Philosophy Discussion Forums

[quote="Tyranosopher"]Very impressive thread. I, too, am deeply interested by science babble, and we have some nice examples of it, therein, as previously quoted. The first poster does not know that the gravitational attraction law was discovered (by a French scientist just before Newton was born) thanksotoast an analogy with light. In modern General Relativity, gravitation is supposed to go at the speed of light.[/quote"]Supposed to " is the correct phrase.Considering science has no idea what gravity is exactly it has to use the term. I do not neccessarily agree with the original poster but at least he does not read from the hymn book.

AB10B wrote:

"Actually, if everything is actually wave-like, at its most basic level, then nothing ever actually "stops". Waves must move to exist. (Even perfectly balanced standing waves which show no "apparent" motion, are constructed of equal but opposite motions.)"

Actually, depending on the experiment, light may be either a wave or a particle, but not both simultaneously. Now since you're saying that as a wave, light moves constantly through space, then I ask myself what would happen when light is looked upon as a particle? What would its speed be in space when viewed as a particle? How would one observer, viewing light as a wave, see it moving at about 300,000 km/sec and a second observer, looking on it as a particle, see no motion from it - both experiments conducted in space. How does one reconcile the two observer situations on the same light?

If element determining speed of light is time, and we know that 1 minute differs for moving and for stationary person, then speed of light is fluctuating as well, may be to a point that with large enough distances it creates for as an illusion of a cosmos.

Xris wrote:............Considering science has no idea what gravity is exactly it has to use the term.............

Quantum energy has mass. Mass is an internal acceleration. This creates a displacement in its wave-front, as it expands (universal expansion occurs @ c.)

When a quantum energy unit is "entangled" (working in sync, through time), and it is not close to any other unit, it will be traveling a radial expansion vector through time.

If the displaced wave-fronts get close enough, then they interact and cause a shifted trajectory.



-- Updated January 3rd, 2014, 5:10 pm to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote:AB10B wrote:

"Actually, if everything is actually wave-like, at its most basic level, then nothing ever actually "stops". Waves must move to exist. (Even perfectly balanced standing waves which show no "apparent" motion, are constructed of equal but opposite motions.)"

Actually, depending on the experiment, light may be either a wave or a particle, but not both simultaneously. Now since you're saying that as a wave, light moves constantly through space, then I ask myself what would happen when light is looked upon as a particle? What would its speed be in space when viewed as a particle? How would one observer, viewing light as a wave, see it moving at about 300,000 km/sec and a second observer, looking on it as a particle, see no motion from it - both experiments conducted in space. How does one reconcile the two observer situations on the same light?

This is a discussion of the dual nature of light as demonstrated by double slit experiments. If you follow my logic (I will explain as needed), there is NO dual nature of light. The only time that light acts like a particle, is when we define the light as, a part of the actual wave, that we are observing.

Calrid wrote:

"Oh and to add there are at least 6 states of matter Gas, liquid, Solid, plasma, BEC??? Condensate. There may be more as yet undiscovered for example super fluid states at close to c where atoms can pass through each other, which is speculative at best; naively disobeying the or Paul I exclusion principle although of course they are nor as position is not certain here either."

As a matter of fact, I recently did a thread on states of matter. According to a NOVA episode, over 100 states of matter are observed when the temperature approaches absolute zero.

To explain gravity as a wave you require a medium.As no medium is evident how can you logically describe gravity in relation to waves. Bill Gaedes ropes adequately explains the apparent dual nature of light.So why not accept his explanation of gravity?

I think that most, if not all of you will have no problem with this explanation of a supernova.

Astronomers use a kind of supernova to determine how far away galaxies are. That is because this type is 'always' (as assumed in theory) to be caused by a similar process. This process has a start and a finish, so it lasts over a duration and produces a steady light source. By steady, I mean equally visible from any direction and uniform from galaxy to galaxy.

So the light is emitted from the supernova and expands equally in all directions away and always at the speed of light.

