FTL travel here we come!

[Bluce Ree]

Even then they are not constant, because the environment ALWAYS changes. Constants are not an empirical reality in this universe, and that is what I mean when I say that mathematical equations which use them are inherently flawed.

There needs to be a certain amount of consistency for matter in one state to contain matter in another state without mixing. Constants do exist in controlled environments. For instance, light will always travel at the exact same speed from A to B within a space where the environment is identical throughout and H2O will always freeze at 0C and a glass jug will always hold water at room temperature.

 

[Overmind One]

There needs to be a certain amount of consistency for matter in one state to contain matter in another state without mixing. Constants do exist in controlled environments. For instance, light will always travel at the exact same speed from A to B within a space where the environment is identical throughout and H2O will always freeze at 0C and a glass jug will always hold water at room temperature.

Okay, I will concede that, but the controlled environment does not represent the real universe. Rules that apply in the controlled environment cannot be applied to the real universe in a relevant way, and modern physics cannot adequately explain most of the interactions between matter and energy which are observed in the real universe today. In a very real sense, controlled environments are similar to scifi canon in that they are entirely artificial.

 

[mzzz]

So you're stating that conjecture is constrained within this established base of fundamentals therefore there's no need to study physics further as the rules are set in concrete and theoretical outcomes using these rules are finite and limited. You're actually stating that one is wrong to think outside the box. M'kay, good luck with that bro.

No...you're drawing and exaggerating some false consequence. The rules are not set, that is the essence of a theory, it's subject to change but is the best explanation relatively. Don't get where you're getting that the rules are finite and limited. I was talking about basis of a framework, quantum does basis off of leptons and bosons as base particles (not the particles you would normally think of). That basic framework gave rise to constants. You have a set of data indicating a linear relationship, so you introduce a slope which is a constant. Or some periodic data, that period would be a constant. The only real constraints is accepted upon language, standard measurements, and logic (logic includes math and essentially set theory).

Green! The tenets of "modern physics" do not even follow the original tenets from the physicists like Newton and Einstein who created them. Newton was chillin out under a tree, Einstein was a marginal student who worked in the patent office. Today, you have wannabes who are merely teaching people to CONFORM to the established dogma, and like you said, any deviation from that dogma is discouraged. That is why physics is stagnating and why students and graduates of physics rarely introduce anything new to the field except perhaps yet ANOTHER obscure subatomic particle they have named after themselves. Its sad.

Physics is for everyone. Every good billiards player uses a form of it to make their shots, but stuck up physics students would deny that, because they would hold that the billiards player "knows nothing". Physics is one of the few sciences which has stagnated to this degree. It is also the only science which has such a huge number of people's names placed on processes and objects (ie Hawking Radiation). When pressed, they cannot prove that an equation taking up an entire wall is superior to a billiard player eyeballing his 8-ball shot in the corner pocket.

lol wtf. Seems like you're lashing out at physics students and physics grad students that are against non-physics-field billiard players? rather than the substance of physics being taught. Uh....how is physics stagnating? Don't think you've been reading any physics lately: think it was oz that has done some particle transportation and particle tractor beam, then the link I posted earlier about the breakthrough made that will contribute to quantum computing, then there's quantum entanglement which has vast implications including deep space exploration, computers, innumerable fields, then there's anti-matter, Higgs boson, etc. lol what on earth does billiards have to do with anything. You should learn about these so called "modern tenets of 'modern physics'" before you start lashing out at people who learn that stuff. It's like if I started lashing out at the computer industry and the computer science students berating the knowledge of computer science without actually learning computer science in the first place. Or simply put, lashing out at a movie I've never seen or book I've never read.

 

[Overmind One]

No...you're drawing and exaggerating some false consequence. The rules are not set, that is the essence of a theory, it's subject to change but is the best explanation relatively. Don't get where you're getting that the rules are finite and limited. I was talking about basis of a framework, quantum does basis off of leptons and bosons as base particles (not the particles you would normally think of). That basic framework gave rise to constants. You have a set of data indicating a linear relationship, so you introduce a slope which is a constant. Or some periodic data, that period would be a constant. The only real constraints is accepted upon language, standard measurements, and logic (logic includes math and essentially set theory).

That makes sense to me. But in the real universe, there is no such thing as a perfect slope. The mathematical constant DOES exist, but only in the context of mathematics. A circle can be measured, defined and fixed in diameter. But no such thing exists in the real universe, so how useful is a mathematical equation for circles going to be when describing the orbit of a planet or an electron? At best, it is an approximation. Building on such approximations and then using the results as constants in larger equations makes for very big flaws in the real universe understanding of things in physics. That is my point.

lol wtf. Seems like you're lashing out at physics students and physics grad students that are against non-physics-field billiard players? rather than the substance of physics being taught. Uh....how is physics stagnating? Don't think you've been reading any physics lately: think it was oz that has done some particle transportation and particle tractor beam, then the link I posted earlier about the breakthrough made that will contribute to quantum computing, then there's quantum entanglement which has vast implications including deep space exploration, computers, innumerable fields, then there's anti-matter, Higgs boson, etc. lol what on earth does billiards have to do with anything. You should learn about these so called "modern tenets of 'modern physics'" before you start lashing out at people who learn that stuff. It's like if I started lashing out at the computer industry and the computer science students berating the knowledge of computer science without actually learning computer science in the first place. Or simply put, lashing out at a movie I've never seen or book I've never read.

I am not interested in the modern tenets of physics because they are the same as they were more than a century ago (at the root). There is a particle named after Higgs, but in the real universe there is no such thing as a "god particle". One can no more pin the origin of the universe on a type of particle than they can pinpoint the center of the universe. I can lash out at established physics because it is going nowhere. More theories are being formulated, more particles being named after people, but where is the REAL progress? Billiards is a perfectly useful analogy to what physics tries to describe when talking about action/reaction or particle collisions. I do not believe there is anti-matter, and I do not believe that time travel is possible. I have reasons for these thoughts, based in scientific principles. Not "just because". You posting links to others who are using the same established physics to speculate on possible advancements is not the same as you trying to lash out at anything in IT. Unlike modern physics, everything in IT is empirical and tangible and results can be replicated without deviance. One does not need to speculate or theorize.

Modern physics is stagnating. The community itself says so. I believe it is because any deviation from the established dogma is frowned upon and rejected out of hand. It does not take a physicist to understand physics. Even now, no calculations you can make using established mathematics within physics can accurately calculate the trajectory and final destination of a thrown boomerang. But in IT, you can state with certainty that this line of code brought up in a browser will ALWAYS do the same exact thing which is say "Hello World"

<?php Echo "Hello, World!"; ?>

I am not slamming physics students, I am slamming modern physics itself. True scientific processes should NEVER have people's names attached to them. Lines of code in IT become part of PHP or HTML5 or Visual Basic or Java or whatever. You do not see the "Jenny Jackson Code" or the "Smith-Wesson Command". You almost never see this naming thing going on in the other sciences except perhaps astronomy, where again the subjects of study are intangible and too far away to verify accurately.

 

[shavedape]

EDIT: I got the wrong book in the original post so I'm fixing it to show the correct book: Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman. It was so long ago that I read it that I can't recall exactly but I do remember it was a book that dealt with various takes on Einstein's theories and how he developed them (I could be remembering it wrong here). Each chapter seemed to repeat events in Einstein's life but differently in some way. It was a bizarre book, that' much I recall. At any rate, it was an interesting read that was part of the popular culture and wasn't an academic book. Anyone read it?

 

[Overmind One]

For some reason this thread has me thinking about a book I read ages ago. I think it was Einstein's Monsters by Martin Amis. It was so long ago that I read it that I can't recall exactly but I do remember it was a book that dealt with various takes on Einstein's theories and how he developed them (I could be remembering it wrong here). Each chapter seemed to repeat events in Einstein's life but differently in some way. It was a bizarre book, that' much I recall. At any rate, it was an interesting read that was part of the popular culture and wasn't an academic book. Anyone read it?

No, but I am going to get it if it is available! Interesting man, Albert Einstein. His path to physics godhood is NOTHING like the path being taken by students of physics today. Albert Einstein observed the Universe, and those who followed observed Einstein. . I can think of another historical icon, Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian, just his followers are.

 

[shavedape]

No, but I am going to get it if it is available! Interesting man, Albert Einstein. His path to physics godhood is NOTHING like the path being taken by students of physics today. Albert Einstein observed the Universe, and those who followed observed Einstein. . I can think of another historical icon, Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian, just his followers are.

