firecracker

:alienhead:Littlebang: A large number of theorists have said there should have been as much matter as anti-matter created in the Big Bang but since we have a matter universe there must have been more matter than anti-matter. If your idea about the attraction of matter for matter and the repulsion of matter for anti-matter is correct, how would this fit with their guess?

Big Dog, As I sit around and wonder why all the time and effort was wasted on bringing someone like me into the world, I find some relief in suspecting that I actually have free will and can make certain 'once-in-a-lifetime' choices. Some of the most notable ones were: The choice of my mate, my vocational choices, my geographic locational choices, and many of my enjoyable hobbies, participation in this forum being a large one. When I used my will to make all those choices, there were others I could, and probably should, have made. David Duesch inferred that whenever an individual was faced with certain choices he took them all, inferring that a multiplicity of worlds exist in which we are able to use all our choices. I prefer to think that when I finally exit this exciting world, I will immediately reappear in another with the ability 'to do it the other way, possibly with more desire to do it right!' As an added note, I think we cannot know the value of life or anything else until we have experienced the long and short; the good and the bad. It is the struggle in life that makes it worth while! firecracker

I have several excerpts from "ARE WE ALONE?" by Paul Davies, on which I would like some comments. (pp 106) "The only type of consciousness we know about so far is embodied consciousness - consciousness in living organisms." (pp 107)"I believe that consciousness is not as trivial a thing as it appears in the standard biological picture. In fact, it's not a trivial thing at all. It's a fundamental property - a fundamental emergent property - of nature, a natural consequence of the outworkings of the laws of physics. In other words consciousness is something that doesn't depend crucially on some specific little accident somewhere along the evolutionalry way." IMHO, the entire universe is conscious and the embodyment of consciousness in living beings is for the purpose of the universe being able to experience itself. Comments please!

:cat: Little Bang: Please forgive me for jumping in here at this late date. When I logged onto the forum this time, the forum asked me to make some comments or ask some questions. (From time-to-time, when I look at the box which tells me what I'm allowed to do, it tells me that "may or may not do this or that" It's a little disturbing!) Much of my time is spent considering the things that happened at the (supposed) beginning. I remember a PBS program narrated by Timothy Ferris in the mid to late '80's called "THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE", in which he stated that the universe began as a 'Sea of free quarks when Protons, neutrons, and atoms had not yet formed . . . '. I refer to this as it relates to the emission of photons and the subsequent velocity of light. Richard Feynman, well known for his now famous Feynman diagrams, indicated that upon the combination of quarks to form either protons or neutrons, a photon and a neutrino were emitted in the process. This leads me to believe that in the very beginning, when there was only a sea of free quarks, the universe may have been expanding alright, but originally there was no light! (Please, this is pure speculation on my part; it just started me thinking that perhaps the actual expansion was 'out running' the emission of photons if my interpretation of what Ferris said was correct. Another interesting point would be to suppose we could have been able to construct a hypothetical optical bench at the beginning to measure the speed of light scientifically where we would also have to know the risetime of the trigger, the time delay in the intrinsic apparatus, the sensitivity of the detector, etc, all the while viewing the event from afar. Would it still count as a valid measurement of the speed of light if I had the trigger 'there' and the detector 'here' separated by the vastness of the universe? I ask this question because of my suspicion that we can never know the exact size and speed of anything unless they exist within our own frame of reference. And when we speculate on these criteria, do we consider the theories of relativity and how they would have been interpreted in these instances? (i.e., Would the gravitational effects have been large enough, coming from an infinite point source, to have prevented the escape of light in the first place?)

:rolleyes: I used to call on Drs. J.A.Wheeler and Nobel Laureate Weinberg when they shared a suite of offices at the University of Texas. Does anyone know how they are doing now?

:) Referring to the original post by HydrogenBond, I don't think we've taken everything stated by the theory of relativity into account. The five second pouring phenomena is correct, except that the reference to the traveller and the earth don't involve the 'same' five seconds. I think the theory says that "clocks and measuring rods are longer" which applies to the clock faces, component parts, etc., which, to me, implies that the seconds being measured are also longer although they appear the same to the measurer. The density of the primordial universe seems to me to have been so dense that 'time' would not have been allowed to 'begin' and the universe would not have been allowed to expand. (Big Bang theory says "time and space at once began!" If general relativity was in effect at the Big Bang, and gravitational time dilation applied to all reference frames, then time dialtion would have been infinitely long!) FFT

:Exclamati Clay, Just think, it wasn't that long ago that a large community here on earth was convinced that there were not only no other life systems in the universe, but no planets to support such systems! Rather than being skeptical, why not say "why not?" I, for one, am anxious to know the truth! Thanks for the article.

