Photon?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Fredrik, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I wonder if you might be one who would pick the "God did it" side of the triangle:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Nothing wrong with that, though the discussion here is based on the belief that invoking the Supernatural is not scientific. I like to say that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, but would you be of the belief that if God "did it", then science would simply backtrack to a miracle?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654

    Well I think its obvious you know what answer I will pick because I am very outspoken with my opinions but you should know God created science they are not separate and supernatural just means cannot be perceived with the basic 5 senses look up "bio-photons" yes science is just the machine of God Albeitly undefined.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I don't follow very many of the sub-forums, and I don't know who is who outside of the science forums. Would it be fair to emphasize that what you said is your opinion, and you are not saying that there is evidence that God created science, or do you want to say what you consider the evidence?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Its my opinion of course, the evidence is as fleeting as your wave particle theory it cannot be defined in any finite set, thus always creating new and different realities you cannot quantify an opinion by definition it has no real define position in space its just assumed to be some place guided by higher intuition of a unified realm.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I respect that, but in terms of cause and effect, intuition is something that leads its user to the wrong conclusion, as often as not.
     
  9. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    lol
     
  10. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    That is why man-kinds next major conquest should be the domination of the ego this will allow the human antena to isolate the pristine message of truth among the noise created by the many false premises created by the ego .
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The ego is often an impediment to clear thinking and good discussion. To me, less ego and a clear mind are great advantages to truth seekers, if the goal is understanding the nature of the universe.
     
    krash661 and Jason.Marshall like this.
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    For those interested in the textual analysis of Farsight, this is an interesting passage. Note that Farsight writes, "It allegedly incorporates it," about GR incorporating SR. This is because Farsight literally denies the incorporation of SR into GR in his writings. GR incorporates SR by demanding that SR hold at every point and for every infinitesimal region; this means that the speed of light is constant at every point and at every infinitesimal region. Farsight explicitly denies this position, so he must deny GR. To save face, Farsight might claim that those people who say GR incorporates SR are merely lying or mistaken.
    This is clearly a lie, since the last thing that Farsight wishes to discuss is the evidence for his theories.
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    That's what general relativity is all about. The stress-energy-momentum tensor "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime".

    Good stuff.

    We're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. See wikipedia.

    I think it merely supports the idea that we're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. Sorry q.
     
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    You do talk some nonsense PhysBang. The issue I was hinting at is that SR is built on two postulates, one of which is the speed of light is constant. But Einstein retracted that when he was doing GR, see this for example. The speed of light is NOT constant. If it was, light wouldn't curve and your pencil wouldn't fall down.

    All: now PhysBang will squawk "cherry picking" and "out of context" and try and get you to dismiss and ignore what Einstein said. Bizarre.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Ok, maybe so.
     
  16. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I've looked this up. The CMBR looks a little bluer in one direction because we're headed in that direction, and a little redder in the opposite direction. What are you thinking about? Please say some more about the dipole variance is after the 627 km/s motion.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    When I looked up a link for you, it turns out that the dipole wasn't adjusted for our motion relative to it. Now it is up to me to find out what the evidence is for the 627 km/s motion relative to it. If I see the evidence then I might have to drop that idea from my model. Thanks.
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    According to Ethan Siegel in this post:
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/28/our-great-cosmic-motion/
    the great attractor has been eliminated as the cause for the peculiar velocity of our local group of galaxies. He also says that our velocity has been removed from the WMAP images as well, which he says is a shame, and that "This is a little frustrating, because there actually is a primordial dipole (l = 1) component to the cosmic microwave background’s fluctuations, but we are unable to measure it because of our own peculiar motion".

    Note comments #12, #15, and #26 and several other comments related FYI. Not to get off in that direction, but to point out you have seen the Siegel post. Can you comment on how science has come up with the 627 km/s motion, if there are other possible causes of the dipole, like a primordial dipole, as he says?

    Maybe this is a good topic for discussion, before I remove the dipole evidence from my model :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  19. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Yes, agreed. His "confusion" stems from either (or both) of the following......

    Farsight disagrees that GR is modeled as a \(C^{\infty}\) 4-manifold, or

    Farsight does not understand that any n-maniold is locally indistinguishable from a subset of the n-plane \(R^n\) by definition and, where a Riemann metric is available for our 4-manifold, it is locally indistinguishable from the Euclidean plane \(E^4\) with the Euclidean metric. And where a semi-Riemann metric is preferred, it is locally indistinguishable from Minkowski space, which is, of course the playground for SR

    I suggest you "concede defeat"
     
  20. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    My pleasure, or maybe that should be sorry mate.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Pending your response to post #315. Maybe there is a primordial dipole as Siegel says, which combined with our relative motion to the CMB, calculates out to the 627 km/s that would eliminate the dipole in total. How do you determine which is motion and which is primordial? Hold off on the "sorry mate" for a bit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  22. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    See section 20 of Relativity: the special and general theory where you can read this:

    "We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes".

    Accelerating through homogeneous space might be "locally indistinguishable" from being stationary in inhomogeneous space, but it isn't actually the same. In the former situation you can make the apparent gravitational field go away by changing your state of motion. You simply stop accelerating. In the latter situation you can't make the real gravitational field go away. Even in free fall the tidal force is still there. You might not be able to detect it, but it's there. If it wasn't, the force of gravity wouldn't diminish with distance.
     
  23. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I wasn't going to respond to post #315. But since you asked: what primordial dipole?
     

Share This Page