I got the wrong book in that post so I'll go back and correct it. The book I meant to highlight is Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman. (The titles are so close and it's been so long since I read it that it was an easy mistake to make, sorry about that)

It's a fascinating book even though it's fairly fictional and filled with conjecture. I remember it being a bunch of short chapters that describe various ways Einstein might have reached his conclusions about physics. It was a fascinating read, that much I know. Here's the Amazon link for a better description:

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Dreams-Alan-Lightman/dp/140007780X

Einstein’s Dreams is a fictional collage of stories dreamed by Albert Einstein in 1905, when he worked in a patent office in Switzerland. As the defiant but sensitive young genius is creating his theory of relativity, a new conception of time, he imagines many possible worlds. In one, time is circular, so that people are fated to repeat triumphs and failures over and over. In another, there is a place where time stands still, visited by lovers and parents clinging to their children. In another, time is a nightingale, sometimes trapped by a bell jar.

 

[mzzz]

That makes sense to me. But in the real universe, there is no such thing as a perfect slope. The mathematical constant DOES exist, but only in the context of mathematics. A circle can be measured, defined and fixed in diameter. But no such thing exists in the real universe, so how useful is a mathematical equation for circles going to be when describing the orbit of a planet or an electron? At best, it is an approximation. Building on such approximations and then using the results as constants in larger equations makes for very big flaws in the real universe understanding of things in physics. That is my point.



I am not interested in the modern tenets of physics because they are the same as they were more than a century ago (at the root). There is a particle named after Higgs, but in the real universe there is no such thing as a "god particle". One can no more pin the origin of the universe on a type of particle than they can pinpoint the center of the universe. I can lash out at established physics because it is going nowhere. More theories are being formulated, more particles being named after people, but where is the REAL progress? Billiards is a perfectly useful analogy to what physics tries to describe when talking about action/reaction or particle collisions. I do not believe there is anti-matter, and I do not believe that time travel is possible. I have reasons for these thoughts, based in scientific principles. Not "just because". You posting links to others who are using the same established physics to speculate on possible advancements is not the same as you trying to lash out at anything in IT. Unlike modern physics, everything in IT is empirical and tangible and results can be replicated without deviance. One does not need to speculate or theorize.

Modern physics is stagnating. The community itself says so. I believe it is because any deviation from the established dogma is frowned upon and rejected out of hand. It does not take a physicist to understand physics. Even now, no calculations you can make using established mathematics within physics can accurately calculate the trajectory and final destination of a thrown boomerang. But in IT, you can state with certainty that this line of code brought up in a browser will ALWAYS do the same exact thing which is say "Hello World"

<?php Echo "Hello, World!"; ?>

I am not slamming physics students, I am slamming modern physics itself. True scientific processes should NEVER have people's names attached to them. Lines of code in IT become part of PHP or HTML5 or Visual Basic or Java or whatever. You do not see the "Jenny Jackson Code" or the "Smith-Wesson Command". You almost never see this naming thing going on in the other sciences except perhaps astronomy, where again the subjects of study are intangible and too far away to verify accurately.

Orbitals aren't determined by circles, they're elliptical, and circles are ellipses with the two foci being the same. Now you seem to be talking about degree of precision. After a certain point, it becomes nonsensical to go into infinite degree of precision. I don't get what you're saying, constants have to be physical? Is that it? Seems you're more arguing some kind of epistemology thing than science which falls in the realm of philosophy. You don't even know the approximation derivations so how do you know they create large flaws? Math isn't plug and chug. Physics isn't plug and chug; physics isn't those freshman level classes you took, those are just motivation for deeper concepts with concrete numerical calculations. Physics is partial differentials, they don't calculate exact values most of the time, they only show relations with respect other relations and the structure of the universe with respect to those varying relations. That structure leads to limiting relations which are taken to be constants with respect to specified ambient conditions and respective theoretical derivation.

lol, you're criticizing something you don't even bother to attempt to know. lol, would be like me criticizing Finnish politics without knowing anything about Finnish politics, which I don't. Just silly, man, just plain silly.

 

[mzzz]

There needs to be a certain amount of consistency for matter in one state to contain matter in another state without mixing. Constants do exist in controlled environments. For instance, light will always travel at the exact same speed from A to B within a space where the environment is identical throughout and H2O will always freeze at 0C and a glass jug will always hold water at room temperature.

Actually Bluce, that's kind of the beauty of Einstein's special relativity from what I understand (might be wrong, feel free to correct me) light will travel the same speed in free space regardless of an observer's environment within free space (has to be free otherwise, doesn't make sense to even attempt to make a comparison), even the relative motion of the observer. Kinda blew my mind when I first managed to grasp the concept. Basically saying, if you travel say 30 mph and observe light's speed, it will be the same speed to you as it is some other observer who is not moving at all.

 

[Overmind One]

Orbitals aren't determined by circles, they're elliptical, and circles are ellipses with the two foci being the same. Now you seem to be talking about degree of precision. After a certain point, it becomes nonsensical to go into infinite degree of precision. I don't get what you're saying, constants have to be physical? Is that it?

Um, YES that is it. And it is fundamentally important if you are proposing to use mathematical equations to describe the PHYSICAL universe. Last I looked, the only universe that mathematical equations can predict with complete precision is the CGI universe. In it, everything can be perfect. OMNI's work here proves that math can indeed imitate reality. But IN reality, that math does not hold up. The physical universe is much less represented by current physics methodology than it should be. The irritation I have comes from the entrenchment. What would normally be used for evolution of the science is rejected by those who would rather the bar not be moved out of their reach. New ideas are rejected or overlooked because they do not fit current dogma.

Seems you're more arguing some kind of epistemology thing than science which falls in the realm of philosophy. You don't even know the approximation derivations so how do you know they create large flaws? Math isn't plug and chug. Physics isn't plug and chug; physics isn't those freshman level classes you took, those are just motivation for deeper concepts with concrete numerical calculations. Physics is partial differentials, they don't calculate exact values most of the time, they only show relations with respect other relations and the structure of the universe with respect to those varying relations. That structure leads to limiting relations which are taken to be constants with respect to specified ambient conditions and respective theoretical derivation.

Read that paragraph twice. Tell me why it takes so many words to NOT address this issue? The level of your knowledge of the established dogma does not make it more relevant. The fact is that modern physics and all of its related equations is inadequate to describe the workings of the real universe. Even the graduate level Masters who are professors today cannot calculate the final resting place of a thrown boomerang with any degree of accuracy. Just how advanced is modern physics then?

lol, you're criticizing something you don't even bother to attempt to know. lol, would be like me criticizing Finnish politics without knowing anything about Finnish politics, which I don't. Just silly, man, just plain silly.

The point I am making is that you do not really know as much as you think you know about physics, no matter how you want to word it. None of the current physics masters do. Not even the very best one alive today. Name one great advance in physics on the order of what Einstein did for the science SINCE Einstein. You really want to create some sort of "higher plane" for yourself because you are a student of physics, but are you really on one? Even Stephen Hawking has not contributed much to the science. Maybe Hawking Radiation. But that may not be real either.

Why would I want to study modern physics further than "those freshman classes" when it was going nowhere except into a dead end?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Actually Bluce, that's kind of the beauty of Einstein's special relativity from what I understand (might be wrong, feel free to correct me) light will travel the same speed in free space regardless of an observer's environment within free space (has to be free otherwise, doesn't make sense to even attempt to make a comparison), even the relative motion of the observer. Kinda blew my mind when I first managed to grasp the concept. Basically saying, if you travel say 30 mph and observe light's speed, it will be the same speed to you as it is some other observer who is not moving at all.

That's a concept that I still have a hard time grasping. What about an observer travelling at 50% the speed of light? How about light travelling through a massive gravity well, like a black hole?

 

[mzzz]

Um, YES that is it. And it is fundamentally important if you are proposing to use mathematical equations to describe the PHYSICAL universe. Last I looked, the only universe that mathematical equations can predict with complete precision is the CGI universe. In it, everything can be perfect. OMNI's work here proves that math can indeed imitate reality. But IN reality, that math does not hold up. The physical universe is much less represented by current physics methodology than it should be. The irritation I have comes from the entrenchment. What would normally be used for evolution of the science is rejected by those who would rather the bar not be moved out of their reach. New ideas are rejected or overlooked because they do not fit current dogma.



