Digital Radio Central - Sponsored by TSS Radio
  DRC Home Page DRC Forums Contact Us  
 
SIRIUS Backstage Forum
 
 
 
  Sirius Satellite Radio XM Satellite Radio iTunes/iPod Slacker Pandora  
 
 
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >
Visit Digital Radio Central

Notices

The Doghouse Here is where people are talking everything not SIRIUS related. So be cool, be smart and have something to say!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
 
Old 10-24-2005, 11:25 AM   #136
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Again you have to be careful of the time span used. As I stated some use a 24 clock when lecturing just to give people a sense of how vast time is. In this 24 hour clock of a universal year (this is Sagan) Things were created in the first seconds and the universe expands and condenses throughout the entire yeat. Man aprears at the very last seconds of the very last day. Most people cannot grasp the imensity of time so that places it in perspective.

I send you a PM with a book title and link if you are interested. According to most modern mathematics particles like a photon took a while to pop into existance. But even so, why the worry of light? We cannot see back far enough anyway. You mentioned neutrinos... like the background microwaive radiation that places a feather in the cap of the Big Bang, some kind of back ground nutrino radiation should also be there, according to the math formulas. So some day we will be able to look at see if it's there. If it is another cap, if not back to the draqing board.

If light was created one second or 1 million years after the big bang what is the significance? Outsidde curiosity? We know the big bang went faster than light and still is so we could never see it. And there is a radiation layer the prevents looking back that far. It clouds the view.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-24-2005, 09:26 PM   #137
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

whenever they use a 24-hour clock, the article wil say so. in the one that you listed, they definitely did not do that - they were giving actual times.

the main reason i asked about it in the first place was my curiosity with regards to the relation between light and time. no way would you convince me that those 2 were related if light did not come for thousands or millions of years afterwards.

but light and matter were all created right at the beginning, along with time and space. so it seems plausible, if not likely, that all these things are derived from what we call the singularity, and they split apart immediately after creation.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-24-2005, 09:39 PM   #138
soxnationonline
Top Dog Member
 
soxnationonline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Chi town
Posts: 3,992
soxnationonline will become famous soon enoughsoxnationonline will become famous soon enough
Default

one day we'll all find out..........
soxnationonline is offline  
 
 
Old 10-24-2005, 11:14 PM   #139
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnationonline
one day we'll all find out..........
Or not...

If there is no god, then we'll die and that's it.
And even if there were a god (especially the "kickstart-the-universe-and-walk-away" god that some have discussed here), that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be an afterlife.
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 10-24-2005, 11:21 PM   #140
soxnationonline
Top Dog Member
 
soxnationonline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Chi town
Posts: 3,992
soxnationonline will become famous soon enoughsoxnationonline will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnationonline
one day we'll all find out..........
Or not...

If there is no god, then we'll die and that's it.
And even if there were a god (especially the "kickstart-the-universe-and-walk-away" god that some have discussed here), that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be an afterlife.
that is my point exactly...... when we die we will know all the answers... whether or not its of any relevance or not after the fact is whats still in question.....

What makes life so interesting is that we dont have a clue what happens to us after we die.... Life would be pretty boring if we had all the answers.
soxnationonline is offline  
 
 
Old 10-25-2005, 06:58 AM   #141
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnationonline
that is my point exactly...... when we die we will know all the answers...
Um...no.

If there's no god a/o no afterlife, then when we die we won't know anything. We'll just be dead.
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 10-25-2005, 11:10 AM   #142
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
the main reason i asked about it in the first place was my curiosity with regards to the relation between light and time. no way would you convince me that those 2 were related if light did not come for thousands or millions of years afterwards.

but light and matter were all created right at the beginning, along with time and space. so it seems plausible, if not likely, that all these things are derived from what we call the singularity, and they split apart immediately after creation.
No, regardless of the time span, say 1 hour or 1 year or 1 times 10 to the negative 20th power. There is a gap there. Not everything was created at once. No where on the planet is a big bang theorist that would say it was alll created at the same time. The temperature was just too hot. So even at a very small number there would be a gap in what we sense as time.

