Random, but amusing!
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Sillver1 wrote:
king, i think we had a failure in communication. i lost you.. lol
but never mind that, all i can think of right now is a deluxe tuna sandwich made with smoked ahi and waldorf salad : )
There are no perfect people silver. : ) Chill, just relax..
btw.. apples in your salad? lol ... Still taxing your cute little tea? 
lol.. Now, what about the randomness of post #1 point #2? : )
There are no perfect people
speak4urself
Elroch wrote:
There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and I) >>>
Elroch, really, let's just stop there. What about your grammar?
"There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and me)". I can see that you're a "than I" person, so your expanded sentence would run "he has a higher status than I have a high status". Now, that sounds clumsy and is clumsy, although if it were "he is taller than I (am tall)" then that is correct and non-clumsy. But back to status. I would say "he has a higher status than you (and me). Why? because his status is higher than yours and mine. Note that there's no word that indicates the possessive but which takes the nominative case.
So "Einstein has a higher status than you or me" is correct and you won't find an online grammar slave that can tell you that.
<<and that is why it is foolish for you to say that. He rewrote part of physics and his work has stood the test of time.>>
No, I think he was talking rubbish and you don't even get the reason. What he said could have been no more than a joke because it's completely circular and doesn't explain a thing. Sometimes, I worry slightly about people who don't or won't think for themselves.
<<<Shortly after Einstein published his work, other physicists deduced a phenomenon called gravitational waves - a form of energy that consists of ripples in the curvature of space-time, with no other substance.>>>
No no no, if they exist they may be DEPICTED as ripples in the curvature of space-time. It's a far stretch to imagine that we know that's what they CONSIST of. Sometimes I worry. I'm right to worry. I can see my time doing the philosophy degree wasn't wasted after all, except you don't understand that I am more expert than you are at dissecting and understanding language.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#988
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and I) >>>
Elroch, really, let's just stop there. What about your grammar?
"There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and me)". I can see that you're a "than I" person, so your expanded sentence would run "he has a higher status than I have a high status". Now, that sounds clumsy and is clumsy, although if it were "he is taller than I (am tall)" then that is correct and non-clumsy. But back to status. I would say "he has a higher status than you (and me). Why? because his status is higher than yours and mine. Note that there's no word that indicates the possessive but which takes the nominative case.
So "Einstein has a higher status than you or me" is correct and you won't find an online grammar slave that can tell you that.
I agree your wording is good. My wording mainly suffered from being unnecessarily verbose. There was a suppressed "have" at the end, which makes the grammar correct but rather clumsy. On the other hand, it was 100% clear what it meant, and probably sounded ok to most people, so not the worst sin.
Now it would be a good time to recognise the relevance of the statement you have rephrased. (Also replace the word "much").
<<and that is why it is foolish for you to say that. He rewrote part of physics and his work has stood the test of time.>>
No, I think he was talking rubbish and you don't even get the reason.
You need to realise that your thoughts are very poorly informed.
You are ignorant of all of the quantitative work that shows that space-time is intrinsically curved and thinking of it as flat is a distortion at best. A good analogy would be that the surface of the Earth is intrinsically curved - it is a quantitative characteristic of the geometry. With space time, the meaning of the curvature is less intuitive, because it is in in a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold rather than a 2-dimensional Euclidean manifold.
What he said could have been no more than a joke because it's completely circular and doesn't explain a thing. Sometimes, I worry slightly about people who don't or won't think for themselves.
Starting from a position of ignorance is not a virtue. As Newton indicated, you see further when you "stand on the shoulders of giants".
General relativity is used to do calculations for everything where Newtonian calculations are inadequate and it works very well for this. A good example is the corrections to the clocks on GPS satellites, which are affected by both gravitational time dilation and special relativistic time dilation. These calculations need to work for your GPS to work, and they do.
<<<Shortly after Einstein published his work, other physicists deduced a phenomenon called gravitational waves - a form of energy that consists of ripples in the curvature of space-time, with no other substance.>>>
No no no, if they exist they may be DEPICTED as ripples in the curvature of space-time. It's a far stretch to imagine that we know that's what they CONSIST of. Sometimes I worry. I'm right to worry. I can see my time doing the philosophy degree wasn't wasted after all, except you don't understand that I am more expert than you are at dissecting and understanding language.
You should stick to the philosophy and the semantics until you gain suitable respect for scientific knowledge. But remember the purpose of language is to communicate meaning.
Curvature is a quantitative geometric fact. If space-time was flat, there would be no deflection by masses, no orbits around masses, no gravitational time dilation, no gravitational lensing, no gravitational waves.
The nature of the curvature is intuitively difficult. By analogy, we know a sphere is curved because the circumference of circles with different radii are anomalous - the larger the circle the more shrunken the circle seems to be compared to the C = 2 pi r that is true for flat circles.
It is much more difficult in space-time because the scales of time and distance vary depending on the motion. This means it requires mathematical machinery to define what it means for a Riemannian manifold to be curved.