Read that paragraph twice. Tell me why it takes so many words to NOT address this issue? The level of your knowledge of the established dogma does not make it more relevant. The fact is that modern physics and all of its related equations is inadequate to describe the workings of the real universe. Even the graduate level Masters who are professors today cannot calculate the final resting place of a thrown boomerang with any degree of accuracy. Just how advanced is modern physics then?



The point I am making is that you do not really know as much as you think you know about physics, no matter how you want to word it. None of the current physics masters do. Not even the very best one alive today. Name one great advance in physics on the order of what Einstein did for the science SINCE Einstein. You really want to create some sort of "higher plane" for yourself because you are a student of physics, but are you really on one? Even Stephen Hawking has not contributed much to the science. Maybe Hawking Radiation. But that may not be real either.

Why would I want to study modern physics further than "those freshman classes" when it was going nowhere except into a dead end?

lol, you want something to touch? Man, you make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as infinite degree of precision and it's not practical. And the constants generated are a byproduct of the chosen method/model of analysis, ambient conditions, and the analysis itself. Physics constants do exist if you believe order exists and that things can be related. If you don't think that, then you either think order doesn't exist or that things can't be related. In that case, everything is just 'magic', just coincidence.

You really have no room to be talking about what modern physics can and can't do if you don't even know what modern physics does. You're just stating a position from a significant level of ignorance. It's like those politicians attempting to take a scientific side when they have no idea of the science. Their stances are just as silly as yours. They don't go for absolute accuracy, they build models to compensate for varying factors to within acceptable and practical purposes. The whole Mars rover thing just happened to work out by magic? The way they build electrical systems and all those technological feats, all just magic? No modern physics involved huh?

That's a concept that I still have a hard time grasping. What about an observer travelling at 50% the speed of light? How about light travelling through a massive gravity well, like a black hole?

General disclaimer: I don't know if I'm right on most of this cause I've only had limited exposure. Better off asking this in physicsforums.com.

Yes, even if the observer is traveling at 50%, light still travels at the same speed relative to that observer. And the thing about the gravity well is gonna take some explaining, why I said free space in the original thing. You won't have the same kind of observation if you subject the light to a gravity well. There's a thing called gravitational lensing. This has to do with the dual nature of light, how it behaves like a particle and wave (think Einstein won his Nobel Prize for this specifically, predicting gravitational lensing). Light bends when it passes by things with gravitational significance. So you won't have the same judgement of measurement. The best way I can explain is with a sort of simplified example to illustrate.

Spoiler

You end up observing bent light which throws off the calculation of speed of light because of the distortion since light behaves like a particle, which are subject to gravitational fields. I don't know if that makes sense. You don't get an accurate measurement of the true distance traveled so can't get the true measurement of the speed of light because of your distorted observation. However, I think there are ways to compensate for it, but this is kinda beyond my ability. I'd have to take a hard astronomy course.

 

[Overmind One]

lol, you want something to touch? Man, you make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as infinite degree of precision and it's not practical. And the constants generated are a byproduct of the chosen method/model of analysis, ambient conditions, and the analysis itself. Physics constants do exist if you believe order exists and that things can be related. If you don't think that, then you either think order doesn't exist or that things can't be related. In that case, everything is just 'magic', just coincidence.

You really have no room to be talking about what modern physics can and can't do if you don't even know what modern physics does. You're just stating a position from a significant level of ignorance. It's like those politicians attempting to take a scientific side when they have no idea of the science. Their stances are just as silly as yours. They don't go for absolute accuracy, they build models to compensate for varying factors to within acceptable and practical purposes. The whole Mars rover thing just happened to work out by magic? The way they build electrical systems and all those technological feats, all just magic? No modern physics involved huh?



General disclaimer: I don't know if I'm right on most of this cause I've only had limited exposure. Better off asking this in physicsforums.com.

Yes, even if the observer is traveling at 50%, light still travels at the same speed relative to that observer. And the thing about the gravity well is gonna take some explaining, why I said free space in the original thing. You won't have the same kind of observation if you subject the light to a gravity well. There's a thing called gravitational lensing. This has to do with the dual nature of light, how it behaves like a particle and wave (think Einstein won his Nobel Prize for this specifically, predicting gravitational lensing). Light bends when it passes by things with gravitational significance. So you won't have the same judgement of measurement. The best way I can explain is with a sort of simplified example to illustrate.

Spoiler

View attachment 7789

You end up observing bent light which throws off the calculation of speed of light because of the distortion since light behaves like a particle, which are subject to gravitational fields. I don't know if that makes sense. You don't get an accurate measurement of the true distance traveled so can't get the true measurement of the speed of light because of your distorted observation. However, I think there are ways to compensate for it, but this is kinda beyond my ability. I'd have to take a hard astronomy course.

Physics constants exist (mathematics) PHYSICAL constants do NOT exist. Cold hard fact. Explain the physical universe on its own terms and then this science can move forward instead of being stuck in the mud like it is.

 

[Bluce Ree]

lol, you want something to touch? Man, you make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as infinite degree of precision and it's not practical. And the constants generated are a byproduct of the chosen method/model of analysis, ambient conditions, and the analysis itself. Physics constants do exist if you believe order exists and that things can be related. If you don't think that, then you either think order doesn't exist or that things can't be related. In that case, everything is just 'magic', just coincidence.

You really have no room to be talking about what modern physics can and can't do if you don't even know what modern physics does. You're just stating a position from a significant level of ignorance. It's like those politicians attempting to take a scientific side when they have no idea of the science. Their stances are just as silly as yours. They don't go for absolute accuracy, they build models to compensate for varying factors to within acceptable and practical purposes. The whole Mars rover thing just happened to work out by magic? The way they build electrical systems and all those technological feats, all just magic? No modern physics involved huh?



General disclaimer: I don't know if I'm right on most of this cause I've only had limited exposure. Better off asking this in physicsforums.com.

Yes, even if the observer is traveling at 50%, light still travels at the same speed relative to that observer. And the thing about the gravity well is gonna take some explaining, why I said free space in the original thing. You won't have the same kind of observation if you subject the light to a gravity well. There's a thing called gravitational lensing. This has to do with the dual nature of light, how it behaves like a particle and wave (think Einstein won his Nobel Prize for this specifically, predicting gravitational lensing). Light bends when it passes by things with gravitational significance. So you won't have the same judgement of measurement. The best way I can explain is with a sort of simplified example to illustrate.

Spoiler

View attachment 7789

You end up observing bent light which throws off the calculation of speed of light because of the distortion since light behaves like a particle, which are subject to gravitational fields. I don't know if that makes sense. You don't get an accurate measurement of the true distance traveled so can't get the true measurement of the speed of light because of your distorted observation. However, I think there are ways to compensate for it, but this is kinda beyond my ability. I'd have to take a hard astronomy course.

It does. In essence, if I'm understanding correctly, light may travel a larger distance due to gravitational distortion but its speed remains constant.

Ok. Here's another example. The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach Earth and 5 hours to reach Pluto. If an observer leaves Earth at the speed of light towards Pluto at the same moment the sun lets out a solar flare, the theory states that the observer would still see the solar flare 8 minutes later instead of 5 hours later (4 hours 52 minutes to reach Pluto from Earth then another 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to catch up) once reaching Pluto because light is supposedly travelling at the same speed relative to the observer. How is it possible for the observer to see the flare before it reaches Pluto if both the light from the solar flare and the observer leaving Earth left their individual points of origin at the same moment and at the same speed?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Gonna get fwapped for this, but oh well.

lol, you want something to touch?

No, he asserts that there are no constants, so there is no real "brass ring" to grab"

Man, you make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as infinite degree of precision and it's not practical. And the constants generated are a byproduct of the chosen method/model of analysis, ambient conditions, and the analysis itself.

So, it is based on understanding of the model being used?
Yup.

Physics constants do exist if you believe order exists and that things can be related.

Constants exist as long as you accept the model being used as accurate.
Here is a very basic physics question. If I took 10 aircraft capable of supersonic speeds, do all of them break the sound barrier at exactly (and I do mean down to the quantum level) the same time. I doubt it, and that is (I think) the essence of OM's "no constants" argument. It MAY be close, it may be a matter of nanoseconds, but it is not the same.

If you don't think that, then you either think order doesn't exist or that things can't be related. In that case, everything is just 'magic', just coincidence.

(here is when I get really slammed)
"Magic" has laws, just not the same as you think they are, just like "magic" is not what you think it is.
Don't expect me to "explain" this, cause "explaining it" is pretty much a waste of time, explore it if you are interested. (in fact, thats half the point)

You really have no room to be talking about what modern physics can and can't do if you don't even know what modern physics does

What can modern physics do?

