The Mystery of Light Slowing and Speeding Up - www.thefinaltheory.com

[reilly]

geistkiesel -- Sad to say, cracked pots hold a one way ticket to obscurity, speeded up by their level of compulsion. If in fact you are the one in a billion that is right, then you must convince the rest of the world that you are correct. A better mousetrap will bring people to your doorstep, along with their respect. A fantasy moustrap might have a romantic appeal to a few, but will be jive to most. Good luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Chronos]

All of science has been built upon observation. Once we developed the language of mathematics, the ambiguities between observation and reality have rapidly disappeared. In that sense, mathematics is the ultimate description of reality. It is a language that is unambiguous. What we have discovered, unfortunately, is that the language of mathematics is just as incomplete and mysterious as the logic of Aristotle. It does not adequately explain all observations. Even our revered mathematics break down when 0 or infinities appear in the solution. According to Planck, time breaks down at 10-43 seconds, volume breaks down at 10-99/cm^3, and mass density breaks down at 10-93 gm/cc. These are not imaginary values. All observations to date have revealed no evidence these barriers have ever been breached [or even approached]. The good Lord knows, because many have tried and failed: even Einstein, who was a pretty bright fellow.

The only escape from 'singularities', such as these, is that our version of math is incomplete. Godel made that point long ago. Assumptions cannot be validated within the system they arise. 'a priori' assumptions ultimately become identities when reduced to simplest terms. The most fundamental interpretation of GR insists that all reference frames are innately self-referential.

Where is this 'better' math to be found? Unclear. My best guess is that we need not discard current knowledge. Just fill in the gaps where current math predicts infinite [or 1/infinite] results. Don't ask me how to do that. I am too old to both write and correct the numerous mistakes I would commit before I went nova.

WARNING: If this thread forces me go to the math forum for answers, I will find a way to make the most qualified star nearest to your planet to go Ia: assuming I find the math. [more likely it will be a dud and result in yet another main sequence yawner star orbited by dirt balls populated with equally annoying sentient beings].

 

[notimeleftforyou]

radioactive decay

I'm just a computer scientist that specializes in networking so I wouldn't fathom to say I am in your league if you are working on a Phd in physics.

I was reading the debate on time dilation & found it interesting that at no time any of you mentioned radioactive decay. Someone stated time=motion.

With respect to SR & GR common sense would suggest that acceleration is the key to time dilation with respect to the two astronauts perspective. But arguments dealing with age don't make much sense. Replacing the persons with clocks doesn't either because all of these entities experience radioactive decay. It would be better to compare two atomic clocks surrounded by a vac traveling into balls of energy capable of escape velocity. With that in mind there are 3 points of reference:
1) Earth
2) Clock A
3) Clock B

From what I know about atomic clocks they are somehow affected by natural forces (G, EM, SN, WN). These forces are not constant in the universe so naturally they will vary the rate at which atomic clocks tick (figuratively speaking). That's why it's entirely possible for the following scenario:
Two energy balls carrying two atomic clocks leave at the same Earth time.
The travel the same distance, experience varied levels of acceleration, but arrive back at the same Earth time. It is possible for the clocks to differ greatly based on the natural forces they encountered in their journey.

So I don't think I would agree that time=motion. I would agree with time=decay. You could argue that motion is required for decay & I wouldn't disagree. But motion implies something multi-directional & decay implies something uni-directional. I think this is an important distinction because it pretty much addresses time-travel. If you view time as multi-directional motion then time travel is theoretically possible. But if you view it as uni-directional then it's not.

Now this is a far-reaching hypothesis but well it's good to add some fun to
the thread. The Bible says that God created the Universe & everything in it
in 6 days. God=creator, or initiator if you will. We know via decay measurements that this is impossible. But that assumes that decay has occurred at a constant rate throughout time. Why should we assume this?
Why should we expect that (G,EM,SN,WN) would remain constant throughout the passage of Earth time? Now I'm not suggesting the Bible is right. But I am suggesting that relativity as indeed provided us explanations for how something like that could be right. All you have to imagine is that during those 6 God days of creation, the rate at which atomic clocks were ticking was a great magnitude higher then they are today. Is that plausible? Who knows. But I remember reading a theory that believed that was the case. Not the whole Bible thing but rather that the Earth has varying rates of atomic clocks. The closest you travel to the center the faster the rate of the clock.

As for The Final Theory, I would not agree with the premise of that which we do not know & label as mysterious is necc flawed. Unless the author can show an example of where his theory would lead enable us to conquer space travel, food shortages, energy shortages, or something else that would be beneficial to society the Standard Theory seems adequate to me. With it we have developed virtual reality, will develop nanotechnology, & eventually cyborgs. Even with the application of Standard Theory we should arrive close to God-hood in terms of extending human life & making it more durable to travel the Universe in a century from now. I think that's significant progress.
What I believe the author completely disregards in his comments that prevailing science is predicated on ST that is well over a century old is the impact of computer science. Computer science has enabled us to attack scientific problems at light speed relatively speaking in comparison to what was possible 4 decades ago.

One day we will know exactly what the force is that makes magnets stick
to fridges. Does the author know why? Because technology born of CS & ST
will help us to observe the inner-mechanisms of that force first hand.

 

[Layne]

Hello everyone! I blundered into this forum by clicking the link from The Final Theory website. I'd like to put in my two cents.

It is my fervent hope that someday an outsider will come along and shatter our current paradigm with a more elegant, more simple, and more functional explanation. Just as some of yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions, and some of the rabble-rousing, authority-defying, status-quo-breaking people in history are now revered as fathers of (insert name of their nation, cause, religion, or branch of science here), many of the breakthroughs in science - and the scientists that offered them - were met with stiff opposition and open hostility before they became universally accepted.

With this historical perspective in mind, it makes sense to suspend our disbelief and preconceptions as much as possible and give a newcomer such as The Final Theory a fair opportunity to convince us that what we have believed up till now is incorrect.

But the knife cuts both ways. The Final Theory owes the scientific community the same consideration. He owes us a fair opportunity to put his theory to the test, to question it, and to respond to it.

So here's my problem. The Final Theory claims one simple principle is responsible for gravity, electro-magnetism, atomic structure, celestial observations, and more. But demands we pay $29.95 each for the chance to learn what this one simple principle is.

He may be absolutely correct. There may be one simple principle that explains all this stuff. There's no way any of us can know unless we know the one simple principle he uses as the basis of his book. Why doesn't he submit this theory to a science journal instead of try to make money off a generally uneducated public? If is book is as convincing as his website would have us believe, why not present it to one of the physics journals or even Scientific American?

How can we have an intelligent discussion with him of only he knows the principle we're discussing? This isn't poker. We shouldn't have to pay to see his cards.

Layne