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 Now
0 members (), 298 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I expect that puts the cap on the discussion then.


then your expectations are too high.

Quote:
You accept that gravity exists because you see the evidence. You don't accept that space is expanding, because only scientists can verify the evidence.


yes , I accept that gravity exist , and the FORCE that
gravity places on the apple , is why the apple falls.

Quote:
You don't accept that space is expanding, because only scientists can verify the evidence.


of course not , I have never been presented with a shred
of evidence that shows how space is expanding
.

Quote:
because only scientists can verify the evidence


well then if scientist have verified the evidence that
space is expanding then perhaps you would be so kind as
to let us in on the tightly kept secret?

lets see the evidence !!!



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570


Interesting link, Orac. I struggled with this, though.

The answer to the question:

“If negative pressure is like tension, why doesn’t it pull things together rather than pushing them apart?”

is as follows:

“Sometimes you will hear something along the lines of “dark energy makes the universe accelerate because it has negative pressure.” This is strictly speaking true, but a bit ass-backwards; it gives the illusion of understanding rather than actual understanding. You are told “the force of gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure, so if the pressure is equal and opposite to the density, gravity is repulsive.” Seems sensible, except that nobody will explain to you why gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure. And it’s not really the “force of gravity” that depends on that; it’s the local expansion of space.
The “why doesn’t tension pull things together?” question is a perfectly valid one. The answer is: because dark energy doesn’t actually push or pull on anything. It doesn’t interact directly with ordinary matter, for one thing; for another, it’s equally distributed through space, so any pulling it did from one direction would be exactly balanced by an opposite pull from the other. It’s the indirect effect of dark energy, through gravity rather than through direct interaction, that makes the universe accelerate.
The real reason dark energy causes the universe to accelerate is because it’s persistent.”

Perhaps it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem to answer the question.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
If the dark energy has a constant density, but space expands, doesn’t that mean energy isn’t conserved?


Quote:
Yes. That’s fine.


LOL

Quote:
Does that mean that dark energy has negative pressure?


Quote:
Yes indeed. Negative pressure is what happens when a substance pulls rather than pushes — like an over-extended spring that pulls on either end. It’s often called “tension.” This is why I advocated smooth tension as a better name than “dark energy,” but I came in too late.


Bill S , I think its all the pulling together of everything by the dark energy that is pushing everything apart , its like bad is good these days , and orange is the new black , so
smart must be the new stupid.

in order to appear smart you must present yourself as
being someone who is stupid , and the stupider you can
present yourself to be , the smarter the other stupid smart people will think you are.

forest gump told us all about it , when he said

stupid is stupid does.

dark energy sounds a lot like gravity to me.

I guess the stupid are trying to lay claim on gravity now
but only the gravity that exist outside of galaxies and clusters.

how convenient for them.


I suppose the dark energy that pulls on everything causing everything to move away from everything does not
also pull on other dark energy or you would get clumps of even darker energy pulling on the smaller individual singularities of dark energy that are further away and they may eventually
form into a giant ball of darkness with dungeons and dragons
and the Dungeon master would roll the dice and cast spells on the real energy and cause it to also become dark , then lord cashmere pops in through the quanta portal and claims victory over all of everything in the new dark universe that the stupid have dreamed up in their spare time because they
dont really know squat about science or what science is all about so they get together and claim this and claim that and never ever show any tidbit of evidence to back any of it up.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Perhaps it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem to answer the question.


You are not alone Bill's smile

You might want to go back and revise our discussion of Energy and QM and you may notice there is a much much deeper problem in the answer given.

Part of the problem is Sean Carroll who runs the FAQ believes in a rather strange version of the many world's interpretation and even when he gives the answer in the classic sense it carries the heavy and arguable very wrong undertone. You might care to read Lubos tipping a bucket on poor Sean as a backdrop (http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/many-worlds-pseudoscience-again.html)

There is no consensus on the issue and even Einstein waivered on the issue because of it's implications and he did not even have all the information we have today.

Last edited by Orac; 07/07/14 10:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
WE CAN PROOVE / DISPROOVE THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING WE NEED MAKE EXPERIMENT

how ?

