Skip to comments.Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
The only problem was the vacuum contained energy (which is something)
So, unless you can prove that something can come from nothing, it is not science, it is philosophical speculation.
Not quite. Michelson-Morley showed ether was not necessary to explain the observations. They never said it didn't exist.
I'm not certain. For the second reference frame that we see zipping away from us, I think their mass increase does have consequences, even locally for them. Not gravitationally, because they don't feel heavier, but with respect to their inertial mass, there must be a difference. (I'm breaking Einstein's principle of equivalence here, so I recognize that I'm in trouble ... yet -- waiving the flag of buffoonery -- I persevere.) If it were a ship, for example, approaching lightspeed, they would soon be unable to accelerate further.
Or possibility #3: the Universe is much, much stranger than it seems like to us.
Hint: what is your on-board clock doing as you approach the SOL, WRT a clock on a "stationary" frame of reference?
(think about the answer as it would affect the fact that acceleration is the derivative of velocity WRT time)
I disagree. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done at opposite ends of the earth's orbit (6 months apart). The results were identical. If there were an ether that light traveled in, then the speed of light would have been different. Hence, the ether theory was discredited. (A good textbook on the subject is "Special Relativity," by Anthony French. MIT Press.
... in the frame of reference of the first (you called him stationary) observer. In the frame of reference of the ship, they continue to accelerate, or more specifically, they continue to feel the force of acceleration.
The clock is keeping perfect time, so far as the people on the ship are concerned. But the time dilation is real, as they would learn if they could return home. Similarly, I suspect (but don't know) that their mass increase is real too.
And the effect of this on the acceleration of the spacecraft, as viewed from an external "stationary" oberver, would be???
Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING. If it were not accelerating, then there would not be any effect of difference in aging. Special Relativity is defined by the concept that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. It establishes a series of transformations so that the observations of observers in these different reference frames all measure the same thing. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCELERATING FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
However, the accelerating rocket ship is not an inertial frame, it is an accelerating frame. This problem is handled mathematically by making an infinitely long series of infinitesmal transformations from each inertial reference frame to the next, somewhat faster reference frame.
The long and the short of it is that the result of time dilation, that the astronauts have aged less upon their return, is entirely due to the fact that the rocket ship was accelerating.
I'll take your word for it.
It's hard to learn when all the knowledge-obtaining orifices are closed.
Maybe I'm just hungry though.
I can't think of any, unless they could see the ship's clock, and note that (correcting for the message transit time) it's out of sync with the clock at home (assuming they were once in sync). Also, I suppose if the viewing position were right, they'd see a shortening of the ship's "forward direction" dimension (if you know what I mean). Offhand, I can't think of any visual manifestation of the increase in mass.
Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING.
Yes, that's why the ship is the frame that undergoes the time dilation, and not the earth, even though from the ship's viewpoint, the earth is seen to be accelerating away from the earth. But it's really the ship that experiences acceleration.
Nevertheless, even for non-accelerating frames of reference that are in motion with respect to each other, the Lorentz transformation applies to observed differences in time, length, etc. Or so I've always understood. That's how the two frames can make sense of their otherwise incompatible observations.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. First there were grapefruits!
Now your talking my language...I've always been clueless as to how "nothing" exploded into everything.
Right, the article is clear, "In the beginning, there were grapefruits".
I think "Dean Wormer said it best in "Animal House": "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."