|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
Michael 
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 15 2001,18:41 |
|
    |
quote:
Originally posted by kuru:
einstein fudged a lot of his theories. and remember, relativity is still a THEORY. it's never been proven (or rather, there's never been a concrete lack of disproof shown), and there probably never will be, because EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.
Well, except that relativity has indeed been proven many times. With starlight bending around the sun, as mentioned before. With atomic clocks, one on the ground, one flying in a plane for days until, when the clock comes back down, a time difference is indeed observed. With similar clocks placed into orbit to show the effects of a gravitational field on time. Yes, relativity contradicts Newtonian physics, just as quantum mechanics contradicts relativity and string theory contradicts common sense. quote:
an observer cannot understand fully a system which he is part of.
I agree with you here. Certainly, science can come very close to telling us _how_ the universe works, but we're still no closer to knowing _why_ it works that way, why it is that, as if by accident, all the variables lined up in just the right way to allow life as we know it, or even planets and suns, to evolve. The anthropic principle doesn't really tell us this either, for whoever brought that up - it just sort of says that there is no "why" and the answer is simply "because," which isn't very enlightening.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
Sithiee
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 15 2001,19:51 |
|
|
yeah, my teacher does suck, this is the latest one. he says that about 10-20 on the last test (out of 35) is doing well, because thats what they get in college (or so he claims), and my friend he was telling this to pointed out that they would curve it so people dont fail, and mac(the teacher) says but hes trying to get us used to the level of difficulty, and that he doesnt curve. WTF? so when we fail his class and we dont get into the college we wanted, whats the point of getting used to something we arent dealing with?? cocksucker....
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
Jynx
resident n0b0dy
Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 15 2001,22:33 |
|
|
Sorry, Willy Pete, my experiences with Deja' Vu all work like this: immediately after some sequence of actions occurs, I have the very very strong feeling like they have happened before. For example, the light will turn green, the faded red pickup ahead of me will turn right, and my wife will make some comment just as we are driving under the stoplight. As soon as she finishes her comment, deja vu hits, and hits hard, despite the fact that I've never seen that pickup before to my knowledge, and my wife was talking about something that she wouldn't have been talking about before, like an upcoming event that we've never been to. So go figure.------------------
--Jynx We do not make software "releases" -- our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of desginers and quality assurance people in it's wake...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
Sithiee
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 15 2001,23:57 |
|
|
thats what i said. or what i tried to say....
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
masher
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 16 2001,00:40 |
|
|
quote:
From kuru:
einstein fudged a lot of his theories. and remember, relativity is still a THEORY. it's never been proven (or rather, there's never been a concrete lack of disproof shown), and there probably never will be, because EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.
In addition to what Micheal has said, Einstein's theory also predicts the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, and for that matter all of the planets. It was observed that the perihelion of Mercury was moving by 43 arcseconds a century. Newton's theory og gravitation is unable to show that this should happen. This motion falls out of Einstein's equations. The perihelion moves for all planets, its just that the orbits are so much bigger, and so much closer to a circle than Mercury's, that the movement is impossible to detect experimentally. Also, the redshift of galaxies is a result of the Theory of Relativity.
"An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated." This, as well as Micheal's reply, is a summary of appendix III of the 15th edition of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory." My copy is part of the Great Books published as part of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Have a read for yourself...
quote:
EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.
The reason that it violate the simplest rules, is because the simplest rules are wrong. If you want to do a proper calculation, you must use quantum theory, or relativity, or some such other 'higher order' physics. But for most applications, Newton's laws (or the other applicable 'simplest' rules) will work. This, in quantum theory, is known as the Correspondence Principle. First off, all laws pertaining to quantum systems are equally applicable to macro systems, its just that the equations are so hard to solve that the classical equations previsouly discovered solve the system just as well as the quantum ones. Basically, this is the correspondence principle. or "Quantum mechanics is in agreement with classical mechanics when the difference between quantum levels vanishes" ------------------
"All is number" - Pythagoras edit: added last arguement... This message has been edited by masher on January 16, 2001 at 07:47 PM
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 16 2001,01:50 |
|
|
the simplest rule of physics, dude, is that you can't accurately OBSERVE a system you are PART OF.see, we can't entirely accurately measure the motion of the solar system because we're IN IT and also moving. ok? so you can have all kind of nice theories and they can describe WHAT YOU SEE. but whether or not they describe ACTUAL REALITY is a different matter. as far as deja vu, i tend to get it most often as the procognition of events, except that i can turn and then almost always accurately predict what will happen next. for example: walking in to work one day seeing the convict crew cleaning the building for the first time, knowing i had see the bright red "DOC" t-shirts in this building before and then being able to accurately remember before he told me that my boss was going to tell me his wife was in a car accident yesterday after work. creepy. ------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
