Not so much, psychosis is an abnormal medical condition. Most of the, shall we say, dis-rational thinking produced by human brains is well within "normal" tolerances. But, neurotic perhaps, and probably fair to say unquestionably cognitively biased.
Some info on disrationalia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
Here's something for you guys to chew on.
What precisely is the physical mechanism that causes light to travel at exactly the same speed not matter what the observers inertial frame of reference? As I have remarked on YouTube, before rushing in with 1st year math derivations of SR, the question that is being asked is what is the physical process that's taking place, not what is the formula for calculating it. As far as I know, no one has answered that. Below is a non mathematical proposal by Jeff Bossert. Have fun!
🙂
Speed of Light ROSMapped Constant Motion Model
What precisely is the physical mechanism that causes light to travel at exactly the same speed not matter what the observers inertial frame of reference? As I have remarked on YouTube, before rushing in with 1st year math derivations of SR, the question that is being asked is what is the physical process that's taking place, not what is the formula for calculating it. As far as I know, no one has answered that. Below is a non mathematical proposal by Jeff Bossert. Have fun!
🙂
Speed of Light ROSMapped Constant Motion Model
No, the question is, who can get their head around this presentation?
Okay, I'll try again.
That the speed of light is invariant relative to the peculiar motion of an observer is a well established principle, in fact it is arguably the Rosetta stone by which we interpret all other aspects of physics at a cosmological scale. It is counterintuitive to our experience at ordinary speeds and scales, but why should it not be, we have no intuition that applies to the speed of light and cosmology.. Trying to explain why it is counterintuitive is really about explaining why our intuition is wrong, rather than explaining something about the speed of light.
It is the natural progression of intelligent life to conduct scientific experiments – including experimentation with particle-accelerators. With ever increasing Tera-electron-Volt potentials, the natural progression is for a species to build a particle-accelerator so large, they can tear a small rip into the fabric of space-time – resulting in a big-bang, thus resetting the known universe through a rapid-expansion event. Statistically, this should happen once every 13.82 billion years (+/- 0.7 billion years).
Unfortunately this results in an unresolved paradox – in that which came first, the particle-accelerator, or the big-bang?
Unfortunately this results in an unresolved paradox – in that which came first, the particle-accelerator, or the big-bang?
The evidence to resolve that question was probably destroyed in the big bang...
So it also was a kind of perfect crime..
I've thought for a long time- there's something about the speed of light which could explain lots about our reality.
Now there's a credible theory, which posits the speed of light was faster, moments after the big bang, than it is now.
Since I don't believe anything acts completely in isolation, I have to question- does this mean the properties of space may affect the speed of light, and if so, what properties changed, and are the changes still occurring?
Now there's a credible theory, which posits the speed of light was faster, moments after the big bang, than it is now.
Since I don't believe anything acts completely in isolation, I have to question- does this mean the properties of space may affect the speed of light, and if so, what properties changed, and are the changes still occurring?
The photon has zero rest mass.Bonsai said:
As the above fact, and its consequences, has been in textbooks for many decades I can't quite see in what sense your question has not been answered. If you are seeking a different answer which you find intuitively acceptable then that is a different question to which there may be no answer.
I note that the author of that article is a university press officer with degrees in earth sciences and journalism, not a physicist. Far from challenging Einstein's physics the research almost certainly heavily relies on Einstein's physics in order to do any calculations. It might be better to characterise the idea as extending Einstein's physics or generalising it. If it turns out to be right then the usual suspects will doubtless be crowing about Einstein being 'wrong', thus showing that they don't understand physics.
Don't worry, If I understand it correctly Miss Hayley Dunning not the author of that challenging theory. She only mentioned it:
Phys. Rev. D 94, 101301(R) (2016) - Critical geometry of a thermal big bang
BTW, I don't think there isn't physics beyond Einstein.
Phys. Rev. D 94, 101301(R) (2016) - Critical geometry of a thermal big bang
BTW, I don't think there isn't physics beyond Einstein.
Yes, she wrote the press release which almost certainly misrepresents the actual research. The problem is that although you and I may understand how physics works, most people do not so when an old theory is 'replaced' by a better theory they have no idea whether the old theory was wrong (as it sometimes was e.g. phlogiston) or just somewhat limited (e.g. Newtonian mechanics).
Curiously, there are not many crackpot websites proclaiming that Newton was wrong. I suspect many of them actually think he was more right than Einstein, although all the facts say the opposite.
Curiously, there are not many crackpot websites proclaiming that Newton was wrong. I suspect many of them actually think he was more right than Einstein, although all the facts say the opposite.
I thought the speed of light is only constant, relative to itself.
It travels slower through water, or gas, doesn't it?
If it bends around a large gravity well, as a star, isn't the bent path a slower route than a straight line beam?
Yes.
The "Standard Answer" is that the gravity well bends SPACE, and the light beam is still going straight.
It depends on what you mean by the speed of light. Photons still travel at the same speed through a medium, but they keep getting scattered or absorbed and re-emitted by whatever stuff there is in the medium. Hence what we see is apparently slowed light.MITsound said:
You know it's funny how much people think they know and how much they actually know.
I love listening to people talk about the past thinking they're so smart now.
You know something?
And you're not going to believe this, but someday this day will be the past (probably) and bobble-heads will look back at this time thinking people were complete idiots that knew nothing.
And you know what else?
They'll be even more correct than the people of this day because people in antiquity were actually smart because they had to be to survive and reproduce, generally speaking of course.
This thread reminds me of a saying I think of quite often:
"If you argue with a fool, you become a fool."
It's just crazy to me people believe this stuff and for no other reason other than other people believe in it too. The world is such a delightfully humorous and horrifying place all at the same time.
Successful investors never agree on anything except: if there is a consensus amongst the masses, just do the opposite.
Just the question is totally crazy.
What ballz people have to assume that the equations of autistic geniuses, which they can't even begin to understand have any implication across the expanse of the universe.
Especially when history has shown that equations almost never scale up or down.
But they aren't even aware of that fact.
I'm pretty sure most people reading this (who are smarter than average) don't know what I'm trying to say, about equations never scaling up or down and probably the other stuff too.
I love listening to people talk about the past thinking they're so smart now.
You know something?
And you're not going to believe this, but someday this day will be the past (probably) and bobble-heads will look back at this time thinking people were complete idiots that knew nothing.
And you know what else?
They'll be even more correct than the people of this day because people in antiquity were actually smart because they had to be to survive and reproduce, generally speaking of course.
This thread reminds me of a saying I think of quite often:
"If you argue with a fool, you become a fool."
It's just crazy to me people believe this stuff and for no other reason other than other people believe in it too. The world is such a delightfully humorous and horrifying place all at the same time.
Successful investors never agree on anything except: if there is a consensus amongst the masses, just do the opposite.
Just the question is totally crazy.
What ballz people have to assume that the equations of autistic geniuses, which they can't even begin to understand have any implication across the expanse of the universe.
Especially when history has shown that equations almost never scale up or down.
But they aren't even aware of that fact.
I'm pretty sure most people reading this (who are smarter than average) don't know what I'm trying to say, about equations never scaling up or down and probably the other stuff too.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.