Which take me down another road. We do have a "sense" of time. Meaning we can't touch it's dimension but we can sort of "sense" it. Light is used as a measure of time for what I think are two reasons. ONE is mathematics. It fits models used to predict the universe and it is our only way to measure the distance between objects because we know how fast it goes and it all get very complicated. For insance how do we know how far away a star is? The simple answer is by the light it emits and it would take a whole paper to explain the mechanisms used. The OTHER has nothing to do with physiscs. The reason is our biology. We are light creatures. From the very beginning light has guven us life. The day and night cycles are not just external. We have an internal clock that has been planted there either through creation or natural selection. I don't care, but it's there and it too is programmed by our light cycles. And what are our eyes? The are photon receptors. They absorb photons, once they hit our eye they are gone from the universe.

Anyway just some comments. After your post from a womans site in another thread I wondered if you are a woman, since your stance on Einstein seems to be from womans perspective. I am looking up a woman who volunteered and lived in a cave for like 130 days as an expiment and her peception of time was that she was only there for like 16 days when they got her out. but she did exhibit and internal rythum that emulated our normal life cycle. I thought you might like to read about it but it seems I can't find it on the net. The discussion of time does cross into the philisophical as well.

Oh disclaimer, this is not to say I take to a biorythm "chart" anymore than I do to astrology. And an afterthought, these internal clocks are also exibited in birds and bees. There was another experiment with bees who "knew" what time of day the flowers opened. Along with Rats who "knew" what time of day food was available without any sense of time we know. Even in controlled experiments without light. Yes we have a sense of time that originated with our sun. Those experiments I listed are early 20th century. The modern take is there are two clocks located in the brain. One strictly internal and 1 influenced by external sources. Particlarly light cycles. The external 1 is said to sync the internal as needed. So if you starve someone of light their clock will drift off until external influences correct it. Hows that for a walking talking time machine?

I'll look up references and edit later.

//EDIT

Interesting
Two Clocks
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-25-2005, 10:41 PM   #143
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi rc,

i have not had time to read either of your articles, so this is just in comment to your last post.

but most of it was based on how we use light to view objects, and sense time.

that does not tell me anything about whether the two are related. stars make light and whistles make sound, but it does not say that these 2 things are related.

neither does your last post give any concreteness to light and time being related. for example, at least at this point, i accept the fact that energy and matter are related, in the sense that either can be transposed to be the other.

are light and time parts of something greater ?

and it definitely matters how long the separation is. light, time, space and matter were all created in a fraction of a second. so i will say once again that i think it is very plausible, given this information to be true, that all of these things are parts of the whole, much like we think the 4 major forces broke apart from the one force at creation, so that possibly all 4 things are extremely related - we just havent pieced the puzzle together yet.

you once gave an example of being able to be seen at point b before you left point a. that in itself does not necessarily break any laws of physics. it simply says that your ability to move is faster than my tool to measure your movement. so that example, in and of itself, is not proof that things could not go faster than the speed of light. i would be willing to say that it shows that nothing we are aware of in everday life, moves faster than light, since we do not experience this.

now if you were to tell me that an object actually arrived at b, before leaving a, then i would have a problem - you would be breaking the law of cause and effect.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-26-2005, 10:10 PM   #144
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
forgot to answer gymeejets question. Here is one exerpt, I have some others I can find later...
oh the correlation of lite and time and there relation is the essence of todays universe theories. There are other particles we can't measure yet that will also shed some information in the future...


Quote:
The strongest evidence that something like the Big Bang really happened is the Cosmic Background Radiation predicted by Cosmologist George Gamov in 1948 and discovered by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in 1965. All those -rays described above are part of the thermal radiation present in the early Universe because it is hot. As the Universe expanded and cooled, the radiation field cooled along with it. When matter and radiation "decoupled" with the formation of atoms a million years after the Big Bang, the radiation had cooled to visible light. Although the matter distribution has become complicated with the formation of galaxies & stars since that time the light has simply continued to cool with the expansion. Gamow predicted that the Universe should be filled with this "relic radiation left over" from the Big Bang. (Gamow calculated a temperature of 15K; Dicke & Peebles at Princeton recalculated the value in 1963, predicting a Temperature near 3K.) Using the peculiar horn-shaped antenna shown in the picture to the right, Penzias & Wilson made the first glimpses of the Cosmic Background Light quite unexpectedly. Since their discovery the evidence has become stronger and stronger that we are seeing the light from the Big Bang. Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978.

Did I mention that sometimes cosmological scale is expressed in a 24 hour clock so you don't have to keep writing 1000000000000000000. Which could explain the article I noted that places light at 1 hour. I would have to look. To understand the temps they are talking about you have to look up Kelvin. Lord Kelvin, another Genius.
hi rc,

i think you may have read into your quote a conclusion which should not have been reached. the sentence that you highlighted said something about radiation having cooled to visible light around a million years after the big bang. just for clarification - this in no way implies that this was the first formation of light, any more than talking about stars today creating photons.

and then if you look further in the quote it talks about seeing the light from the big bang. it would seem to me that in order to see light from the big bang, there must have been light from the big bang.

so again, it does seem that time and light and space and matter were all somewhat immediate creations from the big bang.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-27-2005, 12:08 PM   #145
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

On gymeejets last post. Sounds good. But on a note, stars do create new photons. We feel them from our sun and they take about 8 minutes to reach us.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-27-2005, 05:16 PM   #146
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

okay, so we can proceed with the thought that time, light, space and matter were all formed somewhat immediately from the big bang.

i wasnt quite sure why you made the statement about the sun creating photons. were you thinking that i would disagree with that ? i hope not !!
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-28-2005, 11:51 AM   #147
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
gymeejet, you either missed or didn't understand my post earlier (either this thread or the other one) The universe is expanding FASTER than the speed of light now. The Hubble constant IS faster than the speed of light. At the outset during those first 10 to the negative 19th power time frames there was NO matter and the distances were tiny compared to today and the energy great.
i recall you mentioning it, but i thought you said that maybe it could be, not that it IS. if you have a url you could post that says this, could you post it ?

i dont want to read about how many parsecs, but one that actually mentions that the expansion is faster than light today.

thanks.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-28-2005, 01:27 PM   #148
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
i wasnt quite sure why you made the statement about the sun creating photons. were you thinking that i would disagree with that ?
I was wondering if this statement: so again, it does seem that time and light and space and matter were all somewhat immediate creations from the big bang. meant you thought ALL light was created at the big bang. I read into it too much. But think about this, some night when you are looking at the sky a photon that has been traveling for billions of years could forever be absorbed into the retina of your eye. Removing it's current billion year old status from the universe forever. I could have even come in the direction of the big bang. You could be tasting creation without realizing it.

I was sipping a Tuborg last night on my deck, washed in sunlight and a crazy thought struck me. What if light is god? After all if creates life as we know it, it nurtures life, it permeates the entire universe and is all things, it is a part of the very fabric of physics and what we see as time and space. Just an abstract thought. I simplified the course that took me there.

Quote:
i dont want to read about how many parsecs, but one that actually mentions that the expansion is faster than light today.
mega parsecs are just a way to reduce measurement into understandable terms. They are really really big distances. Like it's easier to say 1 AU, which is an astronomical unit (the mean distance between the earth and the sun), versus 149,598,000 Kilometers. In a nutshell.... the Hubble constant states the universe is expanding at x amount, which is those mega parsecs of distance. And to my knowledge it is based on million year time slices. That is why I said universe expansion is constant for the purpose of calculation.

