Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: dragonridr

But it huurrrrttttssss.

And guess what, this is reply #3,000.

it's not just him who thinks this way for good reasons just google hollow sun or electric sun or Eric Dollard or the Thunderbolts Project or the Electric Universe Theory. It is apparent this theory more accurately describes what we see if you take the time to listen to what the different groups/individuals are saying. You're getting hung up on tiny details (such as the inner ear thing) that don't impact the general theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Phage

3000! Woohoo!
I'd rather have seen you in Mr. 3000 than Bernie Mac, come to think of it. No idea whether you can act or not, but I'm positive that you would have made the dialog more interesting.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for your post.

It always fascinates me seeing deep space images knowing I am looking into the past from the future, sort of.

The thing about Tachyons is they're not proven. And what you wrote about neutrinos clears that up, I wasn't aware of the Cern issue and neither is most writing false theories on the internet.

Well then retrocausality is still a pseudoscience. I was an armchair physics student at one point but moved on several years ago after finding new things to hold my interest.
I understand fully the basics of time travel and how going into the future is possible or back to the point of entry from a future position is likely. Just going backward is improbable, I just hope we are proven wrong someday.

My reasoning for all this is another story, but thank you for the help, AB

a reply to: dragonridr

Well, the Graviton, if it exists, would be a Boson, but a massless Spin 2 Boson. Massless because the gravitational force is long-range, unlike the weak and strong nuclear forces which are propagated by the Gluon and W&Z bosons. These all have mass via Higgs Field interaction, as does the Higgs Boson itself. The other force-carrier, the photon, is also massless.
Some theories put forth the idea that if gravitons do exist, they may be nearly impossible to produce or detect because:
1) In 'brane' theory, the Graviton may not be bound by the constraints of any particular membrane, and can move freely between them.
2) The may manifest only very weakly in the 4 dimensions that we can interact with, meaning that if one is ever actually produced it may almost instantly shift to a higher dimension that would leave it practically undetectable. (This is based on the 10 or 11 dimension model of string theory. The Graviton would be a closed string with an exceptionally low vibrational energy.)
These particular ideas have also been used to posit that if gravitation is actually a unified force along with the other 4, we can't resolve the fact in our 4 dimensions because gravity doesn't propagate as strongly in them, but may in higher dimensions. This has also led to theories that perhaps there is a higher-dimensional brane universe existing in unison with our own in which all forces are equal, and their properties in our universe are a 'bleed-through' effect, if you will, from that brane. In this theory, gravity doesn't transfer through as strongly as the others.
All of these are nothing more than hypotheticals, of course, but I've always found them to be fascinating food for thought.
And, of course, I have probably misunderstood these, and a kind but firm correction or brow-beating is coming my way shortly. But that's fine. I just posted this in case it helps anyone's thinky parts get going in an interesting direction.

a reply to: AnteBellum

EDIT: I made the idiot's mistake of replying before reading further, so I suppose you can ignore the content of this comment.


Theoretically, anything that can travel faster than light could be said to be traveling backwards in time. So, while I'm not aware of anything that we had confirmed the existence of being able to do so, the theorized tachyon would. It is a superluminal particle that has an energetic curve which is the opposite of what subluminal particles have.
This means that it takes more energy for it to approach light speed than to remain far away from it, only to a subluminal observer, it's energy gain is slowing it down. I tend to think of is as being similar to a mirror image of a Standard Model particle in that sense. It takes higher and higher, approaching infinite, energies to most it towards light speed, only it would be slowing down relative to our ability to observe it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wait, I thought it was the OPERA experiment which misreported the superluminal neutrinos. At Gran Sasso. They were just using CERN's beam.
Or were they a CERN facility?

a reply to: AnteBellum

One interpretation of SR includes the possibility that photons do not 'experience' the passage of time. So that if you were a photon, there would be no perceptible difference between the moment you were emitted by a quasar and the moment you were absorbed by a detector in a telescope 13.4b lightyears later. I have no idea whether this would allow information transfer between those two events retroactively, but it is possibly the closest thing I can think of to your question. Other than my earlier post.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: AnteBellum

One interpretation of SR includes the possibility that photons do not 'experience' the passage of time. So that if you were a photon, there would be no perceptible difference between the moment you were emitted by a quasar and the moment you were absorbed by a detector in a telescope 13.4b lightyears later. I have no idea whether this would allow information transfer between those two events retroactively, but it is possibly the closest thing I can think of to your question. Other than my earlier post.

Yes photons do not experience time or to further confuse things distance. Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is something other things do. When you describe the movement of those other things it’s always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates. Sounds very zen doesn't it. But also explains why nothing in the universe truly moves.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's not just him who thinks this way for good reasons just google hollow sun or electric sun or Eric Dollard or the Thunderbolts Project or the Electric Universe Theory.

I've looked at all that. The only "good reasons" I've seen for any of that are psychology-based, not science based. "Look, I bought this anti-mainstream book/DVD from an EU website which makes me smarter than the thousands of mainstream scientists who think they're so smart. Now I can feel good about myself" (Pat self on back).

It is apparent this theory more accurately describes what we see if you take the time to listen to what the different groups/individuals are saying. You're getting hung up on tiny details (such as the inner ear thing) that don't impact the general theory.

