Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[Karabiner]

An incredibly good read, absolutely awesome.

That's not to say I accepted the notions it propogated. My mind is condiitioned always to ask the same question - "how do they know?". 

They don't;  if they did it would be a theorem rather than a theory. Simples as Andrei would say.

Theorem is a mathematical term and is completely unrelated to a theory which, in the scientific sense, is an idea which already fits in with observed data.

Okay, okay, I knew that I was in over my head.

Let's get back to Tommy Crockpot

[AndrewT]

Sorry!

I can give examples, but I can't say I feel very comfortable with the idea.  I'll leave a proper explanation to you proper mathematicians.  Infinity is a tricky little devil imo.  Over to you......

meh cba

I think the simplest way of understanding that there are basically 2 levels of infinity is:

Number of numbers between each integer = infinity
Number of numbers all together = infinity

But there is more of the second than the first, so they're not equal.

I have just found this though - - which is cool

Or there's the example of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, which has an infinite number of people staying there.

One night a coach pulls up with an infinite number of passengers looking to stay at the hotel.

In order to make room, the hotel manager asks all the people currently staying there to move to the hotel room which is double the number of the one they're in. So the person in room 1 moves to 2, the person in 2 moves to 4 and so on - everyone moves to an even numbered room and, as there are an infinite number of evens numbers, everyone gets a room.

This leaves all the odd numbered rooms free, and there are an infinite number of odd numbers, so the infinite number of passengers on the coach can all get a room as well.

[mondatoo]

Eh ??

[Jon MW]

Sorry!

I can give examples, but I can't say I feel very comfortable with the idea.  I'll leave a proper explanation to you proper mathematicians.  Infinity is a tricky little devil imo.  Over to you......

meh cba

I think the simplest way of understanding that there are basically 2 levels of infinity is:

Number of numbers between each integer = infinity
Number of numbers all together = infinity

But there is more of the second than the first, so they're not equal.

I have just found this though - - which is cool

Or there's the example of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, which has an infinite number of people staying there.

One night a coach pulls up with an infinite number of passengers looking to stay at the hotel.

In order to make room, the hotel manager asks all the people currently staying there to move to the hotel room which is double the number of the one they're in. So the person in room 1 moves to 2, the person in 2 moves to 4 and so on - everyone moves to an even numbered room and, as there are an infinite number of evens numbers, everyone gets a room.

This leaves all the odd numbered rooms free, and there are an infinite number of odd numbers, so the infinite number of passengers on the coach can all get a room as well.

I don't like that one

It has people in it

[Tractor]

.

[kinboshi]

So if you were in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and you switched your lights on, what would happen?

You can't travel at the speed of light in a spaceship.

Aww! Why not?

Anything with a mass would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.  This would also mean that the object would have to have infinite mass as well.

How do you know that though? Space = no resistance, so even with a small motor, a spaceship would just continue to accelerate until it reached the speed of light, no?

No.

As an object increases in speed, its mass also increases.

Now you're just pulling my pisser.

At trivial speeds (such as the ones we experience in our day to day lives, or even during a spaceship's re-entry into the earth's atmosphere), the effects are so small that they aren't important.  At high speeds (those approaching the speed of light) the effects become very evident.

Are these proven facts?

Accepted scientific theories*.  They have been tested, and have been used to accurately predict phenomena suggesting that they are correct.  Like bolty said, read a book on e=mc2 and you'll find it fascinating.

I lent one to tikay, if he's read it you can borrow it next...

(*theory in a scientific sense, not the everyday usage of the word). 

An incredibly good read, absolutely awesome.

That's not to say I accepted the notions it propogated. My mind is condiitioned always to ask the same question - "how do they know?". 

They don't;  if they did it would be a theorem rather than a theory. Simples as Andrei would say.

Correct Ralph. But people believe it. Because it's in a book, see?

Incorrect.  I think this has been covered subsequently.  Remember as well that these theories are peer-reviewed, tested, challenged and questioned by many very clever people.  Until a better idea comes along (that can be tested) and is falsifiable, then the theory stands as the best answer available.

It's the same when people ask for scientific proof for something in physics or biology.  Proofs are for mathematics, evidence is what people often mean when they say proof.

[kinboshi]

So if you were in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and you switched your lights on, what would happen?

You can't travel at the speed of light in a spaceship.

Aww! Why not?

Anything with a mass would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.  This would also mean that the object would have to have infinite mass as well.

How do you know that though? Space = no resistance, so even with a small motor, a spaceship would just continue to accelerate until it reached the speed of light, no?

No.

As an object increases in speed, its mass also increases.

Now you're just pulling my pisser.

At trivial speeds (such as the ones we experience in our day to day lives, or even during a spaceship's re-entry into the earth's atmosphere), the effects are so small that they aren't important.  At high speeds (those approaching the speed of light) the effects become very evident.

What is meant by increases in mass here Dan?

for example, I believe a bullet fired at high velocity reduces in size. The greater the velocity, the greater the reduction.

Is size in this example different than mass?

Like Red, it's way above me but I find it fascinating.

Geo

Geo

Geo - you're quite right, as the speed increases an object will reduce in size (whilst increasing in mass).  Again, at normal observable speeds, the effect is too small to measure.  The physics we're talking about here is what happens at speeds approaching the speed of light, rather than everyday speeds.

[TightEnd]

I'm confused.

Completely and utterly confused.

[kinboshi]

So if you were in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and you switched your lights on, what would happen?

You can't travel at the speed of light in a spaceship.

Aww! Why not?

Anything with a mass would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.  This would also mean that the object would have to have infinite mass as well.

How do you know that though? Space = no resistance, so even with a small motor, a spaceship would just continue to accelerate until it reached the speed of light, no?

No.

As an object increases in speed, its mass also increases.

Now you're just pulling my pisser.

At trivial speeds (such as the ones we experience in our day to day lives, or even during a spaceship's re-entry into the earth's atmosphere), the effects are so small that they aren't important.  At high speeds (those approaching the speed of light) the effects become very evident.

What is meant by increases in mass here Dan?

for example, I believe a bullet fired at high velocity reduces in size. The greater the velocity, the greater the reduction.

Is size in this example different than mass?

Like Red, it's way above me but I find it fascinating.

Geo

Geo

Geo - you're quite right, as the speed increases an object will reduce in size (whilst increasing in mass).  Again, at normal observable speeds, the effect is too small to measure.  The physics we're talking about here is what happens at speeds approaching the speed of light, rather than everyday speeds.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity8.htm

[titaniumbean]

I'm confused.

Completely and utterly confused.

I've dipped in and out of the last 5 pages, and I really haven't understood one whole line yet. bit over my head.

[gatso]

if time is linear, fixed and constant, which I think is boldie's claim, then time travel would not be possible. however as time travel clearly is possible we need a different model for time

[Bongo]

[boldie]

if time is linear, fixed and constant, which I think is boldie's claim, then time travel would not be possible. however as time travel clearly is possible we need a different model for time

Ah, yes. We all accept that time travel is possible (in theory) as time isn't constant...time has always been relative. ("Time" will start moving more slowly when the universe starts to contract again. This is obv only noticeable to an outside observer which is the point of relativity.) But it's always been there. IMO time has always been there to an observer from outside the universe (if you picture the observer as Will Smith in MIB and our universe as the thing inside the cat's necklace) and only they would be able to see it moving more slowly and speeding up. The one thing doesn't rule out the other. (although it's getting very confusing now)

[Geo the Sarge]

if time is linear, fixed and constant, which I think is boldie's claim, then time travel would not be possible. however as time travel clearly is possible we need a different model for time

Ahhhh............makes sense, I think




Geo

[RED-DOG]

Jimmy Hotpot travelled through time once.

(Well he managed to win a £50 bet by getting me a sausage & egg mcmuffin at 11:15 when they stop serving breakfast at 10:30)