Jump to content
Science Forums

sluggo

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

sluggo last won the day on December 18 2020

sluggo had the most liked content!

About sluggo

  • Rank
    Understanding

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. AnnsiiH; [There is nothing in SR that implies a static universe. Experience is our reality and reveals a dynamic changing universe. It's incomplete without recognizing the role of perception. People are born into a world they can't comprehend, and must make up ideas that provide some degree of understanding, a predictive ability and subsequently a security of future persistence. Will spring follow winter, will a bridge support an expected weight, etc.] [I have a copy of the paper OTEOMB, A. Einstein, 1905, and refer to it (rather than trust my memory) wh
  2. AnnsiiH; [SR is my choice since the ether is redundant.] [The basis of SR are postulates 1 and 2. The 1-way speed could be c ± a few meters. The critical factor is the propagation speed is 'independent of its source', an absolute motion. In par.1 simultaneity, where defining c as constant, Einstein states "In agreement with experience". The observer has a choice of moving or a pseudo rest frame. If the 2nd, then his expectations would be equal paths out and return. Thus it's not something pulled out of a hat.Feynman's QED explanation of various light phenomena i
  3. AnnsiiH; The 2-way speed of light cannot detect any variation due to the symmetry in the direction of motion. In 'QED', R. Feynman redefines 'reflection' as 'electron absorbing a photon, and emitting a new photon' (The photon would have to stop to reverse!) This elimination of the 2-way case, and the experiments for isotropy (speed of light is independent of direction) with variations less than a fraction of a meter, support a constant speed c. The few 'Relativity' theories in development prior to 1900 depended on knowing the speed of light, which was available f
  4. Stupid implies foolishness. A better word is ignorant (not aware of). The mind is an amazing organ and as mentioned it allows us to form concepts that represent the unknown world with a high degree of accuracy. Without light, the universe is invisible to us, we only know it indirectly.
  5. OceanBreeze; Yes, the entire universe has to be the closed system. The two laws of thermodynamics are too simple. Science is still discovering the universe and its parts are more complicated than originally thought. Where is the evidence that after 14 billion yrs, the universe is running down? Chaos is disorder, yet has a range of energy, and a lattice of particles each with uniform energy has a high degree of order. It seems entropy and order have an uncertain relationship. Shuffling a new deck of cards supposedly puts them in a state of disorder, but what does that act
  6. Omnifarious; Don't fixate on explaining the world. We don't have to understand how tv systems work to enjoy the benefits. A concert is very pleasing to the ear without knowing the details of the compositions or training of the musicians.
  7. Omnifarious; As long as there is gravity and large clouds of gas, stars are formed (see Hubble photos). Genetic code produces plant, animal, and human life forms. Chemistry forms compounds from simpler elements. These processes in place produce more order, while there is decay and cooling.
  8. The concepts necessary to understand are beyond our comprehension. 'Infinity' is an example of something discussed, yet the human mind has no experience concerning it. We understand new things in terms of what we are familiar with. Not knowing what a nucleon is, we imagine it as a sphere, which most people can visualize. There is no final answer with theories. They are sufficient for now until a new and improved version is formed. The real mystery is why theoretical predictions have any success.
  9. Omnifarious; [Those people trust in the scientific method to explain the world we live in, based on limited success. They can lose perspective when predicting based on current knowledge. An example would be TOE, a 'theory of everything'. How do we know science has experienced or is aware of everything? As you mentioned, new things are discovered continuously. Judging by history, we can never be in that condition. The end of the universe via 'increase in entropy' (all forms of energy ultimately converting to heat) assumes a continuing trend without anything new and igno
  10. Omnifarious; My analogy for science is the person who enters a theater in the middle of a movie and tries to determine what has happened up to the current state of affairs. There are many possibilities but only one true sequence of events. The person can stay to watch the missed portion when the film repeats, but that's not possible in the real world. Since no one was present at the beginning of the universe we can only speculate with theories using abstract mental constructs, lines, circles, forces, etc. that mimic the behavior observed. We retain the theories while th
  11. petrush; Almost ! If p is a prime>11 then d is a recurring decimal. d=p(p+1)/1100 d=[p/11][(p+1)/100] The 1st term has no common divisors. The 2nd term will have 2 decimal positions.
  12. petrush; Almost ! If p is a prime>11 then d is a repeating decimal. d=p(p+1)/1100 d=[p/11][(p+1)/100] The 1st term has no common divisors. The 2nd term will have 2 decimal positions.
  13. The magnitude of x and t are scalars, thus x/t is a ratio/rational number.
×
×
  • Create New...