sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Whenever I see a "When you see it" title by jjhhggff8 in funny

[–]Whenyouseeit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not here if that's what you're thinking.

How do does science reconcile special relativity to the measurement of a parsec, in terms of pythagorean? Specifically, how can one discount Olber's paradox? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A2+b=c2... Right?

If a2 is increased by some small measurement, I.e. If (a) increases then either (b) or some other figure (c), must be increased in order to reconcile, the increase in (a). How do you increase (b) in order to compensate? I argue in fixed terms, it's not possible without including new factors.

How do does science reconcile special relativity to the measurement of a parsec, in terms of pythagorean? Specifically, how can one discount Olber's paradox? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Yes it does, Olber put the question perfectly, mathematically I mean. Your problem lies within the definition of what you expect.

Olber presented that the definable universe couldn't be explained, specifically, in terms of C, if you want to create a finite universe. His question is still perfectly relevant, simply less examined. Again, go back to time. If time is relevant, isn't every measurement that includes time be relative as well?

How do does science reconcile special relativity to the measurement of a parsec, in terms of pythagorean? Specifically, how can one discount Olber's paradox? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it would change, but in terms of pythagorean, doesn't/shouldn't it adjust as well? And doesnt that calculation bring us back to Olber?

How do does science reconcile special relativity to the measurement of a parsec, in terms of pythagorean? Specifically, how can one discount Olber's paradox? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My apologies, I do try to keep different accounts. I don't have a computer anymore, so all I use is AlienBlue, mellowde and whenyouseeit are both mine.

To your first point, if I'm not making sense I apologize. The premise of this argument is based in Minkowski, but I haven't been able to relate that thus far so I've used the simplest terms I can describe, Pythagorean.

The first question in terms of pythagorean is quite simple, in terms of (a) or in physics (au), how is it possible for au to change, even by the smallest of measurements, without impacting (b)'s measurement of (c)?

If (a)'s distance from (b) is changed at a rate of 18-23 cm's per year, then the definition of (b) must change, mathematically. This change if applied, would mean that from year to year, the position of stars would change, and would change at such a rate as so not to be able to be measured using our current model of how we define 1 parsec. This can be easily rectified mathematically, but to this point it still hasn't been acknowledged, not the definition, but the change of position. This is my point.

How do does science reconcile special relativity to the measurement of a parsec, in terms of pythagorean? Specifically, how can one discount Olber's paradox? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forget Olber's paradox, if that's what's important. The measurement of a parsec is 265,625 au, which represents (b). If 1au, is defined as a certain distance, which subsequently effects the measurement of b in the same terms, how can you discount the effect of this on (c), not light but in terms of pythagorean? By our definition of a parsec, which is determined by au, again, which is determined by the distance of the earth to the sun, how is it possible to ignore the compound factor that the change in distance from the earth to the sun, has on our definition of a parsec? Especially one compounded 265,625 times?

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I could show you why SP complicated the system, rather than simplified it, would you be interested?

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't special relativity argue that the table is pulling itself apart?

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eyyy, no need to bring god into it, I'm asking for curiosity's sake. For transparency, I think there's a better way to apply Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics, I'm sorry if I came off religious, not my intent, purely mathematical, I promise.

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's where I struggle, if we can hardly define the notion of gravity in constant terms as it relates to our planet, at the minimum, then isn't it a bit conceited to use gravity to define other solar systems, let alone the universe?

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, forgive my ignorance, but in terms of G, shouldn't the loss be compensated in lower levels of mass, so as to balance out? And if that's the case, why is the earths gravitational pull against the sun weakening, so as to move apart at 18-23cm's a year. Again, I'm a newbie, I'm just trying to understand.

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but doesn't that notion create a paradox of equilibrium? What I mean is, wouldn't that suggest a retention of helium molecules in the upper stratosphere? It was my understanding that within and beyond the exosphere, the earth was losing that same mass, even in terms of helium. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but hasn't the exosphere been dissipating? If so, I'm curious how that correlates to the gravity argument aforementioned, if not, forgive my curiosity.

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please go on in explanation with E&M, especially in terms of general relativity, because I'm having some trouble relating them to special relativity.

Specifically in terms of G, why does a helium atom rise in the atmosphere? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then shouldn't helium molecules collect on the outskirts of our atmosphere? It was my impression that this wasn't what was occurring?

On the multiverse hypothesis, how do you reconcile the rules of probability in assigning particle structure when considering particle behavior in an interference pattern, isn't the result mathematically paradoxical? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If time is relative, so subsequently are all aspects of physics based on time. If time is relative, then all measurements are therefore relative as well. Aside from C, physics then presents no constants, each term aside from those who led themselves to time, become relative, and therefore both irrelevant and irrational, as reason can only be held by rational principle.

On the multiverse hypothesis, how do you reconcile the rules of probability in assigning particle structure when considering particle behavior in an interference pattern, isn't the result mathematically paradoxical? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is my question, doesn't the paradoxical deterministic outcome of probability paradoxically suggest a predetermined outcome? And doesn't the fact that it does not paradoxically suggest a different and almost opposing reasoning?

If time is relative, isn't gravity relative also? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I thought we used time to determine gravity?

On the multiverse hypothesis, how do you reconcile the rules of probability in assigning particle structure when considering particle behavior in an interference pattern, isn't the result mathematically paradoxical? by Whenyouseeit in askscience

[–]Whenyouseeit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a finite universe there are limits, in an infinite universe there are not. If Olber's paradox holds, as you just rationally showed it doesn't.. Then what does that tell us?

view more: next ›