That being said, Einstein managed to sum up the truth in a single equation that essentially says the curvature of space-time (G_uv) is proportional to the distribution of energy and momentum (T_uv).
Well, plus that universal cosmological constant term (Lambda g_uv) that he originally included, dropped later because it wasn't needed and there was no evidence for it, and was then added again long after his death, when dark energy was discovered in the 1990s,
Feb 19, 2020
0
#990
In 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity.
Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another.
In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zürich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the formal definition of the spacetime interval. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.
Minkowski's geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein's development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed how mass and energy curve flat spacetime into a pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
And the cult began
Somethings are right, but everything is dependent upon accepting Minkowski space as describing reality. The Model of fusing 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time into a 4 dimensional continuum, fits neatly into the ole noggin, but actually lies somewhere out in right field.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#991
Science is not fundamentally about explanations: it is about predictive models that work. The real world behaves in a way which is not intuitively comfortable, but the predictions keep working, so the science is good.
First to reject general relativity you need a prediction it makes that is wrong. This hasn't been done.
To replace general relativity, first you need an alternative theory. Then you need to show that your alternative predicts all of the phenomena successfully predicted by general relativity and found to really exist (eg the amount of deflection of light by masses - different to pre-Einstein predictions, black holes, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the precession of the orbit of Mercury (and other analogies in other orbiting systems).
Then you need to test your theory in as many contexts as GR and find it works.
But if you want to do what Einstein did, by replacing Newton's theory as the state of the art, you need to find a prediction GR gets wrong and you get right.
But you haven't got to step one yet and don't even see why that is a problem.
the larger the circle the more shrunken the circle seems to be compared to the C = 2 pi r that is true for flat circles.
they say if u take a string and round it around, 1 ft away, from the singular point before the BB ?....its length would be about 6 ft. AND, they say if u round it around the whole U (particle horizon), 1 foot away, its length would also be about 6 ft longer than that of the U's.
so for all intents ?....its the same & seems pretty flat to me. 
orange u glad i posted this ?
Feb 19, 2020
0
#993
Your theory Elroch seems to go along the line ... until proven otherwise, the best theory in town wins, which makes it unassailable
Einsteins calculations are describing how Gravity works. The imagined spacetime continuum provides a model which makes predicting the behavior of two large objects mathematically possible. The "Gravity" is thought to be Space itself, being warped by the influences of an object traveling through it. The maths all fit into a tidy package, new editions pre-stamped.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#994
Optimissed wrote:
No-one has proved that there is a composite entity, "space-time". The curvature of a real entity, space, would act in time no differently from a real entity, space-time
You can personally separate the dimensions of time and space and keep them separate. The issue that you don't appear to understand is that if someone else who is moving relative to you defines dimensions of space and time in the same way, both of these are mixtures of your space and time dimensions (the mixing described by Lorentz transforms). So there is no universal separate space and time, rather there is only a combined entity which is split into space and time in different ways for different observers.
All clear now?
We say "matter acts as if space is curved" but equally, we can say "matter acts as if it interacts in ways that are not wholly governed by Newtonian or Cartesian physics".
That doesn't change the quantitative fact that space-time is curved around mass and energy.
We have similar ambiguity regarding the reality of light, which can act as a particle or as a wave. The idea of the wave itself is also ambiguous. It is described as a probability wave but is the probability inherent in the wave or is it a device used by the mind to understand a different reality?
Difficult questions that merit lengthy discussion.
I have given up on Elroch because he's stopped thinking entirely, sorry to say.
More valid thinking is involved in explaining to you that space and time are not separate than that involved in mistakenly thinking they are.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#995
MustangMate wrote:
Your theory Elroch seems to go along the line ... until proven otherwise, the best theory in town wins, which makes it unassailable
Not unassailable. One experiment can make it necessary to replace a theory (such as Newton's) by a more precise one. However, you really need this experiment: assailing a working theory for no reason is foolish.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#996
Space and Time are separate, as is the 3rd Element that makes up the universe - Energy/matter
The 3 elements interact with each other at a given time and location, but remain as Separate, distinct and independent elements.
Feb 19, 2020
0
#997
So all of the matter in the universe would fit into about 1 billion cubic light years, or a cube that's approximately 1,000 light years on each side. That means that only about 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter. The universe is a pretty empty place!
Even looking about, what wee are seeing is mostly empty space.Scientists insist there must be more matter, somewhere unseen and undetected, to account for current observations.
The Maths don't add up and the maths never lie. Hence, dark matter and dark energy are born. The ancients called it the aether an unseen medium that all matter travels in.
and cold !....they say the ave temp being -270.5 deg C. absolute zero is -273 deg C. so about 2.5 deg from e/t being a solid. and thats why ur not spose to wear a brass....nvm.
I thought space and time were separate but interdependent on each other ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amIMdUYEIJU