You're just stating a position from a significant level of ignorance. It's like those politicians attempting to take a scientific side when they have no idea of the science. Their stances are just as silly as yours. They don't go for absolute accuracy, they build models to compensate for varying factors to within acceptable and practical purposes.

You just proved OM's point.

The whole Mars rover thing just happened to work out by magic? The way they build electrical systems and all those technological feats, all just magic? No modern physics involved huh?

Thats just funny.

 

[Overmind One]

Gonna get fwapped for this, but oh well.



No, he asserts that there are no constants, so there is no real "brass ring" to grab"

EXACTLY.

So, it is based on understanding of the model being used?
Yup.

No argument with him there, since it is exactly what I have been complaining about. It reminds me of that scene with the original Planet of the Apes where Dr Zaius was interrogating Col Taylor about the Lawgiver's rules, concluding that because Taylor did not know them he was not sentient. LMAO!

Constants exist as long as you accept the model being used as accurate.
Here is a very basic physics question. If I took 10 aircraft capable of supersonic speeds, do all of them break the sound barrier at exactly (and I do mean down to the quantum level) the same time. I doubt it, and that is (I think) the essence of OM's "no constants" argument. It MAY be close, it may be a matter of nanoseconds, but it is not the same.

Again, EXACTLY correct. You cannot find two IDENTICAL apples anywhere on earth, even if they are CLONES. Cold hard fact. No "identical" twins are ever identical.

(here is when I get really slammed)
"Magic" has laws, just not the same as you think they are, just like "magic" is not what you think it is.
Don't expect me to "explain" this, cause "explaining it" is pretty much a waste of time, explore it if you are interested. (in fact, thats half the point)


What can modern physics do?

You just proved OM's point.

:daniel_new_anime021

Thats just funny.

Physics is the GOP of science. Astronomy is not far behind, but the progressive elements of it are the majority and astronomy is moving forward and that field is far more willing to accept revisions and change than physics.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Did I kill the thread by being a "nutjob"?

 

[Overmind One]

Did I kill the thread by being a "nutjob"?

No, I think that mzzz is running out of snide, condescending remarks to use. The facts of the universe are impossible to debunk. There simply are no physical constants beyond what humans invent. And even then, they end up being discarded for new ones. I thought it funny that he used the Mars Rover mission as proof of the validity of his claim, when the lander did not hit the mark intended exactly. It came within 1.5 miles of its intended target. Hardly precise. Today, the very best physics master cannot accurately predict the final resting place of a thrown boomerang using all the physics tools available to this date. The most telling of all is that if the current physics models are fed into a COMPUTER (which does not account for any margins of error), the actual result using physical objects will be significantly off.

Clue anyone? It becomes very imprecise as we apply these antiquated ideas and methods to smaller and smaller particles and particle systems. The universe is already working perfectly, using the correct rules of physics, but the science of physics is still basically clueless when it comes down to specifics. It has lagged far behind all the other sciences because of entrenched dogma and constructs of prestige and status. No other science has so many personal names attached to processes, particles, equations and theories than physics, yet physics has produced the least advancements of them all. The science of rocket launches and calculating trajectories is more than a century old.

 

[mzzz]

Physics constants exist (mathematics) PHYSICAL constants do NOT exist. Cold hard fact. Explain the physical universe on its own terms and then this science can move forward instead of being stuck in the mud like it is.

lol, I don't think there any theories advocating some touchy feely constant. That just makes no sense. lol helps if you learn the science.

It does. In essence, if I'm understanding correctly, light may travel a larger distance due to gravitational distortion but its speed remains constant.

Ok. Here's another example. The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach Earth and 5 hours to reach Pluto. If an observer leaves Earth at the speed of light towards Pluto at the same moment the sun lets out a solar flare, the theory states that the observer would still see the solar flare 8 minutes later instead of 5 hours later (4 hours 52 minutes to reach Pluto from Earth then another 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to catch up) once reaching Pluto because light is supposedly travelling at the same speed relative to the observer. How is it possible for the observer to see the flare before it reaches Pluto if both the light from the solar flare and the observer leaving Earth left their individual points of origin at the same moment and at the same speed?

