| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2010 07:50:01 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I'll concede the point that EM radiation is not considered matter (although other forms of radiation are: alpha and beta radiation come to mind). I think the conversation would be best served, however, if you would drop the use of the word matter, as I don't know of any physical laws that use the term. I am also open to rebuttal :). |
a civilized opponent, to be sure. :) I will try not to use it unless it is necessary (say we were talking about gravity). |
It's statements like these that confound me. What does matter have to do with gravity? Mass certainly, but that wiki article on matter talk about the binding energy contributing to the mass of things that are considered matter.
Either way, I don't want to cause Dr. Hawking anymore distress, so back to your regularly scheduled programming. |
Well, it's probably becuse we're talking both colloquially and trying to talk the talk. Gravity certainly affects mass, but for the vast majority of circumstances, that means fermions. And to make it even more complicated, the type of mass matters. :D
"Only potential mass are affected by the force of gravity. Fermions have effective potential mass. So both masses of the electron and positron are potential mass. Bosons have effective kinetic mass. The photon does have kinetic mass in the form of E/c^2 but its potential mass is zero. The Higgs field is an equilibrium of H+ and H-. The masses of the W and Z bosons are kinetic masses, which are not affected by gravity."
|
|
|
|
04/27/2010 08:02:06 PM · #152 |
| Well, that's why it's probably best to avoid using the term. It's just too imprecise for this type of conversation. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 09:03:16 PM · #153 |
| ....and when you spin those Bosons about their natural axis at extremely high rev/nanosec it makes the result even more unstable. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 01:11:03 PM · #154 |
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 03:05:21 PM · #155 |
| Now just how hard could it be to put on makeup? |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:34:40 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Funny, my reaction was a little different. I figured cosmologists would welcome new data because it might help move the ball one way or the other in terms of validation of current theories.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 06:07:37 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Funny, my reaction was a little different. I figured cosmologists would welcome new data because it might help move the ball one way or the other in terms of validation of current theories. |
Ya, that's a good point. I was thinking of the empirical practicality of not knowing if the rules of the game are different when you peer billions of years into the past. Can you use the same math to extrapolate results from back then as you would for results from now? It would be much easier if the rules are the rules.
It's also entirely possible that these results can be explained through a more mundane means. I just thought it an interesting article.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 11:14:53 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Originally posted by From the Article:
The wavelength or frequency at which an atom or molecule emits light depends on the fundamental constants of the universe...
These observations suggest that some fundamental constant is indeed changing since the time of this galaxy, almost 3 billion years ago. |
Maybe the Doc or someone can help me with this. What "observations" are they talking about? They're talking about the rest frequencies? I have no clue what this is. The article is a little lite on it's findings (besides a nice looking graph). |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 11:34:53 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Originally posted by From the Article:
The wavelength or frequency at which an atom or molecule emits light depends on the fundamental constants of the universe...
These observations suggest that some fundamental constant is indeed changing since the time of this galaxy, almost 3 billion years ago. |
Maybe the Doc or someone can help me with this. What "observations" are they talking about? They're talking about the rest frequencies? I have no clue what this is. The article is a little lite on it's findings (besides a nice looking graph). |
I may be wrong here as well, but I think they are talking about Spectral lines of molecules or something analagous to it. They are saying the line is slightly off of where they would expect it and that is because, according to them, the constant known as the "fine structure constant" was slightly different. That's my read of it anyway.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 01:22:34 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I may be wrong here as well, but I think they are talking about Spectral lines of molecules or something analagous to it. They are saying the line is slightly off of where they would expect it and that is because, according to them, the constant known as the "fine structure constant" was slightly different. That's my read of it anyway. |
It's worth noting that the idea that the fundamental constants have changed over the time since the universe was born was already floating around based on other, unspecified, observations. What's different here is that "the new technique of finding lines from the same gas cloud reduces a lot of the uncertainty of previous measurements."
In other words, they are much more sure these latest measurements are accurate, and thus that fundamental, physical laws have indeed changed, or evolved, over time.
And this is VERY peculiar. It raises all sorts of philosophical questions, let alone scientific ones.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 02:23:25 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Funny, my reaction was a little different. I figured cosmologists would welcome new data because it might help move the ball one way or the other in terms of validation of current theories. |
Ya, that's a good point. I was thinking of the empirical practicality of not knowing if the rules of the game are different when you peer billions of years into the past. Can you use the same math to extrapolate results from back then as you would for results from now? It would be much easier if the rules are the rules.