Inverse Square Law ( Intensity of the signal )



More far from place where signal started = lower intensity of signal
( "lower brightness" )
1R = X , 2R = X/4 , 3R = X/9
X- brightness, R- radius
the same energy portion but different area


IF SPACE EXPANDING WE SHOULD OBSERVE THAT ENERGY FROM MASTER SOURCE OF LIGHT IS NOT WORKING LIKE WE HAVE IN INVERSE SQUARE LAW ( EXPENDING SPACE SHOULD CHANGE INTENSITY OF THE SIGNAL THAT IS GOING INSIDE SPACE ) !!!

IF INVERSE SQUARE LAW IS WORKING WE NOT HAVE EXPANDING SPACE
SPACE THAT KEEP CONSTANT DENSITY WILL NOT CHANGE INTENSITY OF SIGNAL (EXPANSION should change electric's capacity of space - we schould observe different "not natural" ---> " INTENITY JUMP " JUMP and Intensity can be describe by function we can test expantion !!! )

Maciej Marian Marosz ( Poland ) 07/07/2014

If space is not expanding we schould measure below efect
Energy is going isotropy respect to point where wave started live

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dS-cUmBntzA/UoRVdV1-UdI/AAAAAAAABQQ/TF91UPHWIk8/s1600/1aaa.JPG

ABOVE POST = NOBEL PRIZE LEVEL !!!
NOBODY BEFORE ME TEST SPACE EXPANSION
http://tesla4.blogspot.com


**************************************
******************************************

below my test ( Inverse Sguare Law and Motion or Expantion or Fizeau problem )

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QAAvQuZjtmI/UOhDTjKm0uI/AAAAAAAAAbU/_g7IkKC_K00/s1600/8x.JPG

Discovery : brightness of pictures West and East are not the same
Reason ? Eart's Velocity 30 km/s = 30 000 000 mm/s
(NIKON 5000d remote start, zero outsite light ,stative, manual set ,
time 10s , F 8 , Iso 200 - /10 cm to bulb / filtre is important !!!)

first test inside AIR
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures
( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )

> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

proffesional test proposition

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8wjLt-hPeu0/Utvr6OSc5II/AAAAAAAABkc/4lngY1EJC9o/s1600/tower+1.JPG








Last edited by newton; 07/07/14 02:19 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
ORAC
step by step My Michelson Morley ( Inverse Square Law EDITION )

WILL CHANGE PHYSICS !!!

it is very natural that new feel resistance but
My test it is not a joke ( it will be future for modern more closed true physics )

Inverse Square Law is much more important than any .... 1000 space thoretical talking...

belwo experiment made Mr Lagiewka in 2013 ( Newton Not Exist )

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/space-time-universe/7688-huge-question-about-symetry.html

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You might want to go back and revise our discussion of Energy and QM and you may notice there is a much much deeper problem in the answer given.


I cant speak for Bill S , Orac , but I certainly intend to
go back and revise everything I think I know about Energy and QM , also there are several hundred books that members of this forum have suggested that I read in order to understand QM
and GR and SR and I now feel as if I need to read and study
them all in order to fully understand Energy and QM , I was kind of wanting to do something else with the rest of my life but this stuff interest me , so I guess I'll get started reading and studying all of the books that will help me to
understand Energy and QM and SR and GR.



































































































not happening , sorry!


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
source >>> ENERGY in SPACE >>> detector


source can be on Earth
detector can be on Moon


we turn on bulb ( 0,5 sec only )

light need 1 sec to touch the detector
(distance moon-Earth = 300 000 km )


detector is checking Intensity [ Joules / mm^2 ]
if Inverse Square Law works we not have Expantion


if Detector showing that we not have Inverse Square Law
exist other reson that signal is losting power

( space that is expanding reduce joules/mm^3 )


principle of conservation of energy
the same enegy but more biger space = lover intensity

people like me like simple physics without mathematica


very good detector = photocamera [ joules/ mm^2 ]



TWO PERPENDICULAR CAMERA = Joules / mm^3 detector !!!