Remember this process has a duration. Usually a few weeks. So this light is going to travel all across the universe until it hits some matter (with which it will interact). So we can picture this field of e/m energy crossing the universe. It has a leading edge and then it is followed by a few light-weeks of this energy, after which it ends. An expanding sphere of e/m energy that remains about a few light weeks thick.

Can you picture this in your mind??

Well now let's use this as an analogy for what we actually mean by a "big bang"...A supernova expands light energy, a big bang expands quantum energy at c and over a duration. That expanding sphere of quantum energy is our reality.

That energy isn't slowing down any more than the light would slow down. The apparent motion we see is always relative motion. Other stuff co-moving in time with us gets relatively closer or farther from us.

Oh yes, thats right, space is not a medium, those three dimensions that are self evident... simply do not exist. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm certain that relativity clearly states that space is the medium in which gravity operates.

Xris wrote:To explain gravity as a wave you require a medium.As no medium is evident how can you logically describe gravity in relation to waves. Bill Gaedes ropes adequately explains the apparent dual nature of light.So why not accept his explanation of gravity?

Because I see a logical reason to believe otherwise.

Quantum energy is something that can be visualized from many aspects. You can visualize space-time to be quanticized, as in an ether-type theory. But you can also visualize the quantum energy itself is containing the dynamics that create this relativity.

Using the Big Bang analogy to a supernova...a steady release of energy over time. That IS quantity! And once this quantity of stuff stops vibrating so fast (cools off as it expands) it can interact through recombination. The recombination is coming about by co-moving components (nothing is slowing down in that dimension.)

I wonder what the speed of idiot is? not referring to anyone in particular of course, or the speed of ignorance, self righteous prose in lieu of evidence, or religion?

-- Updated January 3rd, 2014, 5:46 pm to add the following --

Geordie Ross wrote:Oh yes, thats right, space is not a medium, those three dimensions that are self evident... simply do not exist. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm certain that relativity clearly states that space is the medium in which gravity operates.

yeah I am beginning to think like xcris he's a po mo troll. But meh he's entertaining at least.

Geordie Ross wrote:Oh yes, thats right, space is not a medium, those three dimensions that are self evident... simply do not exist. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm certain that relativity clearly states that space is the medium in which gravity operates.

Space is only a measurement between various energies.

Energy exists in 3-dimensional forms that travel through space-time measurments.

Geordie Ross wrote:Oh yes, thats right, space is not a medium, those three dimensions that are self evident... simply do not exist. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm certain that relativity clearly states that space is the medium in which gravity operates.

Yes when you can't find a medium call it space time. It placates the gods but it certainly don't fool me.

If we have 360 observers positioned at every angle of a large circle and right in the center of the circle is a light bulb.

I turn on the light.

Which observer sees it first?

Why?

-- Updated January 3rd, 2014, 6:04 pm to add the following --

Xris wrote:...... Yes when you can't find a medium call it space time. It placates the gods but it certainly don't fool me.

The reason that they call it quantum, is it is self organizing by quantum units (planck units), doesn't need a medium. It is the medium.

Space & time do not exist before the big bang. The expansion of the big bang is what creates it. (That is the basic generally accepted theory at any rate.)

AB1OB wrote:If we have 360 observers positioned at every angle of a large circle and right in the center of the circle is a light bulb.

I turn on the light.

Which observer sees it first?

Why?

-- Updated January 3rd, 2014, 6:04 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


The reason that they call it quantum, is it is self organizing by quantum units (planck units), doesn't need a medium. It is the medium.

Space & time do not exist before the big bang. The expansion of the big bang is what creates it. (That is the basic generally accepted theory at any rate.)

in classical setting the one closest to the source, in a qm setting who knows, it's probabilistic. I feel you are not listening to me now. Which is fine but you may well want to at some point it will make the dialogue easier.

So which one is closer to the source.

And yes I agree with your last statement it's good to find common ground at last.

-- Updated January 3rd, 2014, 6:14 pm to add the following --

AB1OB wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Space is only a measurement between various energies.

Energy exists in 3-dimensional forms that travel through space-time measurments.

Also agreeing with this.

So now we have a quantum that moves as a wave that requires no medium because it is the medium.I love it when they talk dirty.