What an amazing exhibition!
for those who want a direct link:
[video=youtube;WCHi4hioFEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCHi4hioFEI[/video]
Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
for those who want a direct link:
[video=youtube;WCHi4hioFEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCHi4hioFEI[/video]
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
@QQ: Total agreement.
@Physbang; sorry for that last comment. To answer your last specific criticism: Physics Textbooks come and they go. Physics instructors are free to pick and choose what they teach, and how they teach it. None of this is science. All of this is opinion. Yours is as good as mine, or as your physics instructors, for that matter.
My comment about Galilean relativity being a useless concept was intended a s physics textbook review. I didn't find that particular chapter either instructive or essential to a grasp of Einsteinian relativity, which is the real deal. My opinion is as good as yours. If you like it, you go with it. Make it yours, if you want. I really don't care if you do. All I am saying is, I've seen better introductions to relativity in other books. MUCH better. Berlitz once published the most excellent introduction to relativity I ever read, and I haven't seen a copy of anything like it in 45 years.
@Physbang; sorry for that last comment. To answer your last specific criticism: Physics Textbooks come and they go. Physics instructors are free to pick and choose what they teach, and how they teach it. None of this is science. All of this is opinion. Yours is as good as mine, or as your physics instructors, for that matter.
My comment about Galilean relativity being a useless concept was intended a s physics textbook review. I didn't find that particular chapter either instructive or essential to a grasp of Einsteinian relativity, which is the real deal. My opinion is as good as yours. If you like it, you go with it. Make it yours, if you want. I really don't care if you do. All I am saying is, I've seen better introductions to relativity in other books. MUCH better. Berlitz once published the most excellent introduction to relativity I ever read, and I haven't seen a copy of anything like it in 45 years.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
eh... a bit o dis and a bit o dat...bitter, butter, boom!
There is no reason to believe that this universe is not one of and infinite number of similar...
And that every bit of mass is in a constant state of creating itself [ emergent property on the event horizon of time (t=0)] so I believe you are not wrong nor are you quite right.... a paradox wallah!
The multiverse was evidently just an elaborate joke to see how gullible physicists are, played by someone who is now a relative of mine, Leonard Susskind.
We'll never know. If mathematics supports it, then the mathematics is also fiction. It does happen. Just as there is space-time we will never see or can ever know to be real, there are mathematics to describe it that are of the same illusory / delusory nature.
Suskind's multiverse was Many Worlds, i.e. separate universes, possibly with different sets of natural laws, and with insurmountable separations so that they don't interact, if I understand it. When I talk multiple big bang arenas, I am not talking Many Worlds. I am speculating that if there was one Big Bang, why just one. And if there were multiple big bangs, all would be part of one universe. The landscape of that greater universe would consist of big bang arenas, expanding and thus intersecting and overlapping. When they overlap, their galactic material might form a new local big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space, and the crunches reach a critical capacity and collapse/bounce into new expanding big bang arenas, a self perpetuating multiple big bang arena steady state that defeats entropy. I just want to clarify the distinction between Many Worlds which consists of multipel universes, and my speculations about one universe consisting of multiple big bang arenas.
My apologies to QQ for talking about my views to this extent in your fine thread, and can only attempt to justify it as my way of trying to understand your views by comparison.
Yes a multiverse or parallel universe(s) idea does seem a bit...hmmmm..
I wasn't referring to multiverse though in my instance I am simply referring to the possibility of other universes (in series not parallel for want of a better descriptor)
If zero is an absolute constant multi verse is virtually impossible however the constancy of absolute zero would not prevent multiple universes in "series" [like balls filling a balloon- each ball being a universe not unlike this one]
It is not opinion that relativity theory is entirely about systems of coordinates because that is what it is about. There is literally nothing more to its content.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
eh... spam bots are pretty good you know that don't you!!@QQ: I'm retired. The mail function of Sciforums does not seem to work from within the site, although the relay to my actual email worked.
m o c . l o a (' a t ') n e w a h s n a d
any ways the spam filter systems theses days are also pretty good... [chuckle]
your post reminded me of the major "interpretative" flaw demonstrated in cosmology, on a regular basis.
Commonly information about our universe is portrayed, as displayed in the video and image shown in post #901, fail to indicate that the further you move outwards from the cameras position the more historical the record is.
In fact a universe of today would show only the camera's position and the rest would be unknown and according to science unknowable due to light info delays. [certain predictions are available but unfalsifiable prediction is all it is]
Yet we are led to believe that the universe of today looks like what is shown. On that basis any image of the universe created is virtually useless in describing what exist today.
Therefore as much as the image below (and the video it was clipped from) is interesting to view it is virtually useless when used to describe a universe as if it is today's universe when consideration for light info delays is taken into consideration.
Last edited: