my own little theory

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

vodka_man wrote:but i think thats the matter-antimatter thing is quite right....or close to it
What "matter-antimatter thing" and what it is close to being right about?
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Is a shadow 2 dimensional? A little shadow goes a long way.

john
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

As for the paradox of where did the pencil come from etc then you need to start from where you want to go to, you need nothing that is something.

Take everything out of the universe then you are left with the space, that is just as bad as nothing as far as getting anything is concerned so you must have something in the space as well.

Energy, as long as you have the energy you can get to where you want to get to from where you are in both directions.

So with space and energy as the constants everything else is possible.

The flaw with thinking that nothing as a concept relates to the least possible is not possible unless the least possible is the least possible.

john
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

jck100 wrote:Is a shadow 2 dimensional? A little shadow goes a long way.

john
A shadow is 2-dimensional but it isn't an object.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Alice in Wonderland..

Post by brian livesey »

What we call "matter" and "energy" are abstractions,derived from the whole of reality. It's a mistake to say that light consists of particles and waves. In truth,light's neither. We assume that,in one instance,light ACTS as particles,and, in another instance, ACTS as waves. Even "light" itself is an abstraction. Physicists tell us that we can't say what matter and energy are,we can only speak of "phenomena". The rest is descriptive metaphor..
brian
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Re: Alice in Wonderland..

Post by joe »

brian livesey wrote:Physicists tell us that we can't say what matter and energy are,we can only speak of "phenomena". The rest is descriptive metaphor..
Only at the quantum scale. Language developed in order to deal with macroscopic phenomena and the descriptive metaphor you mention is simply vocabulary in everyday life, I believe. " If it looks like a particle and smells like a particle....". But you're right, it does get very mysterious at the atomic scale.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Cheshire Cat..

Post by brian livesey »

As you say,Joe,due to our human capacity for abstract thinking,we attach names to phenomena in order to differentiate the parts of reality for survival purposes. For other animals,reality is a single unity. Our "everyday" world is strictly "Newtonian". Even so, a "tree" (being a collection in the mind of a group of phenomena) is just as much an abstraction as a "quark". And on the cosmological scale,Einstein said that we shouldn't imagine that curved space-time really exists. He was using a conceptual model to describe phenomena for which the Newtonian model was inadequate. :wink:
brian
Post Reply