|
|
Post by rockds on Jan 16, 2006 2:20:59 GMT -5
So Mark...what brought this on? You are usually an easy going guy that doesn't make waves. I must admit my understanding of all this usually comes from science fiction, but you seem to have a passion for what you said. Just wondering...
|
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 16, 2006 5:58:49 GMT -5
Somedays it annoys me that I dont know enough about the universe - other days (99%) I just go about whatever Im doing - like rocks, computers or a bit of woodwork practice. On those days when I start thinking I never find what Im looking for anyways - so I end up blaming people like Einstein - who is only a plonker when I cant understand something.  (Although I do have one or two theories of my own) This post was over a year ago - and Ive moved on a bit since then - I joined a science forum full of boffins - a few of the members are so arrogant im thinking of leaving tho. It is interesting how stuck in their ways they are - and will question very little about their knowledge - is almost as though they think they know everything already!!! Im hoping to get a nice telescope sooner or later - and build a small observatory in my roof - (Lcars has already parted some good advice on that to me). Just saving up the £. I think the answer could be 0. As everything seems to point to that I think  ? Maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 16, 2006 6:00:23 GMT -5
"Will we look back in 50 or 100 years and feel slightly foolish that we were so adamant about our assertions when we discover the thinking or processes that led to them was clearly faulty?"
In all probability - yes - we may well change our minds about a few things which we consider fundamental at the moment.
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 16, 2006 7:01:25 GMT -5
Mark! You're probably right! The answer MUST be "0"! At least, it agrees with the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, and charge! (It all adds up to zero!) ;D
PS: If matter bends space/time in a particular 4th dimensional direction, does antimatter bend space/time in some "opposite" direction?
Okay, I'd better stop smoking that stuff! ;D
|
|
drupe
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since September 2005
Posts: 1,245
|
Post by drupe on Jan 16, 2006 9:36:36 GMT -5
After reading all this and understanding very little, My BS degree from South Fla is not much good here, I'm going back to the rock threads.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jan 16, 2006 18:30:21 GMT -5
Hey Pete - Is that BS or bs, or both?
Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by texasrockhound on Jan 18, 2006 1:35:01 GMT -5
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
.....Albert Einstein
- do not take him for a fool....
|
|
|
|
Post by texasrockhound on Jan 18, 2006 1:40:47 GMT -5
Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick.
Then you can move toward health
- Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
Post by texasrockhound on Jan 18, 2006 1:46:18 GMT -5
- "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
- "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
.....Albert Einstein
Okay, that's what you get for picking on one of my heroes....
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 18, 2006 7:00:31 GMT -5
Einstein was indeed oneof the greatest scientists of all time. He was up there with Newton and Maxwell. Yet he remained a classical theorist to the end. He could never bring himself to agree with the "modern physics" (Neils Bohr and his cohorts) view of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory replaced classical theory as a more complete explanation of how the universe works. It has given us many of today's inventions we so enjoy like computers, mp3 players, cell phones, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasrockhound on Jan 18, 2006 9:08:55 GMT -5
agetenut - I'm pretty sure that Quantum physics hasn't replaced classical theory in any way. Classical theory encompasses large body physics while quantum mechanics attempts to explain the interactions of sub-atomic particles. 'We' don't use quantum physics to calculate large body behavior...say for example, calculating the trajectories of large bodies (planets, etc...) that's still done using good old fashioned Newtonian physics. Maybe some day we will have a unified field theorem that will marry quantum and classical.....
If you're really interested in the latest theories regarding gravity check out the Nov. 2005 issue of Scientific American.....
"Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion--that in actuality all the particles and fields that make up reality are moving about in a two-dimensional realm like the Flatland of Edwin A. Abbott. Gravity, too, would be part of the illusion: a force that is not present in the two-dimensional world but that materializes along with the emergence of the illusory third dimension....excerpt from the Nov. 2005 issue Scientific American.
Mark - an answer to your question...you wouldn't see anything..no visible light can escape the gravitational pull of a quantum singularity.
- dan
|
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 18, 2006 11:29:48 GMT -5
Well - no hes not a total plonker - I moved on a bit since a year ago - who raised this oldie from the depths of the archives?
|
|
|
|
Post by LCARS on Jan 19, 2006 3:35:23 GMT -5
...Im hoping to get a nice telescope sooner or later - and build a small observatory in my roof - (Lcars has already parted some good advice on that to me). Just saving up the £... Ooooh, I always wanted an observatory dome! ;D You'll want an adjustable static equatorial mount with sidereal & Alt/Az slew drive.  They're finnicky to set up sometimes but once you've got it zeroed out you can stay locked on any sky object for hours!  |
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 19, 2006 7:16:42 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Dan. Newtonian mechanics got us to the moon! But, it couldn't explain subatomic particle behavior. Einstein believed that classical physics should. ("God does not play dice with the universe.") That's where quantum mechanics came in. Fascinating magazine article! ralph |
|
(Although I do have one or two theories of my own)
? 