Last edited by newton; 07/07/14 05:37 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
JOULES / cubic mm

Nobody before Maciej Marosz
designed detector
that is able show 3D energy density

NOBEL

mit about SRT and GRT can confirm or disaprove

Last edited by newton; 07/07/14 05:48 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
yes , I fully understand what your saying , newton.

and I have been thinking again !



in multiple worlds where one chooses to make a decision
and that choice combined with an action causes another exact
duplicate world to come into existence , wouldn't that other
world need a supportive sun and moon and galaxy and universe?

but wouldn't the action of thought about the many choices that
the person has cause hundreds , dare I say thousands , possibly millions of other worlds to come into existence.

oh , look a squirrel



and when these other worlds do come into existence along with
his exact duplicate person would all of the him's still be thinking about the possible choices and thus the many duplicates also cause other universes to come into existence ,

or is there a timeframe involved in the process , ie...
does the person doing the thinking only have a given amount of
time before the universal creation through thought process come to a halt due to time limit possibly associated with a lack of use.

but if that is true , and it certainly must be possibly , then if the person is shrodingers cat then wouldn't half of the cats be dead?

awww , look at this baby squirrel



and according to some , wouldn't some of the cats become
dogs and mice and lions and tigers and boars , oh my...

what if the cat then thinks about something else in that time frame and that thought causes a live cat to exist in front of
the mouse that was a cat , if the cat eats the mouse , he would in essence be eating himself would he not?

but Im sure we can find a way around this problem , after all
we all have keyboards in front of us at this time unless we
are using a tablet that uses a touchscreen , this will not however prevent billions upon billions of other new universes to come into existence that will also have many other cats that will cause some of the trillions of new cats to simply die.


Im not certain that this has anything to do with this
discussion , not that it really matters however because
I just had several million dead cats appear in my living room
and I am now afraid to think about anything.

oops , I just had another thought , how many cats have I
murdered through the simple act of thinking , its getting really spooky here in this forum , I certainly hope that the universe is infinite else we may soon be squished by all the extra universes that we cause to come into existence.

but we will find an answer to that problem also , we all
have brains to think with so certainly someone will find a
solution to the problem.

lets all think about it and that will solve our problems.

heres a very inventive way to amuse ones self with the cats
as one is thinking of what to do with all of ones cats that they find appearing in ones living room.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
in multiple worlds where one chooses to make a decision
and that choice combined with an action causes another exact
duplicate world to come into existence , wouldn't that other
world need a supportive sun and moon and galaxy and universe?


Paul, I think we have in common an inclination to assume that when scientists make a statement, or propose a theory, that statement or theory should be taken at face value. For example, if a scientist says that when a choice is made, the universe divides and each/every possible outcome happens in a different universe, this should be taken to mean that the universe physically divides and becomes two or more universes.

The more I have tried to understand how this could be possible, or how anyone could defend such a proposal, the more I have come to believe that many (possibly most) physicists don’t actually subscribe to the physical reality of this. To most, it is a mathematical model which, sort of, plugs a gap.

Perhaps the entire concept of QM is the same. Perhaps the “shut up and calculate” brigade are on the right track. Perhaps QM is no more than a convenient model used to explain why certain predictions turn out to be correct; and certain technical ideas actually work.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
For my part Bill.S your view has now come very close to mine with one major exception.

The exception being I think we have enough observation and experiments to say conclusively the universe can not actually divide. So I like many others disagree with some in the QM field who seem to play with that idea of which Sean Caroll is just one.

We have the Ligo experiment, new LHC power runs and the first entangled space communication experiments to look forward to over next 18 months. Hopefully something unusual will turn up in one of those.

Last edited by Orac; 07/08/14 02:45 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209


Light >>> SPACE <<< light

How many signals can go in one cubic meter space

what about energy lost . I would like to recognize Intensity limit for space

Wave 1 + Wave 2 = Wave 3


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bil S.

Quote:
Paul, I think we have in common an inclination to assume that when scientists make a statement, or propose a theory, that statement or theory should be taken at face value. For example, if a scientist says that when a choice is made, the universe divides and each/every possible outcome happens in a different universe, this should be taken to mean that the universe physically divides and becomes two or more universes.


that's the way I think about it.

unless they want to make up another new word that replaces the
real world definition of the word choice.

a prediction is like a roll of the dice , you can achieve a
higher rate of close predictions if you lessen the number of
sides of the dice.

but its still nothing more than a prediction.

even if it happens to be right every now and then , it boils
down to how many times you roll the dice.

we have always had range of occurrence which is the same as
prediction when you know that the outcome of a set of events
that include unknown events will produce a set range of possible outcomes.

purely standard math , nothing fantastic about it , and no need
for fake math.

honestly if it were not for the fake math , I would not have
any problems with it as then it could be calculated to a exact.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

Quote:
to say conclusively the universe can not actually divide. So I like many others disagree with some in the QM field who seem to play with that idea of which Sean Caroll is just one.


your beginning to think about the possibilities of having reality in a fantasy world.

they will not mix , ever.

how can a discipline that has a foundation built upon fantasy
claim that anything is impossible.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
The exception being I think we have enough observation and experiments to say conclusively the universe can not actually divide.


