theseeker189 wrote: if you where traveling half the speed of light and you get past by something traveling at the speed of light it still seems its going the speed of light.
theseeker189 wrote:So take I was in space what would my mass be? Ever thing that has matter has mass? It sounds to me these people are saying you need gravity to have a mass? Or do I need to change mass for matter to know how much of me there actually is?
Buzi-Blu wrote:Now imagine spinning it at the North Pole - the spinning earth beneath makes no difference, it is not relative to the earth. Now remove the earth. Again, we would expect a curved surface, but what is it spinning relative to? To the distant stars? Are the not rotating? How does the water "know" what the fixed frame is and in particular, how can it communicate that so quickly?
Buzi-Blu wrote:A thought I had was how mass and time are related. Velocity is the change of position with respect to time. Just how that works I don't get because it seems a circular argument. A second is the time taken for object X to go from A to B, but the length AB is defined by the distance covered by X in 1 second - or have I got this wrong?
Buzi-Blu wrote:This still doesn't help with answering what mass is.
theseeker189 wrote:I believe its just gotten to the point where they are trying to make it work...
theseeker189 wrote:Another theory is that we are just not to know everything of the universe.
theseeker189 wrote:What where doing is just jumping the gun, we haven't traveled to another star yet, at least to the publics knowledge, so why try and travel to a new dimension when we can't even see it, let alone know if we could exist their.
theseeker189 wrote:Basically id like to understand our universe as a whole,...
theseeker189 wrote:...all they've done is add equations to make it work and complicate it.
theseeker189 wrote:I believe in a higher being of intelligents, and then they to must have a higher intelligents, and so on. So than I guess, whence we've found our intelligents we might understand more, if they have found theirs and so on. It's a chain of command almost. But still at the end we are all puzzled as to where did it all come from, this answer will Never be known I believe! And even so, when it is known, we just create our own universe and the process starts again...
theseeker189 wrote: ...all they've done is add equations to make it work and complicate it.
Is this a dismissal of mathematics?
If I may object, two reasons:
First, math has not complicated our understanding the of the universe, but simplified it. Many of the mathematical proofs are incredibility complex; but often, usually, simplify to easy equations:
E = mc^2 F = ma
Even more complicated solutions like Schrödinger's Wave Solution is a model explaining probability (and models are by definition much more simple than a comprehensive description of reality).
Also, as the math gets more complicated for a given theory *cough, M-theory* that is usually a red flag that it is wrong (See Kepler for a clear example, oh, which reminds me: He came up with P^2 = a^3 to describe the orbits of worlds).
Second, math works .
What where doing is just jumping the gun, we haven't traveled to another star yet, at least to the publics knowledge, so why try and travel to a new dimension when we can't even see it, let alone know if we could exist their.
Not 100% sure what you mean here Seeker, but the two terms may not be mutually exclusive: Perhaps star travel requires some sort of access to other dimensions.
Return to General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest