Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I ask you to reconsider the simple -> complexity part of evolution. More highly evolved does not necessarily mean more complex. It just means better suited to its environment.
IMHO in my case is based on 40 years as a professional microbiologist. My opinion is still speculative, but my speculations get better with each passing year. All the evidence supports my previous posts to you. It is not totally conclusive, but would you mind showing me the evidence to back up your opinions?
AFAIK, the production of a virtual particle pair would require a relatively large amount of energy. Smaller amounts of energy uncertainty could be associated with the vaccuum, which would, I guess, manifest themselves in the curvature of space-time at that point in the vaccuum. Again, this isn't really my field, so, while this is the best of my understanding, I'm not sure I am right here. BTW, in my previous post, I had stated that I don't know what happens to the gamma photons from a virtual pair annihilation. After reading the link given by another poster on this thread, I realize that no annihilation actually occurs. The particles disappear after a short interval as the energy returns to zero.
The Casimir Effect.
That brings up another point which confuses me. The link provided by RadioAstronomer in Post 34 states that the particle pairs disappear before they can be measured directly, thereby avoiding a violation of the law of the conservation. Due to the Casimir Effect, however, one can measure the energy of the vacuum. Doesn't this demonstrate the creation of energy in violation of the previously mentioned physical law?
The ant analogy is wrong. An ant standing on the surface of a balloon has height from the surface of the balloon. Therefor, he DOES have a sense of up and down. He has to.
As for the specious use of Darwinism in this piece, give it a rest!
When you are older, perhaps your ability to understand it will improve.
As for your questions, you appear to be terminally confused, and I doubt there is anything I can say that would unravel the misapprehensions you appear to be under. You'd probably be happier on some other thread, such as one discussing the relative merits of plastic versus paper bags at the grocery store.
Go in peace...
Great article. Thank you.
Are you sure??? I am on travel and don't have my textbooks, but I believe you have quoted the Lorentz transformation from Special Relativity. The article makes the point that this diverges from the General Relativity Equations. I confess, I do not know the General Relativity Equations.
Yes, I read that before I posted my question. I understand that it's due to the expansion of space. Still, those galaxies are moving (so to speak) faster than lightspeed with respect to us. Shouldn't their mass be rather ... large?
I understand that we're moving at that speed relative to them, and I assume we don't notice such a crushing mass because, locally, we're in free fall, so we wouldn't notice it. Nor would they, locally. But we should notice it as to them, and vice versa. Or so it seems to my limited understanding.
The way I like to view it is this: Special Relativity has to do with observations from one frame of reference to another. That is the key: one observer in one (inertial) frame of reference observes something in another frame of reference, that is moving. So, when you consider the Lorentz expansion of the mass, it means that one observer, looking at an object in another frame of reference that is moving fast (relative to the first observer), notices an increase in mass. HOwever, the mass is unchanged for the second observer who is "moving" in the second frame of reference. Indeed, to him, it is the first observer that is moving fast (in the opposite direction) and it is the first observer who has the large mass.
The mass doesn't change, it is just the observer who sees it differently.
This last point is essential. Otherwise, I could "increase" the mass of the earth just by getting into a fast rocket ship and zipping by it.f
The way that I understand Special Relativity vs. General Relativity is somewhat different than the article. The article talks about "space" as if it were some kind of, well, ether. And the ether theory was discredited with the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The way that I understand Special vs. General Relativity is that Special Relativity is essentially a local phenomenon. That is, Special Relativity was derived, and the experimental basis for it was done in a local space. Indeed, the classic examples of Special Relativity all involve two frames of reference and two observers who observe one another as they zip by each other. Therefore, at the time of observation, they are close. Special Relativity simply wasn't derived for long distance scales.
This observation is crucial. If the General Relativity postulate is correct, then space is curved. However, for short distances, space appears Euclidean. The effect is identical to the observation that the Earth seems flat to us, because locally, the curvature is very small. Special Relativity was derived in a flat space. Locally, space is flat enough that the correction terms to the Special Relativity formulae is negligible. However, for large distances, the effect is that the Special Relativity formulae are no longer correct.
And the energy came from where?
LOL!
I am really surprised that saying "Go away" worked.
Causality presupposes an effect and the Universe was either uncaused (always existed) or is the effect of something else.
It is never bad to admit ignorance and the need to learn something. That quality is sorely lacking on the non-science (or should I say "nonsense"?) side of these threads.
It is pretty funny when after 'science' attempts to explain something, one leaves more confused then when one started out!
Either the teaching is bad, or they are simply doing a lot of fancy footwork.
It is nonsense, when it is not based on facts, but supposition.
Then it is not science, but philosophy.
Well, is doesn't do a very good job of it!
Does scientific theory surmise there was ever a time (no pun intended) where space/time did not exist?
Bookmark to go over in more detail later. Like somebody else said, I thought I somewhat understood this but now it looks like I don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.