QuantumE Posted October 25, 2005 #26 Share Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Theres more to light than meets the eye! Pun intended. Edited October 25, 2005 by QuantumE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yelekiah Posted October 25, 2005 #27 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Sure is. You step outside and go into space and all the rules change. You have no atmosphere to alter this light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperactive Posted October 25, 2005 #28 Share Posted October 25, 2005 one of the ongoing challenges to relativity is that light is a constant. perhaps this fellow has found the proof to variable speed of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rane Posted October 25, 2005 #29 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Like light being both a wave and a particle? If we study it's interactions I think we can come up with some sort of conclusion. For now, I'll be daydreaming lol. the particles form a wave...thats what i'm thinking...the particles form the wave, which is the dimension itself becoming visible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 25, 2005 #30 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Oh no, here comes another Raelian!!! >>>Pallidin mumbles to himself..."please, not again!"<<< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebrakon Posted October 25, 2005 #31 Share Posted October 25, 2005 LOL I still see no flaw in E=mc^2 though. Energy can become matter within the Universe. I could go on and on about how it's been used. I don't have the slightest clue what the flaw could be. Is it enough info to really fill an entire book though? Well, I hope there is nothing wrong with SR. It is the only part of 20th C. physics that has a solid logical foundation. Everything past 1905 is shot full of paradox, singularities (including GR), reductio ad absurdem, divide by zero, and so forth. Incidentally, SR has been applied to quantum mechanics. That was done by Paul Dirac, and the result was intrinsic spin and anti-matter, both quickly confirmed. This 4-dimensional form of quantum mechanics is seldom taught and little used. One of the great intellectual achievements of the 20th C. was Kurt Goedel's proof that a system that contains an inherent contradiction can be used to prove anything. You have probably seen examples of this, where as a joke someone proves that 1=2 by dividing by zero in a non-obvious way. This is the origin of quantum weirdness, multiple universes, entanglement, reality-determined-by-observer, and so forth. cheers, Cebrakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 25, 2005 #32 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Sure is. You step outside and go into space and all the rules change. You have no atmosphere to alter this light. How does "going out into space" change all the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 25, 2005 #33 Share Posted October 25, 2005 One of the great intellectual achievements of the 20th C. was Kurt Goedel's proof that a system that contains an inherent contradiction can be used to prove anything. You have probably seen examples of this, where as a joke someone proves that 1=2 by dividing by zero in a non-obvious way. This is the origin of quantum weirdness, multiple universes, entanglement, reality-determined-by-observer, and so forth. cheers, Cebrakon I was under the impression that quantum entanglement has been very well established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yelekiah Posted October 25, 2005 #34 Share Posted October 25, 2005 How does "going out into space" change all the rules? There is no atmosphere in space like it is on Earth, so light has no "restraints" and won't necessarily be subject to refraction, diffraction, reflection, etc. Don't think about it too hard, it's not that serious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rane Posted October 25, 2005 #35 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Oh no, here comes another Raelian!!! >>>Pallidin mumbles to himself..."please, not again!"<<< *middle finger, and hand on groinage* your so prejudice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 26, 2005 #36 Share Posted October 26, 2005 *middle finger, and hand on groinage* your so prejudice... I'm not prejudice at all. Unless, of course, you are referring to my position that Raelism is complete and utter BS. In that case, I'm prejudice, because I do not recognize the adherents of that religion to be following anything other than a seriously demented socio-path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 26, 2005 #37 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Anyway, back to the topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LobsterMan Posted October 26, 2005 #38 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Im no mathematician/ physicist but i know that people make mistakes, and those mistakes can be carried on for years and years and years without anyone realizing it... its kinda like how you took your parents words as perfect truths until one day you got old enough and started to see that they werent always correct. Im not denying that einstien was'nt a genius, but people make mistakes. What if he was wrong? or maybe he was just slightly off the mark, we dont progress by following rules, we progress by challenging them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LobsterMan Posted October 26, 2005 #39 Share Posted October 26, 2005 There is no atmosphere in space like it is on Earth, so light has no "restraints" and won't necessarily be subject to refraction, diffraction, reflection, etc. Don't think about it too hard, it's not that serious... but it would stay constant your just adding a variable into the equation which is the atmosphere.. THATS ALL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebrakon Posted October 26, 2005 #40 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I was under the impression that quantum entanglement has been very well established. Nothing in quantum mechanics is "very well established." Alternatives are known, but one seldom hears about them, and certainly not in textbooks. Take virtual particles, for instance. There is no evidence for them. The "evidence" is supposed to be the Casimir effect and the Lamb effect, but both have alternative explanations that do not involve virtual particles. See for instance the Oct 8, 2005 issue of NewScientist. Cebrakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yelekiah Posted October 26, 2005 #41 Share Posted October 26, 2005 but it would stay constant your just adding a variable into the equation which is the atmosphere.. Tell me something I don't know. I just said there would be no diffraction, etc. I said nothing about it not being a constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rane Posted October 26, 2005 #42 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I'm not prejudice at all. Unless, of course, you are referring to my position that Raelism is complete and utter BS. In that case, I'm prejudice, because I do not recognize the adherents of that religion to be following anything other than a seriously demented socio-path. so then you are prejudice...you make a prejudgment about someone, without any information, other than biased beleifs....you don't even know if people are keeping a healthy veiw on life because of this religion...at least we aren't full of suicidal, god-fearing, schizos...the worst we have done is not present evidence about cloning a child..which wasn't presented because it would then lead to arresting people and shutting down the facility along finding the cloning facility after it had to move again.....Raelians beleibve in promoting happy life, and advancing technology..nothing evil or bad about it..and every religion has a founder....so what if you think ours is bad....i thought the founder of Satanism was bad myself...but then again, i realiuze i don't understand it enough before i can start making prejudgmental statements about it your just one of the many people who have an unending agnst against us, without any reason other than what you THINK is right....maybe learn a bit about it, then you can add fuel to the fire, if there really is any.... anyways NOW the subject is back on track...instead of trying to harrass people with this type of stuff, why don't you just keep a nice conversation about something you understand first before leaving rude comments about others beleif systems, which you obviously don't have much info about, other than just negative views.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LobsterMan Posted October 27, 2005 #43 Share Posted October 27, 2005 when did religion come into this? i thought this was about the "flaws" in einstiens theory. athough the arguments made by intelligent design are pretty convincing that a supreme being(s) exists.... but were not talking about that p.s sorry Yelekiah, i was'nt really too sure what you were saying. thanks for clarifying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rane Posted October 27, 2005 #44 Share Posted October 27, 2005 when did religion come into this? i thought this was about the "flaws" in einstiens theory. athough the arguments made by intelligent design are pretty convincing that a supreme being(s) exists.... but were not talking about that p.s sorry Yelekiah, i was'nt really too sure what you were saying. thanks for clarifying it didn't until pallidin was being rude about me being raelian. and its all over with now...so please continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaj Posted October 27, 2005 #45 Share Posted October 27, 2005 (edited) One belives what one wants to belive. Only the lazy accept Einsteins theories just becouse it is easy, one does not have to think for him/her self. Is it so just becouse one man says so? Tha author is one man...but so is Einstein. and supporters? The masses are not always right, right? I do think Einstein was right in some things but I just wont accept everything. Edited October 27, 2005 by Kaj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now