:Exclamati Hallenrm, Body conciousness is a very interesting consideration. Our soul is given the capabiity to run and play without having to worry about whether the motor is running in our body. You see little children running everywhere they go and I think this is the way it was intended. I sort of feel that the body is the mechanism by which the universe is allowed to experience itself. We really shouldn't worry about whether we are going to die! It should be that when we wear this one out, we will get another to continue the experience of existence. But I, among many others, do worry about my body and am often concious about how it is functioning. If I shuffle off my mortal coil tomorow, I won't have much to complain about; I've already had the opportunity to experience the universe for more than 70 yrs!

;) I think government owned and operated postoffices and land-line telephones will disappear. I also think we will find out that we have been lied to about many things for many years. Using information that has been concealed from us, we will be able to make unimagineable discoveries. There is a base on the dark side of the moon! The earth itself is riddled with caves and tunnels used by aliens without our being aware! It is just a very short matter of 'time' that we will have wall-paper like TV/Computing screens that can be made interactive. Holographic and other types of virtual reality is just around the corner.

;) Popular, I feel better already! I think the scales we measure things on do change gradually. That's why we have red shifts and blue shifts, etc. Thanks for the reply F

:( Popular, Sorry I waited so long to join the forums! I just read your dissertation on Relativity+ and I must say that I am impressed! I have personally been working on the idea of 'time' and all its aspects for more than thirty years. I, too, have not laid back and accepted everything I have heard, read, or been taught and am always sceptical as to what I should believe. What if there really existed a world of Gullivers where everything the Gullivers looked at was (by some factor) larger than we are? I am trying to imagine that they would have visible light whose feet, yards, miles, etc., and years, months, hours, seconds, etc. were proportionally larger than ours. Their 'c' would still measure 186,000mi/sec to all their observers to whom the light could affect. All their heat units would be different as well. By the same manner of analogy, there could exist Liliputians on smaller scales with different units for their physical constants, and so on. After all is said and done, there would be no actual difference between the large and the small.

:( Thanks Buffy, sorry: In the Special Theory or Relativity the speed of light is the same for all observers, independent of inertial frames. This has always been a stickler for me. You will notice that I said the spacecraft is travelling 'near the speed of light'. As it leaves its launch point (original inertial frame), light signals emmitted from it are red shifted, so much so that the spacecraft soon becomes 'invisible' being red shifted out of the visible spectrum. If there was a spacecraft flying in formation with the original one, light signals could be exchanged between the two ships with no degradation in spectrum quality as long as they were at the same relative velocity. It appears to me that if there were an observer who could see the red shifted light as pure "white light", he would be able to measure the speed as 300,000 km/sec, but 'I' wouldn't be able to see him with any of my light signals. His measuring rods would be so much longer than mine and his second of time would be proportionally larger as well, that he would exist essentially in another dimension.

Thank you for considering my last post! Most of you didn't read the entire problem to be aware that there was a sensitive detector in space to detect the "thing" rotating in excess of the speed of light. Let's look at another situation: We're in a spacecraft travelling at near the speed of light relative to the point of departure. Aboard this spacecraft is a complete optical bench for measuring the speed of light. There is a light in the tail of the craft illuminating the nose. As I measure the speed of light on my optical bench, I see that it is, indeed, 300,000 km/sec, and its spectrum is that of pure white light with the center of the spectrum measuring 500 Angstroms (pure green). My question is: does this satisfy the requirement for all observers?:naughty:

:thumbs_up If the conditions could ever have set themselves up for a 'Big Bang', they could do so again. In fact, if the dimension of time is infinite, and I believe it is, 'Big Bangs' could occur an infinite number of times. And if you think about it, the elapsed time between occurrences is infinitely short!

:shrug: Pyrotex: Good analogy! Arkain101: No need for an archemedes spiral. We're only subtending 1 degree (second of time) for the detector. CraigD: Very good! Helicopter blades often exceed the velocity of sound even though the hub velocity is much lower. Einstein, in his relativity discussions, spoke frequently of 'ponderable bodies'. His theories were based principally on ideas of his own, thought experiments, and modifications and references to the theories of Lorentz, Poincare', and others. But his theories have run the gamut of peer criticizm for a century! My thread was simply to see if one more 'pair of gloves could fall'.

Good job, Craig D. But remember, I asked could a detector be aable to detect it. If it could, it wouldn't matter if it were massive. It would have been something, and it would answer whether anything could be faster.:)

:lol: Imagine a revolving light source somewhere on the surface of the earth. Instead of a lighthouse beam, let's make it a laser source. Let's locate a specific detector somewhere in space such that it can intercept the beam as it rotates. For simplicity, let's place it out there somewhere around1 million km so that the source doesnt have to rotate faster than, say, 1 RPM. 1. Can the beam swing faster (angular velocity) than 300,000 km/sec anywhere along its path? 2. If it does, can the beam be detected?

hallenrm, I was about to give a big narrative,but Infinite Now says it all! firecracker:)

Dear Buffy, INFINITE NOW had indicated that "it's the concept of now. . ." how it ties into the mental spaces we call past and future. 'Now' can never be actually identified. The movement of experience from past to future/future to past has infinite resolution. We are given the benefit of witnessing and experiencing that movement with finite cadence across the dimensions of spacetime without the ability to actually identify a spacetime location-instant called 'now'. Imagine the proud father standing with his nose pressed against the glass of the infant care center in the maternity ward pointing his finger at the newborn baby in one of the cribs: "That's my son! Looks just like me, don't you think?" Is he looking into the past at the son he thought would be an all pro quarterback, or is he looking at the drug addict who rips purses out of the hands of little old ladies, bashing them to the ground as he runs away. Aside from that, my most important, thus biggest, question in life is "Do we get to reincarnate to be given the opportunity to do it over and do it the other way; leave the world in better shape than it was when I got here; "You only get one shot through life, so you need to grab all the gusto you can" that you see in the beer commercials would have no meaning. I'm writing some articles on this subject and I may post some of them if there's any interest.

:eek_big: It certainly looks like most of the responses I am reading are referring to Max Tagmark's article inSCIENTIFIC AMERICANon multiple universes. It is one of my favorite articles, though it bears no proof of the multiverse. In IDEAS AND OPINIONS , Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, 1954, (out of context) "What is it that brings about such an intimate connection between language and thinking? Is there no thinking without the use of language, namely in concepts and concept-combinations for which words need not necessarily come to mind? Has not every one of us struggled for words although the connection between "things" was already clear?" I feel that most of the posting authors have it very clear in their minds what they want to say. How do we understand someone who has a clear picture of his subject and no language to describe it? I, for one, would like to give benefit of doubt to the postor until I have read his post over several times hoping to obtain a clear image of his thoughts and then perhaps have a short conversation with him before I display my criticism. Personally, I feel that if this particular universe could have happened once, it could happen again, ad infinitum. If conditions could ever have set themselves up for this one, there will always exist similar conditions with sufficient time. (This is why I believe that The Big Bang, if there was one, should be classified as an event in time, not time as an event; an event where time and space at once began."

:) Thank you for allowing me to comment on this. I personally feel that we all have been looking at dimensions in the wrong way. If I were born before the age of reasoning (whenever that was), I would look at an object and see and sense it as I normally do. No dimension has been assigned to what I see. But if I want to analyze it, I might arbitrarily assign some co-ordinates. I could construct some sort of device to relate the object's height to me, and hopefully, I could use the same device to relate it's width and height. And, if I wished to establish scientific method to these aforementioned relationships, I would have to make all my measurements 'repeatable'. Furthermore, I would establish rules for these measurements to be followed by everyone who followed. I would label height arbitrarily as 'Z', width would be 'X', and thickness would be 'Y'. Now, as those who follow exercise their right to discuss these objects, we would all be talking the same language. As my colleagueas and I engage in conversations about the objects, we find that many of them don't arrive at their conclusions when I or others do. I also notice that many breaths and heartbeats and sunrises and sunsets have invaded the promptness of my discovery; if I expend more effort, I can arrive at my home before the food is thrown to the animals. There must be a relationship between my thinking, my breathing, my arrival at home, and the thoughts of my colleagues. Let's call this relationship time, and even, perhaps assign some value to it. My colleagues and I discuss it and after months, even years of discussion, we finally concur that this should be called 'time' and define it as the scale (dimension) over which EVENTS are measured. It will have no beginning and no end. Regarding dilation of 'time', the scale doesn't dilate! Its calibration marks are infinite in resolution. If dilation occurs, and it does, it occurs against the stationary infinitely resolved scale of 'time' Hats off to JANUS, THE_RIGHT_STUFF, the responder who said "The way we know speed does not apply to the structure of X,Y,Z,T in the same way." Imagine that there exists a guy like me whose physical foot is a trillion times larger than mine.(all other measurements are larger by the same amount, including the world upon which he lives.) His second of time is also longer than mine by the same amount. When he decides to make a measurement of the speed of light (in miles per second), he always measures 186,000 miles/sec. just as I do, and for the very same reasons. the light that he sees crossing his retina has wavelengths one trillion times longer than mine. I don't see his light and he doesn't see mine. Time doesn't dilate, speed up nor slow down. Events do! (as measured on the fixed scale of time.) The scale of Time is non-linear, and better illustrated on log paper, having no beginning and no end. Events can be recorded on film or digital cameras at high rates and displayed at normal rates to exhibit dilated time. People recovering from years of coma exhibit no experience of elapsed time. (Another form of time dilation.)

Dear Heinvn, Either you didn't say what the 'wrong' was or I somehow missed it! I would like to read more on what you think. firecracker

I am firecracker. I have been interested in physics and cosmology almost all my life. More than anything, I hope to learn something here. I will participate as long as I am welcome. thanks, Firecracker