Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
Thanks Tree9Thanks

Thread: The Universe according to Puzzling Evidence....

  1. #11
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,203
    Thanks
    7064

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post


    OK, here's the scoop: according to E=Mc2, the only constant in the universe is the speed of light (approximately 3.00×10⁸ m/s). It is always the same for all observers regardless of speed or position.

    Infinity is not a true mathematical property -- If distance, time and position are all variables, so are reality, history and whatever present you are currently whining about.

    Einstein's theory of Relativity allows for a certain portion of our universe, exemption from the known laws of physics (dubbed exotic matter). Call it god, the spirit world, J. R. "Bob" Dobbs or the Acme company; there is something to all this that is incomprehensible even unto Albert Einstein himself.

    The universe is as fake as Silicone Valley and we are borrowed from the nothing just like your own bottomless abyss of insurmountable, financial debt. The good news is that love is more real than anything else that ever supposedly existed.

    Never forget that.
    C is the ONLY constant in the universe ?
    Back to school for you, stopped reading right there.

  2. #12
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    I said "stop" because I get sick and tired of KingRat spouting off about "inertial reference frames." it's a bunch of non-applicable nonsense.

    If you don't like it, you can always go play on the freeway. Thanks.

    *29,000 posts and I can't remember anything at all about who you are or anything you have ever said. I guess what you wrote certainly applies in your case.
    Ok. How about this: the speed of light is not the only physical constant. There is the gravitational constant and planck's constant, just off the top of my head. Here is a more complete list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physic...ntal_constants
    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix

  3. #13
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    C is the ONLY constant in the universe ?
    Back to school for you, stopped reading right there.
    What he probably meant is that the fundamental measures of physics (mass, length and time) are dependent on the speed of light because of the lorentz factor. Anyone who actually went through the trouble of learning special relativity would knows this.

    Oh, and what most people don't know is that the relativistic expression for energy is a taylor infinite series where E=mc^2 is merely an approximation.

  4. #14
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    8902

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    C is the ONLY constant in the universe ?
    Back to school for you, stopped reading right there.
    The "c" that you posted is always lower case.

    Hope this helps.
    Last edited by Puzzling Evidence; 25th January 2018 at 05:21 PM.

  5. #15
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    8902

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Only in inertial reference frames. Observers in accelerating reference frames will observe light to travel at different speeds.
    The Speed of Light as Measured by Non-Inertial Observers
    That the speed of light depends on position when measured by a non-inertial observer is a fact routinely used by laser gyroscopes that form the core of some inertial navigation systems. These gyroscopes send light around a closed loop, and if the loop rotates, an observer riding on the loop will measure light to travel more slowly when it traverses the loop in one direction than when it traverses the loop in the opposite direction. This is known as the Sagnac Effect. The gyroscope does employ such an observer: it is the electronics that sits within the gyro. This electronic observer detects the difference in those light speeds, and attributes that difference to the gyro's not being inertial: it is accelerating within some inertial frame. That measurement of an acceleration allows the body's orientation to be calculated, which keeps it on track and in the right position as it flies.

    You will sometimes find discussions that insist the only correct way to describe the Sagnac Effect is by reference to an inertial frame: they will say that the only concept with meaning is the locally measured speed of light, which is c, and that what the non-inertial observer sitting on the loop says about the motions of two light rays has no physical meaning. Whilst the Sagnac effect is easy to calculate using an inertial frame—because then we can use the simple equations of adding velocities in special relativity—it doesn't follow that any non-inertial description of it is invalid. Those who insist that non-inertial descriptions are invalid are like the man whose house is about to be picked up by a cyclone: they will shout "Don't worry folks! The wind isn't really circulating at 300 km/h. It's really Earth that's rotating in an inertial frame, and the resulting differential motions give rise to the illusion that the wind is about to shred this house." Yes, it's certainly valid to analyse the situation using Newton's laws in an inertial frame. But you might want to hang on to your house while doing so.

    You might also find it said that the Sagnac Effect is somehow not measuring the speed of the two light beams sent around the loop, but "merely" their times of flight, as if that's somehow different to measuring their (average) speed. But the simple fact is that if you send two horses in opposite directions around the same race track, then the horse that crosses the finish line first must have run faster. The different arrival times of the two light beams have nothing to do with anything strange going on with "the geometry of spacetime": this discussion holds in the absence of any gravity, in which case spacetime can be flat, and if it's flat for one observer, it's flat for all, including those sitting on rotating loops. The observer sitting on the rotating loop concludes that the beams simply move at different speeds. And that's all right, because it's only either an inertial observer who must measure their speeds to be both c, or an observer sitting right next to the light beams. But the observer on the loop is neither inertial nor sitting right next to each beam at all times of its flight.

    Discussing non-inertial observers can be simpler if we consider not the rotating frame of a laser gyroscope, but the "uniformly accelerated" frame of someone who sits inside a rocket, far from any gravity source, accelerating at a rate that makes them measure their weight as constant. ...

    Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?

  6. #16
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    8902

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Ok. How about this: the speed of light is not the only physical constant. There is the gravitational constant and planck's constant, just off the top of my head. Here is a more complete list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physic...ntal_constants
    Gravity is contingent upon mass. What happens when matter and ant-mater collide? They annihilate each other.

  7. #17
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    8902

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    What he probably meant is that the fundamental measures of physics (mass, length and time) are dependent on the speed of light because of the lorentz factor. Anyone who actually went through the trouble of learning special relativity would knows this.

    Oh, and what most people don't know is that the relativistic expression for energy is a taylor infinite series where E=mc^2 is merely an approximation.
    Thanks captain c&p!

  8. #18
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    35

    From
    Chicago
    I’d like to contribute but it is all very far over my head.

  9. #19
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,203
    Thanks
    7064

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    The "c" that you posted is always lower case.

    Hope this helps.
    You don't start a sentence with lower case... hope this helps. (in this specific case, the "system" used to enter the sentence, itself made the first letter capital).

  10. #20
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    8902

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    You don't start a sentence with lower case... hope this helps. (in this specific case, the "system" used to enter the sentence, itself made the first letter capital).
    Doowd....I thought that you 'stopped reading?' My point is that anyone making these types of nit-picking "corrections" is basically just here to see their name in lights. Take care.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is there any evidence AGAINST a non-supernatural, materialist Universe?
    By GordonGecko in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 22nd January 2016, 11:09 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed