Support NeoGAF

[Zarovitch]

I was informed this morning that this was all bullshit. That none of it makes sense, and it has to be made up.

I was told that we don't have any proof that the stars aren't actually in the sky, that it's impossible to know how far away they really are.

Even got to the point that I was told we can't measure speed, and that distance is unknowable without having first been to the point of origin.

Using simple math and an example of driving a car down the block to explain the concept of measurement, and that we could in fact measure the speed at which things travel... I was then told it doesn't matter anyway because in 100 years scientists will just "change speed and distance to make up more stuff".

This was a "straight A student"... and the mother of my child...

All because I was excited and shared this with her this morning.

If the communication eng here that's sad, but there's possibility to learn thing with her?
You could look a documentory or read stuff and share? If she want.

 

[twobear]

Can we please take a moment to appreciate the fact that Einstein figured out General Relativity just by thinking about the fact that a person in free-fall doesn't feel their own weight?

From that 'happy thought' to a theory that can (at least partially) explain the origins of the universe. And it only took him a decade.

If anyone ever starts waffling on about how stupid we are to think that we can fathom anything about the universe blah blah so arrogant blah blah blah mysteries of the cosmos please remind them of this fact and then slap them.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Can we please take a moment to appreciate the fact that Einstein figured out General Relativity just by thinking about the fact that a person in free-fall doesn't feel their own weight?

From that 'happy thought' to a theory that can (at least partially) explain the origins of the universe. And it only took him a decade.

If anyone ever starts waffling on about how stupid we are to think that we can fathom anything about the universe blah blah so arrogant blah blah blah mysteries of the cosmos please remind them of this fact and then slap them.

I actually didn't know the origins on how Einstein produced the theory, this is very enlightening and amazing at the same time. I'll be sure to reference it in the future.

 

[Cromat]

Yeah the concept of space has always intruiged me. It goes inward and outward though. It seems inward space is just as infinite as outward. My meaning is, you can always zoom a bit further. We thought at some point Cells were it. Then we found the Atoms. Then we found the things that make atoms. Then we are seeing the stuff that forms Neutrons and Protons ( whats it called, Quarks or something like that? ). And then what creates the thing that creates Protons lol.

The same way you can continually zoom out and out and out, you can also do the same thing zooming in and in and in. Really, if you were able, you could zoom in so far you would no longer see whatever it is you were a part of in the first place. Hell, if you zoomed out enough, our universe would be non-existent. Such like that. I always loved how Atoms seemed like duplicates of a solar system structure, a bit anyway.

Actually, distances shorter than the Planck length (approximately 10^-35 meter) could never be observed by any instrument, and therefore the concept of space is indefinable at that scale. So it's unclear whether you could actually "zoom in" further than the Planck scale and what that would even mean.

Causality is still really important, it just really hard to figure out the causes of the big bang. and mind you, people are trying to that, and if someone figure it out that will be the holy grail to end all holy grails of astrophysics.
By the way, such discoveries might actually help us understand the causes of the big bang.

p.s.
Regardless of that, not sure how you got to conformists and dogmatic, that's like saying the evolution is conformist and dogmatic because we don't know the origin of life.

Even if the cause of the Big Bang were to be found, wouldn't we just ask what the cause of that cause was? I think the problem here is the concept of causality which is fairly confused. We don't have an agreed definition of what a cause even is. At the end that would probably remain a philosophical question.

 

[Kimosabae]

Ughh, the ustream video linked in the OP is useless, you can't hear anything.

 

[twobear]

I actually didn't know the origins on how Einstein produced the theory, this is very enlightening and amazing at the same time. I'll be sure to reference it in the future.

Well to be fair, even understanding how he actually did it doesn't really help you understand his thought process. Even Feynman, commenting on Einstein's formulation of the theory, reportedly remarked 'I don't know how he did it'.

But, the general idea is that one day, Einstein realised that the most important thing about gravity is that objects in freefall don't feel their own weight. From that fact he (somehow) inferred that gravitation must be a property of spacetime instead of matter, as it is in Newton's theory.

Fully understanding the importance of this idea took him the best part of a decade, but when he did finally understand it well enough, actually deriving the field equation for GR was relatively straightforward (in fact, David Hilbert was able to do it independently of Einstein once Einstein explained the physical basis of the theory to him).

Although the the theory predicts and explains an enormous amount of phenomena in the universe, it wasn't constructed using those data (like, for instance, Quantum Mechanics, which was a very data-driven theory), for the simple reason that in the 1910s there were no instruments accurate to measure most of its predictions. It successfully explained the orbit of Mercury and predicted the bending of light by the Sun, but it wasn't until the invention of atomic clocks that most of its predictions, like the fact that time runs slower in a stronger gravitational field, could be tested.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Can we please take a moment to appreciate the fact that Einstein figured out General Relativity just by thinking about the fact that a person in free-fall doesn't feel their own weight?

From that 'happy thought' to a theory that can (at least partially) explain the origins of the universe. And it only took him a decade.

If anyone ever starts waffling on about how stupid we are to think that we can fathom anything about the universe blah blah so arrogant blah blah blah mysteries of the cosmos please remind them of this fact and then slap them.

His four greatest works, the Annus Mirabilis Papers, were all published over the course of a single year, as the moniker suggests. 1905, while he was 25 years old. The photoeelectric effect, brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-enegy equivalence. All over the course of a single year, at the age of 25 years old.

Nine days ago, I turned 26. Thinking about this blows my mind.

 

[RoH]

Actually, distances shorter than the Planck length (approximately 10^-35 meter) could never be observed by any instrument, and therefore the concept of space is indefinable at that scale. So it's unclear whether you could actually "zoom in" further than the Planck scale and what that would even mean.



Even if the cause of the Big Bang were to be found, wouldn't we just ask what the cause of that cause was? I think the problem here is the concept of causality which is fairly confused. We don't have an agreed definition of what a cause even is. At the end that would probably remain a philosophical question.

I think the casual issue is called the "infinite regress problem"

 

[soontroll]

My condolences. Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

What the hell.

 

[Ashes]

Can we please take a moment to appreciate the fact that Einstein figured out General Relativity just by thinking about the fact that a person in free-fall doesn't feel their own weight?

From that 'happy thought' to a theory that can (at least partially) explain the origins of the universe. And it only took him a decade.

If anyone ever starts waffling on about how stupid we are to think that we can fathom anything about the universe blah blah so arrogant blah blah blah mysteries of the cosmos please remind them of this fact and then slap them.

Interesting. For some reason, I thought it was the chasing the beam of light thought experiment.

 

[zyxwvu4321]

Interesting. For some reason, I thought it was the chasing the beam of light thought experiment.

That was what led him to Special Relativity.

 

[Ashes]

That was what led him to Special Relativity.

Ah I see.

Spoiler

check please.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

If anyone ever starts waffling on about how stupid we are to think that we can fathom anything about the universe blah blah so arrogant blah blah blah mysteries of the cosmos please remind them of this fact and then slap them.

Sentience is groovy, I have no argument there. But how does cosmology stack up against other fields, epistemologically? Fewer observations than free parameters. It's a bit problematic, no?

 

[jet1911]

My condolences. Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

This is sad. Really sad.

 

[Hitokage]

Sentience is groovy, I have no argument there. But how does cosmology stack up against other fields, epistemologically? Fewer observations than free parameters. It's a bit problematic, no?

It's all photons in a bucket.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

It's all photons in a bucket.

Human nature, all the way down.

 

[twobear]

His four greatest works, the Annus Mirabilis Papers, were all published over the course of a single year, as the moniker suggests. 1905, while he was 25 years old. The photoeelectric effect, brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-enegy equivalence. All over the course of a single year, at the age of 25 years old.

Nine days ago, I turned 26. Thinking about this blows my mind.

One of my old supervisors used to say that only the fact that kept him alive past his mid-20s was that Immanuel Kant waited until he was 40 to change the intellectual landscape of Europe.

 

[UglyPony]

Amazing stuff, makes me want to watch http://youtu.be/0ZiXC8Yh4T0 again.

 

[Zarovitch]

...., but it wasn't until the invention of atomic clocks that most of its predictions, like the fact that time runs slower in a stronger gravitational field, could be tested.

That's one of the thing i'll never understand. Is it the mechanism of the clock that is more slow? Time for me is just how much second have pass between to thing. I need to re-read about that.

 

[SpoonyBard]

That's one of the thing i'll never understand. Is it the mechanism of the clock that is more slow? Time for me is just how much second have pass between to thing. I need to re-read about that.

It has been tested with different kinds of clocks to make sure it's not just a mechanical thing.

 

[Hitokage]

That's one of the thing i'll never understand. Is it the mechanism of the clock that is more slow? Time for me is just how much second have pass between to thing. I need to re-read about that.

Time is not an absolute value of measure. Seconds to me are not seconds to you.

Normally this is an extremely small effect so you only have to worry about this stuff when you're going so fast it approaches a sizable fraction of the speed of light, but something like GPS uses very high precision timing so it becomes an issue. The clocks on GPS satellites are designed to run at a different speed in order to compensate for time itself being a different speed for them.

 

[Zarovitch]

It has been tested with different kinds of clocks to make sure it's not just a mechanical thing.

Every clock are mechanical, no? I understand that gravity use is force on matter so on clock. Then a clock under huge gravity will probably don't work like less gravity.

If i let a clock in a huge gravity force for five minutes and the clock show 4 minutes, i still let the clock under the force 5 minutes, no? It's just that the clock don't work well under this force.

 

[Zarovitch]

Time is not an absolute value of measure. Seconds to me are not seconds to you.

Normally this is an extremely small effect so you only have to worry about this stuff when you're going so fast it approaches a sizable fraction of the speed of light, but something like GPS uses very high precision timing so it becomes an issue. The clocks on GPS satellites are designed to run at a different speed in order to compensate for time itself being a different speed for them.

I understand that the satellites need to recaliber himself cause of forces but time is still the same. You see i'll never understand

 

[GaimeGuy]

I understand that the satellites need to recaliber himself cause of forces but time is still the same. You see i'll never understand

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

[Chezzymann]

I understand that the satellites need to recaliber himself cause of forces but time is still the same. You see i'll never understand

Your error is that you're separating time and space, when you should be thinking of reality as spacetime. This concept is a huge part of modern science.

Here's a good quote explaining why gravity slows down time regarding black holes:

To oversimplify the explanation, you have to understand the curvature of space time around a black hole. The basic principle is that because of the curvature of spacetime around a black hole, the amount of "distance" a beam of light has to cover is greater near a black hole. However, to an observer in that gravitational field, light must appear to always be 300,000 km/sec, time has to slow down for that individual as compared to someone outside that gravitational field as related by the time/distance relationship of speed.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/spacetime.html

 

[Hitokage]

I understand that the satellites need to recaliber himself cause of forces but time is still the same. You see i'll never understand

Time change is observed between systems with no net force, only differing constant speed. Even in systems with net force, you can orient a timekeeping system perpendicular to it so that it does not change the internal energy of the system.

Or, you know, you could just use an atomic clock, which does not depend on macroscopic mechanical motion.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Every clock are mechanical, no? I understand that gravity use is force on matter so on clock. Then a clock under huge gravity will probably don't work like less gravity.

If i let a clock in a huge gravity force for five minutes and the clock show 4 minutes, i still let the clock under the force 5 minutes, no? It's just that the clock don't work well under this force.

But the same effect has been observed with several different kind of atomic clocks. If the effect was some kind of measurement error, then it would be different with different tyoe of clocks.

The second thing is about the frame of reference, from your point of view 5 minutes has passed, from clock's point of view 4 minutes. Both are equally valid.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Every clock are mechanical, no? I understand that gravity use is force on matter so on clock. Then a clock under huge gravity will probably don't work like less gravity.

If i let a clock in a huge gravity force for five minutes and the clock show 4 minutes, i still let the clock under the force 5 minutes, no? It's just that the clock don't work well under this force.

The problem with this reasoning is that an object in orbit is experiencing less of Earth's gravitational pull than an object on the ground. If the clocks are slower in orbit it can't be because of the effects of gravity.

 

[Hitokage]

Another important point is that an object experiencing gravitational force does not feel it as long as nothing is there to resist it, because of its uniform application. In other words, if you were in an elevator whose cable was cut at the top floor, then you would feel weightless until the elevator crashed at the bottom.

People in a space shuttle or space station experience no gravity, despite that gravity holding them in orbit.

 

[Zarovitch]

The problem with this reasoning is that an object in orbit is experiencing less of Earth's gravitational pull than an object on the ground. If the clocks are slower in orbit it can't be because of the effects of gravity.

Gravity is changing the time. That's what i have problem to understand.

Thanks for your help i'll think about that.

 

[Hitokage]

Graavity is changing the time. That's what i have problem to understand.

Thanks for your help i'll think about that.

Objects with mass distort the geometry of spacetime like metal balls on a rubber sheet. None of these time effects are predicted by Newtonian mechanics where gravity is strictly a force, but that's where General Relativity comes in and provides us with a better model for the universe we see around us. It may seem weird, but it's confirmed by many observations and experiments, and as said before, the design of GPS depends on these effects or it wouldn't work at all.

 

[Husker86]

That's one of the thing i'll never understand. Is it the mechanism of the clock that is more slow? Time for me is just how much second have pass between to thing. I need to re-read about that.

If you were in area of greater gravitational force, your experience of time wouldn't change. A second would still seem like a second. The people on Earth, if they could see you, would see you as slowed down, however. You are perceiving time differently when examined as two entities, but individually, you would notice no difference.

Or do you understand that and are just curious about the "why" part?

 

[Cyan]

Every clock are mechanical, no? I understand that gravity use is force on matter so on clock. Then a clock under huge gravity will probably don't work like less gravity.

If i let a clock in a huge gravity force for five minutes and the clock show 4 minutes, i still let the clock under the force 5 minutes, no? It's just that the clock don't work well under this force.

Time is relative.

Imagine that you're in a place where time runs slower than it does where I am. What does this mean? It means that things happen more slowly. The way we measure time is by watching things happen. We have precise measurements of certain very predictable things, and we use those as proxies for time. In the past it might have been how quickly a candle burned, or the swing of a pendulum, or a mechanism driven by a spring. Now it's far more precise: the oscillation of a quartz crystal, or energy level transitions in a cesium atom.

The point is that when you say time moves more slowly, what you are really saying is that these things happen more slowly. While a grandfather clock where I am goes through two swings of a pendulum, a similar clock where you are goes through one. While a quartz crystal where I am oscillates twice, a similar crystal where you are oscillates once. Everything happens more slowly. Including--and this is key--the neurons in your brain that drive your mind. While I think two thoughts, you think one. While I read two books, you read one. While I listen to and experience two songs, you listen to and experience one. And so on.

So here's the question: which perception of time is correct? Are you going slower or am I going faster? The simple answer is that the frame of reference is correct: I'm right, and your time is moving more slowly than real time. But the point here is that time isn't absolute. There's no measure where we can say "yep, time is really passing at this rate, and any other rate is slow or fast." Because a) how would we measure that and b) where would we measure that?

(there are further complications once you look at relativistic time dilation, but that's just going to be even more confusing so I'll leave it here for now )

 

[The Technomancer]

Every clock are mechanical, no? I understand that gravity use is force on matter so on clock. Then a clock under huge gravity will probably don't work like less gravity.

If i let a clock in a huge gravity force for five minutes and the clock show 4 minutes, i still let the clock under the force 5 minutes, no? It's just that the clock don't work well under this force.