I think you answered your own question, you aren't observing it before pluto 'observes' it you still have to wait that 8 minutes, which brings the total clock to 5 hrs. Of course this all ignores matter breakdown and that only massless entities can go the speed of light. And there's concepts far beyond my current knowledge that would clarify things further like Lorentz contraction, time dilation, and such. Unfortunately, I haven't had the physics class that deals with that, only the math course differential geometry.

Gonna get fwapped for this, but oh well.
No, he asserts that there are no constants, so there is no real "brass ring" to grab"
So, it is based on understanding of the model being used?
Yup.
Constants exist as long as you accept the model being used as accurate.
Here is a very basic physics question. If I took 10 aircraft capable of supersonic speeds, do all of them break the sound barrier at exactly (and I do mean down to the quantum level) the same time. I doubt it, and that is (I think) the essence of OM's "no constants" argument. It MAY be close, it may be a matter of nanoseconds, but it is not the same.
(here is when I get really slammed)
"Magic" has laws, just not the same as you think they are, just like "magic" is not what you think it is.
Don't expect me to "explain" this, cause "explaining it" is pretty much a waste of time, explore it if you are interested. (in fact, thats half the point)
What can modern physics do?
You just proved OM's point.
Thats just funny.

Yeah, it's silly to think of something as physical constants, although I think he was going for the all inclusive all.
Yeah, I don't really care about the model, but in the end, some sort of constraining factor will arise because of the order and relations. If you impose the same conditions on all 10 and same effects (the sound wave and molecule disruption being the same for all of them), then it will probably be at the same time. But if you're talking about exact measurement in relation to chosen apparatus and making it subject to human observation, then there's gonna be error in measurement due to human error and apparatus error. If you're talking about infinite degree of precision, that doesn't make sense and is impossible to even attempt to do so. I don't see how that relates to his constants argument, don't even see an argument for that matter.

The magic thing is another matter, I was using it in the sense of normal language not DnD, WoW, fantasy books that describe a magic system in full. This is sorta more uh literary or philosophical matter. If you prefer, use pure coincidence instead. I think you're thinking of magic with all the formalized structure. There was this review of a Sanderson book I read a while back. He basically said about the way Sanderson does magic: when you give give structure and general framework to a magic system, you're making it a science with respect to the world you create. It's not really magic, according to him. Eh, that's a minor point in how we differentiate in how we view the word magic I guess. I'm on that guy's side in a way. Think pure coincidence instead.

 

[mzzz]

No, I think that mzzz is running out of snide, condescending remarks to use. The facts of the universe are impossible to debunk. There simply are no physical constants beyond what humans invent. And even then, they end up being discarded for new ones. I thought it funny that he used the Mars Rover mission as proof of the validity of his claim, when the lander did not hit the mark intended exactly. It came within 1.5 miles of its intended target. Hardly precise. Today, the very best physics master cannot accurately predict the final resting place of a thrown boomerang using all the physics tools available to this date. The most telling of all is that if the current physics models are fed into a COMPUTER (which does not account for any margins of error), the actual result using physical objects will be significantly off.

Clue anyone? It becomes very imprecise as we apply these antiquated ideas and methods to smaller and smaller particles and particle systems. The universe is already working perfectly, using the correct rules of physics, but the science of physics is still basically clueless when it comes down to specifics. It has lagged far behind all the other sciences because of entrenched dogma and constructs of prestige and status. No other science has so many personal names attached to processes, particles, equations and theories than physics, yet physics has produced the least advancements of them all. The science of rocket launches and calculating trajectories is more than a century old.

lol sure man. You have no idea of the knowledge in math and physics. You're talking from a serious level of ignorance. You even admit you don't want/need to learn the math and science. Yet you continue to deride it from your level of ignorance. You changed your stance, from there are no constants in physics to there are no physical constants. That is just a ridiculous claim, you want something to touch and feel? That serves no purpose in science, something to touch and feel and it makes no sense to connect it to physics cause that's something humans do, touch and feel. It's so silly! I think you have this really silly notion that the only physics that qualify as knowledge are ones that have practical applications. Everything started at the theoretical stage. Again, helps if you freaking learn the science instead of berating things you don't even bother to know. Lemme bash on Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, cause it's so antiquated and is useless and bad grammar blah blah, even though I've never read the book. So silly!