I debunked the general theory as well as the ear misinformation, however you only mention my response to one and not the other so it's you who is hung up on the ear thing. You didn't even respond to my facts about the discovery of dark energy in 1998 which shows that the vacuum seems to push things apart, not pull them together, but then this is never about real science, it's about psychology and profiting from the gullible and scientifically illiterate.

If it was about science there would be scientists publishing papers with better facts to get the mainstream science corrected as needed. I'm not aware of any scientists publishing any papers about the "hollow sun", but sure I get about as many hits on googling that as I do when googling "elvis lives". I can't say the search results for either of those seem meaningful but there's no shortage of utter nonsense on the internet since anybody can put up a website and say anything they want.

Eric Dollard's approach is to throw out the mainstream theory of a fusion powered sun and replace it with he doesn't know where the sun gets its energy, maybe from another dimension or something? How can you seriously claim "It is apparent this theory more accurately describes what we see"? Dollard doesn't explain anything; he replaces a working theory that explains where the sun's energy comes from with "I don't know".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's not just him who thinks this way for good reasons just google hollow sun or electric sun or Eric Dollard or the Thunderbolts Project or the Electric Universe Theory.

I've looked at all that. The only "good reasons" I've seen for any of that are psychology-based, not science based. "Look, I bought this anti-mainstream book/DVD from an EU website which makes me smarter than the thousands of mainstream scientists who think they're so smart. Now I can feel good about myself" (Pat self on back).

It is apparent this theory more accurately describes what we see if you take the time to listen to what the different groups/individuals are saying. You're getting hung up on tiny details (such as the inner ear thing) that don't impact the general theory.

I debunked the general theory as well as the ear misinformation, however you only mention my response to one and not the other so it's you who is hung up on the ear thing. You didn't even respond to my facts about the discovery of dark energy in 1998 which shows that the vacuum seems to push things apart, not pull them together, but then this is never about real science, it's about psychology and profiting from the gullible and scientifically illiterate.

If it was about science there would be scientists publishing papers with better facts to get the mainstream science corrected as needed. I'm not aware of any scientists publishing any papers about the "hollow sun", but sure I get about as many hits on googling that as I do when googling "elvis lives". I can't say the search results for either of those seem meaningful but there's no shortage of utter nonsense on the internet since anybody can put up a website and say anything they want.

Eric Dollard's approach is to throw out the mainstream theory of a fusion powered sun and replace it with he doesn't know where the sun gets its energy, maybe from another dimension or something? How can you seriously claim "It is apparent this theory more accurately describes what we see"? Dollard doesn't explain anything; he replaces a working theory that explains where the sun's energy comes from with "I don't know".

It still amazes me anyone could believe the sun is powered by electricity. Because you end up with a huge problem where does it come from and where does it go. I honestly believe people think electricity just happens. Kind of wish it did no more electric bills would be nice. But as we know to generate electricity you need energy. Well almost everyone.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Since anybody can put up a website and say anything they want"
WHY HAS NOBODY TOLD ME THIS?
I've been wanting to get into the unsubstantiated claims racket for years!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Also, I've not seen the Dollard video you linked before now. I honestly thought someone has started the "you can't see the Sun in space" thing as a joke on the Internet. And now there's no time delay, either? It must be nice to be so bats*t crazy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...
It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (“curvature”) of space caused by the sun.
...

Newtonian field of attraction ??
is this not Gravity ??

...and the other half... ???
how comes a half and not 1/3 or 2/3 or something in between??

please clarify !!

gravity is the curvature of space in Einstein's world
Newton never even suggested what causes gravity, he only describes "the action" and not "the cause"

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When we try to model gravitation on quantum scales we can't discard the infinities through renormalization like we can for the other interactions, so this is a problem when trying to model what happens inside a black hole for example.

is it because gravity is seen as a one way force ?
attraction only and no repulsion ?

a reply to: KrzYma

As far as I can tell, that's probably fairly apt.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As pfishy said it sounds like you're referring to refraction which is another way to bend light, most famously perhaps with a prism where incoming white light is bent at varying angles depending on frequency which spreads different colors apart in the exiting light.

NO, nothing like that, this happens due to the interaction with matter in the prism.
Field density affect the propagation time per se, and do not split the waves into frequency dependent parts.
It shifts all the frequencies by the same amount... it affects the propagation speed of the EM waves
It changes T and not lambda.

a reply to: dragonridr

That idea was always one of those things I had to try and force myself to understand. 1 photon not too big a deal but thinking about the quadrillion interactions happening just around my fingertip and how all these relate - yes, very Zen like, especially that wave/particle duality deal when anything observes them.

Anyway thanks for the chat, AB

a reply to: dragonridr

It still amazes me anyone could believe the sun is powered by electricity. Because you end up with a huge problem where does it come from and where does it go.

it is powered by Birkeland currents, which existence has been confirmed by satellites.
The theoretical black hole in the center of our galaxy is most probably the source for our Sun.
And it goes to the planets, --> Aurora on the poles not just that of the Earth

I think I need to clarify one thing about the waves

this picture is the know representation of an wave


the curvature of this waves do not represent the position in space !!
It represent the magnitude !