. Bill Gill and I would love the idea the law of conservation of energy is wrong but unfortunately for now we have to accept it.


Edited by Orac (08/23/12 05:12 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44946 - 08/23/12 02:06 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
LOL

Quote:
All arguments involving an infinite universe always break down under logic surely you have got that by now.


Im sorry your logic is illogical.

every thing in the universe has a periphery , so logic dictates that the universe also has a periphery.

illogical thinking would be needed to claim otherwise.

Quote:
To slow the atom we exchanged energy outside the atom but inside the universe to slow our movement in the universe.


sorry once again , the atom absorbed the energy of the photon.
I keep telling you that and the video explains that quite well.

once the photon strikes the atom the photon does not bounce off.

the kinetic energy of the photon is absorbed by the atom , this is why the person who is performing the process / experiment in the video states that
when the atom is hit by the photon the atom becomes excited.

the kinetic energy of the photon is transferred to the atom.

the kinetic energy does not move away from the atom or outside the chamber it is absorbed by the atom.

kinetic energy is nothing but the motion of an object.

and it is this kinetic energy that excites the atom.

its needless to say that atoms dont just get excited over nothing.

so the energy of the photon moves into the atom , before the impact the atom has an amount of kinetic energy and the photon has an amount of kinetic energy.

after the impact the amount of kinetic energy that the atom has is less , its like 2-1=1


poential energy and kinetic energy really are not forms of energy.

just like oil and coal and wind and the sun are not forms of energy.


a 100 kg weight dangling from a string has potential energy but no kinetic energy.

if the string is cut then

that 100 kg weight has both potential and kinetic energy
the entire length of its fall.

and until the 100kg weight impacts against another object
the 100kg weight will not lose any of its energy , however the faster it falls the greater its kinetic energy will be and at each moment during its fall its potential energy is increased.

using your logic , you could create energy by cutting the string.
and using your logic the energy of the impact is not absorbed by the earth that the weight impacts with , it is somehow magically transported to the ends of the universe.

your so worried about where the kinetic energy goes
let me ask you where does the 100kg weight get its extra energy from when the string is cut?

does it get magically transported from the far ends of
the universe?

because that is the reverse of your argument.

lets freeze that frame right now , before the string is cut.

during the freeze frame all the energy in the earth is now a certain amount.

as soon as the string is cut the total amount of energy in the earth is increased.

where did the energy come from?

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

when the atom absorbs the kinetic energy of the photon
the atom becomes more massive.

since the atom is now more massive the gravity between the outer shell of the atom and the nucleus becomes stronger.

this stronger gravity pulls in the surrounding particles
closer to the center of the atom causing the frequency of
the atom to decrease.

ie..the particles do not orbit the atom as fast.

so all the particles surrounding the nucleus of the atom
have moved inward slightly causing the overall size of the
atom to shrink.

the total energy of the atom has decreased and the total mass of the atom has increased thus the total gravity of the atom has increased.

where does the kinetic energy come from in the falling 100kg weight?

gravity!


what happens to the heat that is the result of the impact?

it is absorbed by the earth!

what happens to the heat that is the result of the photon that impacts the atom?

it is absorbed by the atom.

1)the photon strikes the atom.
2)the atom becomes more massive (the kinetic energy of the photon).
3)because the atom has become more massive its gravity increases.
4)the increased gravity draws the particles inwards to a lower orbit.
5)the atom slows down because the momentum of the atom is not enough to maintain the atoms current speed because the total mass has increased.
6)the atom cools because its speed has decreased.

the results are

the atom has more mass
the atom has more gravity
the atom has less kinetic energy
the atoms frequency has decreased



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44947 - 08/23/12 03:46 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
So there is only one movement of an infinite universe possible and that is to rotate about a perfect centre point.


If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating? Everything in the universe remains static relative to everything else.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#44948 - 08/23/12 04:36 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul


every thing in the universe has a periphery , so logic dictates that the universe also has a periphery.

illogical thinking would be needed to claim otherwise.


I am not going to explain that one you need to read because it requires thinking.

You can not sail off the edge of the world nor can you go to the edge of the universe there are no ends to the Universe, and all points within it are equal. There are no special points in space no edges and no ends becuase it is a 3D manifold and you need to read up on that.

The cosmic background radition would not be present and we would not have it with us if this was not so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation).

I am not going to explain this one too you because you treat everythign I try and teach and show you as hostile ... you need to read and follow the logic and proofs.



Quote:

sorry once again , the atom absorbed the energy of the photon.
I keep telling you that and the video explains that quite well.


And once again I explain to you the photon is not inside the atom it is outside it and a seperate entity.

Now lets change that situation the photon absorbs the energy and stays with atom can it slow it ... of coarse not you have to react with the outside world.

When you next in your car try jumping around, singing, sucking up vibration anything you want from inside the car that does not react with the outside world and tell me can you slow the car. You know you can't you have to put drag either onto the ground into the wind or some other thing outside the car to slow it.

The universe is no different to your car you can't slow it down from within the universe because any energy you exchange is still within the universe surely this is blatantly obvious.

You could slow the universe down assuming it was moving assuming you could exchange or react with things outside the universe.


Originally Posted By: paul

the kinetic energy of the photon is transferred to the atom.

the kinetic energy does not move away from the atom or outside the chamber it is absorbed by the atom.

kinetic energy is nothing but the motion of an object.

and it is this kinetic energy that excites the atom.

its needless to say that atoms dont just get excited over nothing.

so the energy of the photon moves into the atom , before the impact the atom has an amount of kinetic energy and the photon has an amount of kinetic energy.

after the impact the amount of kinetic energy that the atom has is less , its like 2-1=1


The keypoint you emit is the photon is also outside the atom that is and your words

>>> THE ENERGY LEFT THE ATOM IT WENT INTO THE PHOTON <<<.

How do you propose energy can leave the universe into where does it go it can't just disappear it didn't just disappear in you example above it left the thing that was slowing down.

SO TO SLOW THE UNIVERSE DOWN THE ENERGY GOES INTO ??????

Either
(A) the universe isn't infinite and the energy goes into the thing thats bigger than the universe
(B) you can't slow the universe down.

Choose (A) or (B) answer because there are no other choices


<SNIP>

I am going to ignore the bit about the 100Kg mass on the string because anyone who has gone to high school science level knows this stuff you have to be trolling.

Here is my troll back: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/flash_viewer.php?oid=1429&mid=46

And you are the gumby on the winch.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.