We know how old the universe is by COBE experiments and mathematical predictions so you can take the Hubble constant (the rate of expansion) and the age of the universe (the length of expansion) and come up with a number that reflects how far apart objects SHOULD be based on rate of movement (expansion) and time (age of universe). I think I am probably confusing readers. But every thing should be a certain distance apart so you look around the universe at galaxies and try and find something that is farther apart than the equation allows. And a whole bunch of stuff is.

Then you look at see if anything is red shifted enough to indicate their speeds is above the factor of light, and there are millions of objects like that. I quoted numbers earlier but you have to understand what red shift and blue shift are. These are also related to other discussions involving moving bodies. Red shifted objects move away from us because red is the lower spectrum we see and as objects move away at near light speeds the light behind them is stretched, meaning the frequency is lowered (stretch, more space between wavelengths) causing shif into the red spectrum. Objects moving toward us at near light speeds shrink the waves in front of them shifting the frequency up as the wavelengths are shortened. In this case making them more blue. The rate of shift can be measured and speed can be extracted.

This is similar to Doppler shift. In fact that's what it is since Doppler discovered it and it is also how the Doppler weather radar works. Anyhoo you can test this by listening to a train go by or a car horn. As the object blasting the horn approaches you it gets higher as the sound waves are compressed (blue shift like) and as the train passes the horn sounds deeper as the waves are stretched because the pressure is lowering (red shift like). You probably know that but it's important to understand how it is that we think objects are moving away at faster than light speeds.

The red shift factor for a faster than light object was posted earlier. I just looked up a link http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm which reminds me, the spectral graph shown there is also an example of how we know what stars and galaxies are made off. Each element represents a special foot print of what it looks like and we can see those same patterns in distance suns, thus we know they are made of helium for example.

Anyway back to Hubble. I went ahead and looked up a site so I don't have to type a long post since this is LONG already. So you HAVE to read about expansion and mega parsecs to understand it IS expanding faster than light. And remember space has no mass at rest.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=575
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-30-2005, 09:54 PM   #149
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
gymeejet, you either missed or didn't understand my post earlier (either this thread or the other one) The universe is expanding FASTER than the speed of light now. The Hubble constant IS faster than the speed of light. At the outset during those first 10 to the negative 19th power time frames there was NO matter and the distances were tiny compared to today and the energy great.
i recall you saying that - but i thought you were saying that it could be = that we really dont know.

if you could, could you give me a url where it says that the universe is expanding faster than light ?

of course, if you think about it, if the universe was expanding at less than the speed of light, then where would light go when it reached the end of the road ? merely reflect back ?

or perhaps it would reach ROADCLOSED, and just stop. LOL.

i know space is not matter. but i still think it must smack a new spin on special relativity and nothing being able to accelerate past light.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 11-01-2005, 08:19 PM   #150
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed

Anyway just some comments. After your post from a womans site in another thread I wondered if you are a woman, since your stance on Einstein seems to be from womans perspective. I am looking up a woman who volunteered and lived in a cave for like 130 days as an expiment and her peception of time was that she was only there for like 16 days when they got her out. but she did exhibit and internal rythum that emulated our normal life cycle. I thought you might like to read about it but it seems I can't find it on the net. The discussion of time does cross into the philisophical as well.
hi rc,
you can ask some of the females in this forum - i am a guy.

it seems as if i have something negative to say about females, it must be because i hate them. then when i think that perhaps the stance that einstein's wife had something to do with his results, i must be a woman.

or perhaps, i just form opinions from info that i have, irregardless of the sex of the informant ?
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
 

Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >


Digitalradiocentral.com




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.39 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All Content Copyright SIRIUS Backstage. All Rights Reserved. SIRIUS and registered trademarks are the property of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. The opinions posted on SIRIUS Backstage website and forums are those of the individual posters and/or this website and are not necessarily the opinions or positions of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc.