Random Phylosophy-physics

[Bendarr]

<!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+Oct 23 2003, 03:58 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ Oct 23 2003, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Another interesting thing to ponder was that by 1975 both the general and special theories of relativity were proved wrong. As far as I know there is not a generally agreed upon mechanics to replace relativity and relativity remains a good approximation (so does Newtonian for everyday life) but still we know that relativity is in fact wrong. Not only that but it was disproved 70 years after its inception. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> That's odd. I thought that the Relatavistic effects had been proven as per the special theory? I believe that there was a famous experiment involveing a round the world flight and two atomic clocks and the results matched what was to be predicted.

[norsenerd]

Relativity is a better approximation of mechanics then Newtonian for sure but that doesnt mean that it's always true. As far as we can measure when traveling at speed far less then the speed of light Newtonian mechanics is right on the money. Relativity is still how we describe mechanics on a general level but it is still wrong.<br><br>BTW special and general relativity have been shown to be correct more then Newtonian mechanics before airplanes were much in use. 1945 is when I think the experiment that saw that the sun's gravitational field bent light.<br><br>I just got back from hearing a NASA cosmologist (Gary Hinshaw) talk about the biggest scientific measurement in physics taken in the past 5 years and talking with him with the rest of the IU (Indiana University) physics club. It was one of the coolest thing ever. He talked about measurements of the cosmic background microwave radiation from the time of last scattering and how it gives evidence to the nature of our universe particularly about the early inflationary model. It turns out that the cosmological principal is going out of favor. Maybe the universe does have boundaries but we still can't say.<br><br>One of the problems of modern cosmology is that the universe is very nearly flat and was even flatter before. I've mentioned this earlier. What is used to explain it is that early on in the universe, the universe experienced a brief period of rapid expansion that left allot of things behind. This would have an effect to curve up the universe some. I did ask him about the possibility of the universe on large scales being a manifold (space) of dimension greater then 4 (possibly infinite) and completely flat (now and forever) just that our 4 dimensional perspective views it as being slightly curved and that having taken care of the problem. He said that it's a possibility but not relatively that motivated (but still motivated some).<br><br>I am always here to answer your math of physics questions if you want too.

[Tavis]

I was just reading an article in Popular Science on other dimensions... This year's March issue has "Journey to the 10th dimension" on the cover. I'll try to get a link to the article when I find it online.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I thought shadows were an absence of light so a shadow is really inexistant and can't be any dimentions.<br>Or maybe Norse already said that.

[Zylo]

Yea, shadows only exist in non-existance (I'm not even going to start on the Zen implications there). It's kind of like how cold doesn't exist, there's only the absence of heat.

[norsenerd]

THe absanse of somethign exists just aas much as somethign does. Why wouldn't it?

[Burning Sheep Productions]

Well, you can't put a shadow on an electron microscope and observe it.<br>Are you saying it exists as objects in our mind or it's an accual existance of physical matter?

[norsenerd]

Why does substance get any more weight then lack fo substance.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Alpha Centauri Cahracter+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Alpha Centauri Cahracter)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And so we go to the holy void of space. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Ibon]

He is a dull man who tries to prove everything, for in the end, he will prove only what others already knew.<br><br>In other words, I've been around spirits. I know a human one. I've met ones that weren't human. I've met ones that wanted me to go away. What they are, I don't really know. I felt what I did. Whether I really did or it can be explained by science doesn't mean I felt something else. It's still the same. It just has a title, then. <br><br>Either way, it was like a dog. A dog barks at me. A dog bites me. Even if I don't know what a dog is, I know what it does and says to me. Why should anything else matter? I think it's strange that people would invest so much time in closing the possibilities of the world in around themselves.<br><br>Hm. I suppose it's sad when people think about the world more than they feel it...

[Burning Sheep Productions]

A dog is called a dog so you can communicate with others about the dog.