The clocks they test it with actually use beams of light to count time. And they still show the slowing effect. This is actually fundamentally what time dilation is: it "slows" the speed of light (or expands space or whatever) and since the speed of light is the benchmark by which all information transmission and particle activity is defined, "time slows down"

This is, incidentally, the key behind the whole "you can't catch up to a beam of light" thing which drove me absolutely nuts trying to figure out before I made this connection. The reason why a beam of light always appears to be moving ahead of you at the speed of light even if you're traveling at 99% the speed of light is because time slows down exactly proportionally so that from your reference frame the photon ahead of you is still moving at lightspeed

 

[Hitokage]

The clocks they test it with actually use beams of light to count time. And they still show the slowing effect. This is actually fundamentally what time dilation is: it "slows" the speed of light (or expands space or whatever) and since the speed of light is the benchmark by which all information transmission is defined, "time slows down"

Eh, I feel this way of putting it is too open to confusion.

Basically, the laws of physics are the same in all non-accelerating frames of reference, even the speed of light.

 

[Zarovitch]

If i'm going from point A to point C at constant speed (of light?)
It supposed to take me 10 years, but at point B i experience a huge gravity force.
Then, It's will take me more than 10 years, cause i'm slowing down for a moment.

And if someone from earth could see me, at point B it's will see me slowdown.
I'll not feel that the time slowdown but i'll know that point C seem farter than what i've think at first?

 

[The Technomancer]

Eh, I feel this way of putting it is too open to confusion.

Basically, the laws of physics are the same in all non-accelerating frames of reference, even the speed of light.

Okay sure, photons are physically moving at the speed of light but the net effect of various parts of relativity is that information transmission that is referenced to the speed of light slows down.

 

[lilbaby Jesus]

Wow.

 

[King Boo]

Check this out:

Huge image:

wow...even the local supercluster is just a small little spec

 

[vDaedalus]

So wait... what does this mean (if anything) in relation to religion?

 

[yankeehater]

So wait... what does this mean (if anything) in relation to religion?

Nothing, science and religion dont have anything to do with each other.

 

[vDaedalus]

Nothing, science and religion dont have anything to do with each other.

I guess the better question would be, does this completely disprove creationism?

 

[Cyan]

I guess the better question would be, does this completely disprove creationism?

Creationism can't be disproved. However far back science shines a light, you can always say "God did it" or "God started it and then sat back to watch" or what have you.

Now if you're asking about young earth creationism, well, that was disproved ages ago. It hasn't had much effect on true believers.

 

[yankeehater]

I guess the better question would be, does this completely disprove creationism?

Oh I thought you were saying that people couldnt be religious because of this discovery. This is more proof for the Big Bang model, but I would think that there are much better ways to argue against creationism, and if they didnt dissuade someone I very much doubt this would.

 

[The Technomancer]

Creationism can't be disproved. However far back science shines a light, you can always say "God did it" or "God started it and then sat back to watch" or what have you.

Now if you're asking about young earth creationism, well, that was disproved ages ago. It hasn't had much effect on true believers.

Unless of course God set it in motion 6000 years ago but made it look like it had been around for billions of years. He can do that, ya know

 

[GungHo]

I guess the better question would be, does this completely disprove creationism?

It neither proves nor disproves creationism, because, as Cyan notes, creationism can't be proved or disproved short of divine, conspicuous revelation.

 

[yankeehater]

Unless of course God set it in motion 6000 years ago but made it look like it had been around for billions of years. He can do that, ya know

I have this picture in my mind of God and Jesus running around with shovels and a bag of dinosaur bones ever since I heard Bill Hicks talk about it.

 

[danwarb]

Creationism can't be disproved. However far back science shines a light, you can always say "God did it" or "God started it and then sat back to watch" or what have you.

Now if you're asking about young earth creationism, well, that was disproved ages ago. It hasn't had much effect on true believers.

If you somehow prove an infinite multiverse of all possible universes, what is God doing then?

 

[yankeehater]

If you somehow prove an infinite multiverse of all possible universes, what is God doing then?

Changing channels.

 

[danwarb]

Changing channels.

At best I reckon.

If the most complex thing appeared before the simplest, and it could defy all of reality to change the channels. Even then such a multiverse at least removes the idea of God from the specifics of this or any other universe.