Think I saw that program myself, was it the one were they attempting to recreate a 'big bang' enviroment?
Paul.
Paul.
Autococker vrs. Automag
- Thread starter TechShock
- Start date
10 Dimensions or 11? Sorry not remotely my field of expertise, frankly I dunno (just repeating what I heard)Originally posted by Robbo
Hmmm, interesting stuff indeed, just a few minor points though
<SNIP>
Hee hee, I await your explanation
Robbo
I think when talking about lightspeed they mean in terms of value rather than an actual photon of light deaccelerating. Light is just packets of energy on the move after all (Particle & Wave simultaneously)
Some links about "slowing" the speed of light.
It is useful for many reasons, as when light is slowed its energy increases due to increased inertia, there are a few theory's about using counter rotating slow light beams to create a space time "vortex" allowing a primitive form of time travel.
http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/papers.html
http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/light.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990223083631.htm
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu472-1.htm
So I'm afraid that the speed of light is not always a constant.
It is useful for many reasons, as when light is slowed its energy increases due to increased inertia, there are a few theory's about using counter rotating slow light beams to create a space time "vortex" allowing a primitive form of time travel.
http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/papers.html
http://www.rowland.org/atomcool/light.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990223083631.htm
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu472-1.htm
So I'm afraid that the speed of light is not always a constant.
OK, my first point of confusion is done.
My second however is not done, you quote quantum theory in explaining the nature of light but as I understand it, coventional physics (if you can call quantum theory conventional) cannot ever explain pre big bang events as this area of physics is made redundant once beyond the singularity.
Still confused
But to protect the other readers from this now blatently hi-jacked thread from further boredom, I will let you off this particular cosmological hook
Robbo
The real question for the cosmologists . . .
--There's also problems with particle and wave simulataneity cropping up--just to heave another can of petrol on the fire.
But there are limits and I draw the line right here and absolutely refuse to get involved in a cocker v. mag debate.
isn't really the mechanism (term used advisedly) of how but the How at the beginning of the chain which the Bang is no longer considered to be.
--There's also problems with particle and wave simulataneity cropping up--just to heave another can of petrol
on the fire.But there are limits and I draw the line right here and absolutely refuse to get involved in a cocker v. mag debate.
Pre-big bang
whenever I have pre-big bang experiences my balls ache.
Robbo: I reckon you'd shoot a 'free-mag' over any mag out there.
THE debate: I loved my cocker, all I got from my mag was 'white finger'.
whenever I have pre-big bang experiences my balls ache.
Robbo: I reckon you'd shoot a 'free-mag' over any mag out there.
THE debate: I loved my cocker, all I got from my mag was 'white finger'.
Beak, what I posted was a question and not a statement of belief on my part that 'c' was constant.Originally posted by Beaker
or have I misread something?
Devil's advocacy Beak, a convenient tool for finding out the depth of people's understanding (not knowledge).
Pete
Understood
It was your use of the phrase "care to enlighten me" that confused. As I took the request for enlightenment to be that you didn't know already and therefore believed (due to lack of evidence to the contrary) it to be a constant.
Plus, my points were not actually to contradict you, more to add fuel to the debate.
Plus the ability to make light go at such slow speeds is just rather cool, regardless of the science behind it, you can just imagine the conversation over dinner:
"Honey, what did you do today?"
"I slowed down the speed of light to 37mph - how was your day?"
It was your use of the phrase "care to enlighten me" that confused. As I took the request for enlightenment to be that you didn't know already and therefore believed (due to lack of evidence to the contrary) it to be a constant.
Plus, my points were not actually to contradict you, more to add fuel to the debate.
Plus the ability to make light go at such slow speeds is just rather cool, regardless of the science behind it, you can just imagine the conversation over dinner:
"Honey, what did you do today?"
"I slowed down the speed of light to 37mph - how was your day?"