Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 8:16:07 GMT 10
I have a problem with the "Laws of Pyshics".
We seem to think we have these hard and fast laws that explain everything. Are we really that smart at the moment that we we know all the pysical laws of the universe. I dont think so.
Physics is a young science, imagine what we will know in 300 years, all the laws we currently believe in may just be a load of crap.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jan 14, 2010 12:39:17 GMT 10
geez i didn't think you guys were into all this stuff. good points all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jan 14, 2010 21:00:55 GMT 10
It seems the theory of a torus has been thrown out the window. This is also the closes I could come to with what I read while at Uni. can't find my old books. Or maybe it was an Idea I has after reading about a 'saddle shaped' universe. Basically if you took a saddle and bent the space/time enough, it would form a toroid. www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1566Its a longish read. What this has to do about light speed I have no idea. Still thinking about that one.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jan 14, 2010 22:18:52 GMT 10
that was a very interesting read and here is why........
just in the last few months there have been some unusual findings that seem to show everything in the universe hurdling towards one specific point in space.
if you look at the structures of galaxies and how they form there is always a center that holds a blackhole. the shape of galaxies can be correlated to its age and how large and powerful its blackhole is. for instance a tightly spiraled galaxy is fairly old and its blackhole has been strong enough to influence its shape over time. think of it as water circling a drain. a younger galaxy with a sub average blackhole will be bulky with no spiral arms or really faint ones. its like a partially clogged drain...........the water still goes down but at a slower rate so dust, gasses and matter slowly circle the blackhole but do not get pulled into tightly packed rings they just float lazily around.
given that most everything in the universe follows the same patterns then it is likely that the universe itself would have a doughnut shape and at its center something strong enough to pull everything we know towards it. the going theory at the moment is its the actual point where two branes have collided rupturing our universe causing it to leak into another one or perhaps helping create a whole new universe.
thanks for the link concrete its a site i didn't know about.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jan 15, 2010 1:54:16 GMT 10
if we look in to quantum physics it makes the speed of light look childs play. This equation--Einstein's theory of relativity--tells us that to accelerate any mass to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy. The accelerated mass also experiences infinite time dilation, so that (for example) one second elapsing on a spaceship traveling at light speed equals infinity in the outside universe. Clearly these are not mere inconveniences--it's relativistically impossible for any material object to travel at the speed of light. Another consequence of relativity--or more properly, of the early quantum theory Einstein developed at the same time--is that light, even though it's a wave, can sometimes act as a stream of particles, which we call photons. These can travel at "c"--the speed of light--because they have no mass, which sets a handy precedent: anything massless can travel that fast. But what about faster? Interestingly, the equations are symmetrical; it takes infinite energy to reach the speed of light, but not to exceed it, so while there's no way for a slower-than-light particle to become a faster-than-light one, a particle which starts out faster than light--and stays that way--is permitted by the theory. In 1967, physicist Gerald Feinberg even coined a name for such particles: the Greek word "tachyon" (roughly, "swift thing"). Do tachyons exist in the physical universe? If so, their masses would have to be imaginary, meaning a multiple of i, the square root of negative 1. That would be weird, and difficult to measure--no tachyon of any sort has ever been detected. Probably. But there is a subatomic particle--the neutrino--which has caused some scientists to wonder. Neutrinos are produced in great quantity by the nuclear reactions inside our sun, and every other in this star-spangled universe. They travel at or near the speed of light, meaning their mass--if they have one--must be something very close to zero. But it's hard to measure, and sometimes the sun's stormy surface kicks out a burst of neutrinos which we observe several seconds before an obviously related burst of photons. So yeah, the evidence is sparse, but it's tempting to speculate the neutrinos are maybe going a little bit faster than "c." There are a few other things that can go faster than light, by virtue of not being "things" at all. The spot from a laser pointer is one example--shine it at the wall in front of you and you can make it move around quite rapidly. The farther the wall, the faster (and dimmer) the moving spot; shine it at a target thirty thousand miles away and you can easily move it faster than "c." The individual photons, of course, still move as slowly as ever--it's exactly like waving a firehose around so that the splash of its impact travels faster than the speed of the water through the hose. The splash is a process, not an object, so it isn't constrained by relativity. Can we send messages faster than light this way? Alas, no. We could certainly shine a gigantic laser pointer at Alpha Centauri, then quickly snap it around to Vega, and anyone looking up at the night sky in those distant solar systems would see the ruby flash. But the only information that hops the gap from AC to V is, "I'll bet those other guys saw that flash, too," which in a mathematical sense is no information at all. The Einsteinian universe turns out to have some sharp restrictions against FTL transmissions. Fortunately, there's more to our universe than even Einstein suspected. The burgeoning and highly weird field of quantum mechanics offers dazzling hints--and even hard experimental evidence--of faster-than-light phenomena ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2010 6:45:50 GMT 10
Now I would never knock Einstein, but we look at him like some kind of messiah, if you really think about, we proberbly look at him like the neanderthals looked at the bloke who thought of banging two rocks togeather to make fire. He wouldnt look like a genius to us now and in the future thats what Einstein will look like that to them. He was by far the smartest one of us, but is that saying very much.
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Jan 15, 2010 21:57:33 GMT 10
Now I would never knock Einstein, but we look at him like some kind of messiah, if you really think about, we proberbly look at him like the neanderthals looked at the bloke who thought of banging two rocks togeather to make fire. He wouldnt look like a genius to us now and in the future thats what Einstein will look like that to them. He was by far the smartest one of us, but is that saying very much. Darryl I think it is all in the thinking process. At University scientist study great scientists like Einstein, like film students study the works of James Cameron and Lucas and music students study the works and life of Beethoven. It is hard to think different to the masters, our own knowledge is based on our understanding of their knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jan 16, 2010 0:45:26 GMT 10
nice one brill. it used to be NOTHING could travel faster than light. now that they have seen more than a few instances where that was proven wrong its now no OBJECT can travel faster than light. which really makes no sense. the reality is they have no clue as to how we could travel faster than light so lets just call it impossible and move on.
there have been quite a few papers written proven that it is possible using of all things a warp drive like in star trek. the math is solid and the theory sound. awards were given for the research yet we still keep hearing the same line of bullshit. personally i say fuck einstein. if his work has closed the minds of scientists for this damn long then he has hurt science not helped it.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jan 16, 2010 0:50:12 GMT 10
Now I would never knock Einstein, but we look at him like some kind of messiah, if you really think about, we proberbly look at him like the neanderthals looked at the bloke who thought of banging two rocks togeather to make fire. He wouldnt look like a genius to us now and in the future thats what Einstein will look like that to them. He was by far the smartest one of us, but is that saying very much. saw this after i posted last.......could not agree more! wesley you are correct. in film school you are taught to worship the "masters" which is why film school never turns out real masters themselves. all the greats forgo film school to learn on the fly. einstein himself was never good in school.......he did his thing on his own. we need more mavericks and less white lab coats.
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Jan 16, 2010 1:02:45 GMT 10
we need more mavericks and less white lab coats. Yeah Drex that's what we need for sure.
|
|