Actually, I agree with this. I started, some years ago, with a most unscientific bias against any form on multiverse theory. Realising that this was not the way to "do science", I have done my best to reach some sort of unbiased opinion. I think the best I can do is to say that I accept the possibility that there may be other universes, but I cannot see any way in which the observation of a quantum reaction, or the decision of an individual in one universe could cause the creation of another universe.

I like to think the mind is still open on that question, but I would be surprised if that openness admitted a change of opinion.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
this is something I have thought of that may not be unacceptable
to QM judging from the tensions that appear to be manifesting within the ranks of QM , orac has a seemingly deep interest in QM yet theres
something in the things he says that makes me think that he
may be questioning the methods used for prediction.

why not let QM purge itself , if QM would just back away from
the fake math and create its own math that is reality based
and not depend on any theory that cannot be backed up by
standard physics math.

dont even consider that Einsteins theories are incorrect or correct when making the math , give nothing any thought except reality.

in other words do not use any of GR SR math or theories !

and do not place any limits on nature.

because in the long run as things are found reality will
make QM into a true scientific discipline but the opposition to leave the fantastic behind will be great as many never
really did have much of a grasp on reality and used fantasy as a crutch , and as each peg falls into place the deeper you go into the quanta , the next peg that falls into place will be found much quicker and easier.

guessing about things will leave you with billions of
possible results whereas following a known set of events
can only lead to a much smaller range of possible results.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

On the face of it, Paul, that seems like a reasonable idea. One doubt I have about it is that you seem to be trying to force 20th and 21st century ideas into the possibly ill-fitting mould of pre-20th century mathematics.

Newton had to invent calculus in order to develop and express his revolutionary ideas. Might not the same sort of thing be necessary in order to express more modern concepts?

Your suggestion must be tantamount to clinging to a personal mumpsimus and trying to use it as a benchmark for scientific rectitude.

You may counter this by pointing out that you suggest that QM should "...create its own math that is reality based and not depend on any theory that cannot be backed up by standard physics math." If it creates its own math, how does that differ from the current situation?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You really have become the little thinker haven't Bill.S, I will have to come up with a question to stretch you smile

Paul the issue is simple try proving the existence of zero which is why many primitive cultures don't have it in numbering systems. Even on things you may use everyday like temperature what exactly is zero degrees Fahrenheit, its not really zero ask anyone who uses Celsius smile

Everything built that includes the concept of zero is usually a fabricated concept ... sort of fits Bill.S byline in some ways.

That is why I challenged you to define energy and matter and you never really defined matter but you defined energy as movement or motion. So take that thought further and if everything in the universe stopped moving does that mean there is zero energy? Do you see the problem with the idea your zero is totally reference arbitrary because how do you know everything in the universe actually has no movement because you can't prove it. It is the whole flat earth problem and your box all over again as you pull back you might suddenly find the whole known universe is all moving relative together.

It is the same problem Bill Gill was having in trying to use observation to close a system the answer is you can't. Every time it has been tried historical we got things badly wrong like Flat Earth, like Earth is center of universe etc and it goes on and on.

Do you see the point I am trying to get you to see because there are two concepts intimately linked, something everyone in the whole conversations above ignores and it can be stated like this

TO KNOW AN ACTUAL ZERO EXISTS REQUIRES A CLOSED SYSTEM


It's not a hard concept yet look back at all the conversations above and you might begin to understand why I was showing disdain at the discussion.

So hopefully the point is made the universe is an open system and I don't care what physics you are using they will all disappear back down the same hole. Rede and Bill G approved physics is not immune to the problem and Paul physics certainly falls down the same hole.

Last edited by Orac; 07/09/14 03:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
That is why I challenged you to define energy and matte


you only wanted me to define energy.

go back and check it yourself.

Quote:
if everything in the universe stopped moving does that mean there is zero energy?


yes it does mean that there is no energy.

its late and I'll leave that for you to contemplate.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5