Map
Nice interactive map - The Universe within 500000 Light Years - The Satellite Galaxies
Map of stars visible to the naked eye - http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galchart.html
Nice interactive map - The Universe within 500000 Light Years - The Satellite Galaxies
Map of stars visible to the naked eye - http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galchart.html
Last edited:
I watched an interesting show on Natgeo a few years ago.
The hypothesis was that there were multiple universes, which occasionally came into contact with each other. At the point they made contact, one would expand into the other - sort of cosmic procreation for want of a better description - with the transfer of energy etc.
They explained it as two flat planes that were oscillating and would then touch.
The resonant frequency of the system was c. 100 billion years IIRC.
I would postulate that a universe without time is pure energy. A singularity. But, is it stable? Maybe not and this condition is only fleeting. If it is a stable condition, maybe there are lots of singularities out there . . .
The hypothesis was that there were multiple universes, which occasionally came into contact with each other. At the point they made contact, one would expand into the other - sort of cosmic procreation for want of a better description - with the transfer of energy etc.
They explained it as two flat planes that were oscillating and would then touch.
The resonant frequency of the system was c. 100 billion years IIRC.
I would postulate that a universe without time is pure energy. A singularity. But, is it stable? Maybe not and this condition is only fleeting. If it is a stable condition, maybe there are lots of singularities out there . . .
No, not at all.
My referral to ohms law was to demonstrate that there is more then one thing to calculate.
(Also last time I checked, if I want to know I, all I need is V and R, which is only 2 parameters.)
Different configurations of Voltages and Resistance can yield the same observable current.
I worded it in a specific way to avoid literal comparison, I'm surprised a grammatical expert like yourself missed this.
On Earth C is viewed as constant, I did not say otherwise, no need to indirectly call me a "crank".
Keep in mind ones view of a crank is defined by the contemporaries they keep.
Unfortunately for you in this discussion, physics is not a democracy.
I suppose the beauty of the universe lies in the fact that there should be an infinite number of straws to grasp at.
It is imho rather subjective and un-scientific to talk about eternity because it is non-defined (as many subjects concerning theological subjects tend to be). And science tends to occupy it's self with definable and quantifiable objects, because they are reproducible and verifiable by others.Alright then.
Personally I believe time is very likely eternal and energy is apparently forever constant, at least that's what this law informed me law of conservation of energy - Wiktionary.
That's just me.
I can see how discussing these two particulars are heading towards theology and such.
I'll be quiet now and let the thread continue with mathematics and statistics hehe.
The laws of conservation of energy (and mass) however are scientific subjects.
This demonstrates why a neutrino can appear to be faster then a photon.
You fail to realize that you cannot apply that "Earthly" number to light. The speed of light is the speed of light.
There is nothing static in the universe to measure speed from.
299 792 458 mps is just a comparison to standing still on Earth.
The reality is that the whole earth is constantly moving.
Redshift could in theory be measured differently at opposite sides of the planet during dusk and dawn.
There is over 2000 mile per hour difference in the "speed" alone of these two observers, relative to the distant target, due to the rotation of the earth.
That alone debunks 299 792 458 mps as being a "constant" "speed" for light.
That alone debunks any claim you might have to comment on the speed of light. You clearly have not even begun to understand special relativity. Newtonian relativity is a good low speed approximation to reality, but breaks down at higher speeds. The existence of magnetic fields and nuclear power stations shows that Newton was inadequate in his understanding.SNR said:
There is a huge and fundamental difference between Ohm's Law - a statement of what is approximately true for that subset of conductors, voltages and currents for which it is approximately true - and the equality of mass and energy (a property of all mass and all energy everywhere for all time). One is a helpful engineer's tool; the other a law of nature
Last edited:
You really are not good with understanding analogies, perhaps it is left best to others.
The volume pot on my stereo is variable, yet calculations are generally based on it in a fixed position.
Unfortunately my PhD is in EE and special relativity did not come up in the viva. It did come up in my first year BSc physics exams, many years earlier. I must admit that I have doubts about the underlying fundamental ideas of SR (and QM) but I can't argue with decades of clear experimental results and self-consistent mathematical models. My concerns are on a rather different level from those who would not recognise a Lorentz transform (or an eigenvalue) if it dropped on their foot!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.