It's also entirely possible that these results can be explained through a more mundane means. I just thought it an interesting article. |
This same discussion sorta came up in one of the other rant threads I think you popped into... the rules ARE the rules from an atheist's standpoint. There has been no change, it is just that we are only now understanding that our initial model was flawed. There is no guarantee of accuracy or end result in science. There is no guarantee of finding the ONE TRUE TRUTH, there is just an assumption that such a thing exists. A rule is only a rule so long as it can be one. Here, we have reached a potential end to usefulness at the most, and nothing more. |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 04:05:16 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just an interesting tidbit I ran across. The more we know, the less we know. I don't think this necessarily changes any of the discussion we were having here, but it could make cosmologist's life more difficult.
Universe's constants maybe not so constant. |
Funny, my reaction was a little different. I figured cosmologists would welcome new data because it might help move the ball one way or the other in terms of validation of current theories. |
Ya, that's a good point. I was thinking of the empirical practicality of not knowing if the rules of the game are different when you peer billions of years into the past. Can you use the same math to extrapolate results from back then as you would for results from now? It would be much easier if the rules are the rules.
It's also entirely possible that these results can be explained through a more mundane means. I just thought it an interesting article. |
This same discussion sorta came up in one of the other rant threads I think you popped into... the rules ARE the rules from an atheist's standpoint. There has been no change, it is just that we are only now understanding that our initial model was flawed. There is no guarantee of accuracy or end result in science. There is no guarantee of finding the ONE TRUE TRUTH, there is just an assumption that such a thing exists. A rule is only a rule so long as it can be one. Here, we have reached a potential end to usefulness at the most, and nothing more. |
I think you might be saying something I agree with, in principle, but I want to make clear that you understand what the article is implying. The rule of "fine structure constant" is different now than it was in the past. It isn't our understanding that is different, but that the rule is actually different. Another example would be if, hypothetically, the formula governing gravity, was different in the past than it is now. Are you coming away with that from the article?
Message edited by author 2010-05-13 16:05:45.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 08:50:29 PM · #163 |
Yeah, I understand what it's saying. What I'm saying is that just because our earlier understanding (that it was a static constant) was incorrect, does not mean the actual behavior of the phenomenon as a whole is in fact different from any other point in the history of the universe. That's a faulty assumption. The only fact here is that our previous understanding cannot fit this in without modification.
The whole "world is flat" theory was functional and worked out well enough for people for a very long time. Perhaps we've reached the proverbial edge of our previous understanding? Maybe it was just your wording, but it seemed to be hinting at an impossibility to be able to understand how the behavior has been altered between then and now. Ultimately, I'm proposing that although we, as humans, enjoy assuming that everything we have discovered is a complete and whole truth for eternity and that we have formed a cohesive model, there remains the distinct possibility that our theories are but building blocks in a greater explanation. In fact, history has borne this out. It is simply the nature of knowledge. But we suffer from an assumption that our current ideas will surely stand the test of time, and then when they don't, we say things like "the sky is falling" and feel listless as we try to integrate it into our worldview.
ETA: The statement that the rule has changed is an assumption that everything we have so far learned is inherently valid and it is in fact the behavior of the universe that is flawed. This is asinine. Laws exist before we describe them, and have no relation to the validity of our descriptions. We cannot confuse the ACTUAL manifestation of a law with our description of it. Here, the two are being muddled together.
Message edited by author 2010-05-13 21:03:30. |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 10:02:13 PM · #164 |
| I agree with everything you say. My point is that the world we live in becomes different and different in a way that may or may not be more challenging to worldviews. That's all. As our understanding of the universe changes, we also need to come to grips with the implications of our increased understanding. A dynamic, expanding universe with a t=0 has different implications than a static, eternal one. A universe where the laws change over time might (and I'm just saying MIGHT, I haven't even thought it through completely) have different implications from one where they don't. |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 11:04:27 PM · #165 |
Well...
Consider this- if it's possible to describe the causes of these fluctuations, and therefore predict them, it would only mean that we were wrong on a theory, not that the universe is incomprehensible due to its inherent morphing over time. Slightly easier to get your head around that prospect.
Of course, we obviously haven't a clue which it is, and hypothetically it could be anything. BUT, I'd wager it would be what I'm proposing, unless we suddenly throw out the entire concept of causation, which would be the ultimate can of worms anyway.
And, assuming such an explanation were had, really, it would imply that the world we live in has not actually changed as it would still be under the same forces. What changes is our understanding.
I do think we're coming at things the same way, it's just interesting to consider. |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 11:38:29 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Well...
Consider this- if it's possible to describe the causes of these fluctuations, and therefore predict them, it would only mean that we were wrong on a theory, not that the universe is incomprehensible due to its inherent morphing over time. Slightly easier to get your head around that prospect.
Of course, we obviously haven't a clue which it is, and hypothetically it could be anything. BUT, I'd wager it would be what I'm proposing, unless we suddenly throw out the entire concept of causation, which would be the ultimate can of worms anyway.
And, assuming such an explanation were had, really, it would imply that the world we live in has not actually changed as it would still be under the same forces. What changes is our understanding.
I do think we're coming at things the same way, it's just interesting to consider. |
But, of course, the question would come up, what if the causes of the fluctuations have also changed over time? And now when previous unknown phenomena occur, we have to decide whether to explain it by a new rule or the changing of an old rule. It just muddies the water a whole lot. I'm sure very few scientists would prefer to have it that way (of course they can't choose). In the end it's nothing but another cork in the piehole of the person who thinks we know it all... |
|
|
|
05/14/2010 01:11:37 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But, of course, the question would come up, what if the causes of the fluctuations have also changed over time? And now when previous unknown phenomena occur, we have to decide whether to explain it by a new rule or the changing of an old rule. It just muddies the water a whole lot. I'm sure very few scientists would prefer to have it that way (of course they can't choose). In the end it's nothing but another cork in the piehole of the person who thinks we know it all... |
Then we could have the same discussions in physics that we do in climatology. Hooooray! |
|
|
|
05/14/2010 06:51:48 AM · #168 |
So which came first......the universe, or the egg?
|
|
|
|
06/15/2010 06:27:27 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Sevlow:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I'd be interested in hearing any rational reasons why we should preserve a belief in heaven? |
The longer I'm here on DPC, and the more I hear from the Christians in general, the more amazed I am that anyone would buy into any of it. There is not one whit of proof, or validation, so the sheer complicated intricacies of the whole system just boggle my mind. I think it's pretty much all a bunch of hoo-hah created by people to make themselves less scared of dying.
I know this'll unleash a whole torrent of "What about your immortal soul." and "Don't you want salvation in the hereafter?" but to be honest with you, I don't have any intention of living my life for what might be waiting for me after this.
Thing is......what if they're wrongt? Then their lives had no meaning whatsoever since they lived it for their eternal salvation. We're here today, and to be as good and decent to each other as we can for that in and of itself, nt to get us into heaven or keep us from going to Hell.
I refuse to run my life for a promise with no proof or guarantees. |
I agree 100%, however if people believe, and they hold on to the hope that one day they will achieve that belief, well good luck to them. I actually admire people who have faith in their God. |
Why do you admire them? You can easily be like them. Just ignore reality and commit to faith. Remember as a child how Santa Claus meant so much to you? Go back there and continue the dream because that's exactly what the faithful do each and every day of their lives, they want to believe that someone is taking care of them and that they'll have a safe place to go after death and meet all their long lost family members and close friends. They're all waiting for you to join them.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2010 06:28:31 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So which came first......the universe, or the egg? |
The universal egg. ;) |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 01:39:05 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Why do you admire them? You can easily be like them. Just ignore reality and commit to faith. Remember as a child how Santa Claus meant so much to you? Go back there and continue the dream because that's exactly what the faithful do each and every day of their lives, they want to believe that someone is taking care of them and that they'll have a safe place to go after death and meet all their long lost family members and close friends. They're all waiting for you to join them. |
I bet when you get together with people and hang out, they all make sure to plant themselves right next to you because, dammit, Jac is always good for a laugh. He's sunshine and bubbles I tell ya! |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 01:28:02 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Sevlow:
I agree 100%, however if people believe, and they hold on to the hope that one day they will achieve that belief, well good luck to them. I actually admire people who have faith in their God. |
Why do you admire them? You can easily be like them. Just ignore reality and commit to faith. Remember as a child how Santa Claus meant so much to you? Go back there and continue the dream because that's exactly what the faithful do each and every day of their lives, they want to believe that someone is taking care of them and that they'll have a safe place to go after death and meet all their long lost family members and close friends. They're all waiting for you to join them. |
People of faith don't ignore reality, they are a product of it. In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God.
I'm sorry you haven't been graced by by such an encounter, but give it time. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 01:39:48 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 02:16:10 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Probably some of all of them? |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 02:26:40 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Probably some of all of them? |
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the implications of that statement. |
|
