Skip to comments.
First speed of gravity measurement revealed
NewScientist.com ^
| 01/07/2003
| Ed Fomalont and Sergei Kopeikin
Posted on 01/07/2003 6:23:34 PM PST by forsnax5
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 next last
To: Southack
No, by making that assertation, I am pointing out that Reality doesn't care whether we can "tell" or not. Thus asserting that you've got the goods on "Reality." That's why I referred to praying to you, because if you've really got a lock on Reality, theyn you're God.
Look, I've said some foolish things in the past and later failed to back down from them. In this case, you've done likewise, and no amount of hedging or obfuscatory argument will erase it. I'm going to drop it and go on, because I've got better things to do.
Meanwhile, according to the best theory we have to date:
All motion is relative.
Accept it now; understand it later, if necessary.
261
posted on
07/01/2003 11:57:22 AM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Oberon
"All motion is relative."No, that's not accurate.
Two cars can be driving along at identical speeds, and the windows may be so blocked up that they can only see each other. From their relative perspectives, they aren't moving.
Reality, however, cares not a whit for their relative perspectives, and as the two cars cruise through the roadblocks and off the broken bridge, the occupants will soon learn that painful lesson.
So you can claim that the appearance of motion is relative, but the reality is that appearances don't matter to the actual facts.
262
posted on
07/01/2003 12:19:38 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
From their relative perspectives, they aren't moving. Being stationary is contained in the total spectrum of movement, zero velocity. Samne math, same equations, same physics, same continuum.
263
posted on
07/01/2003 12:21:46 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: forsnax5
Gravity is my friend!
To: RightWhale
"Being stationary is contained in the total spectrum of movement, zero velocity. Samne math, same equations, same physics, same continuum."Being "stationary" works for **models**, and that's why we say what we say about relative motion.
But our models aren't reality. We may perceive something to be stationary, and we may make scientific, mathematical, and geometric models of that thing in which we show that it is stationary, but such models (as well as our perception) may not always be accurate.
Just as in the example above where the two cars **seemed** to be stationary from a certain frame of reference, a different perspective might more closely resemble reality.
265
posted on
07/01/2003 12:31:07 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Physicist
The Face on Mars is wearing a really miffed expression, right about now. Sorry, the Face on Mars is smiling:
266
posted on
07/01/2003 12:34:20 PM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: Southack
[crickets]
267
posted on
07/01/2003 12:48:01 PM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Southack
our models aren't reality It brings home the bacon. Maybe bacon isn't reality either.
268
posted on
07/01/2003 12:52:41 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: forsnax5
bump. flash light <=> gravity ?
To: RightWhale
"It brings home the bacon. Maybe bacon isn't reality either."Oh no, bacon's real, it's just that the picture/model of bacon on the package that doesn't accurately represent the reality of "bacon".
< GRIN! >
270
posted on
07/01/2003 2:08:04 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Oberon
[crickets] and the occasional bull frog..
lol
271
posted on
07/01/2003 2:14:42 PM PDT
by
SGCOS
To: Southack; RadioAstronomer; All
Man, talk about opening a can of worms.
Movement, for a long time, has been measured and based on the concept that the measurer is 'still'. This is not true.
Movement of the galaxies is based on the concept that the measurer is still. This is not true. The Earth is moving, the solar system is moving, the galaxy itself is moving. (or not moving, but we can't know which--see later argument)
You say, well, we can take all those movements and use them to actually calculate movement (such as the idea all galaxies are moving AWAY from US, making us essentially the center of the universe.)
First, if the galaxy has no edge, it has no center.
Second, the only way to calculate the movement of OUR galaxy is to have a NON MOVING spot in the UNIVERSE to base that on. Again, no such thing.
THIRD, and the hardest to understand, is that the entire UNIVERSE may not be sitting still either.
All movement is calculated relevant to another object, and there is not any object we know of that is not moving/or that we can actually determine whether it is moving or not.
ANY ARGUMENTS to my PROPOSITIONS ? I love to debate the subject as it is the most fascinating, and the most educating subject I can think of.
To: All
PS. Light, like GRAVITY, is not a particle, as far as we know. (we know nothing, actually).
Scientists theorize that LIGHT is a particle, or/and a wave. If a particle, it's speed could surely be limited. If a wave, would it's speed be limited (or even calculable)? Gravity, surely is not a particle. Therefore it seems likely it's speed is not limited, to anything. How can an object have speed if it is not moving?
The EFFECT of a force in the universe may have a speed. At least the measurement of that force can be translated into speed.
In the ocean, the waves move fairly fast. Except, nothing is moving, at least laterally. Nothing material is moving laterally. The EFFECT or FORCE is moving laterally via an actual movement (physical) of the water VERTICALLY.
Electricity, Gravity, Light, the key is the Vertical wave movement, not the horizontal. Though the terms vertical and horizontal are again, dependent on point of view, and only a mental visualization of what actually happens. The movement is actually circular, as are all movements in the universe. That they are seen as horizontal, or vertical, is due to being seen from one viewpoint, and two dimensions.
To: UCANSEE2
First, if the galaxy has no edge, it has no center. Say it is the universe rather than just the galaxy. The universe has no edge, but rather than having no center, each entity at whatever scale, quark to atom, to molecule, to biosphere, to noosphere is it's own center, all sharing the same coordinates of space and time from center to as far as it goes. UCANSEE2, both UCANSEE2-- bio-entity with trillions of Kreb cycles per second, and UCANSEE2--cybercreature, is the center of all. There are other centers, each particle, whether elementary particle or higher construct is a center. The center is a plurality. It's not 'no center', it's all centers.
274
posted on
07/01/2003 2:32:40 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: Oberon
pOST 254. I beleive you, Oberon, agree with my points. If there is such a thing, we could not detect it.
To: RightWhale
Sorry, I made a mental typo.
First, if the galaxy has no edge, it has no center. Statement should have been: First, if the UNIVERSE has no edge, it has no center.
Second, to answer the questions posed in your response, if all entities have a common center, then the question of distance between them, or measurement of their speed relative to us, or anything else, is pointless.
To: Oberon
If the cosmic microwave background radiation is "stationary" we can detect motion relative to it in the dipole anistropy: csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html
It all comes down to the nature of space. Is it a vacuum, a fluid or what else? If there are effects produced by motion relative to absolute space then yes. If one could measure the one way speed of light in every direction, this may show absolute motion through non congruent light paths (very similar to the Sagnac effect, except in a linear translation).
To: forsnax5
Gravity ping for heavy reading!
278
posted on
07/01/2003 2:40:57 PM PDT
by
SouthParkRepublican
(God abhores naked singularities... let's make them wear hot pants.)
To: UCANSEE2
Yes, your post made perfect sense to me. Thank you.
279
posted on
07/01/2003 2:43:56 PM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Gary Boldwater
It all comes down to the nature of space. Is it a vacuum, a fluid or what else? If there are effects produced by motion relative to absolute space then yes. If one could measure the one way speed of light in every direction, this may show absolute motion through non congruent light paths (very similar to the Sagnac effect, except in a linear translation). What would the implications be, then, for a relativistic understanding of the universe? Would Lorentz calculations require adjustment based on absolute velocity, then?
280
posted on
07/01/2003 2:48:06 PM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson