Big Bang

That’s pretty much how it works.
Affectance necessarily has a reluctance to change and a maximum rate of that change.
Thus as anything approaches the maximum, it cannot internally change fast enough to compensate for its overall movement into a new space and also relative to its other components. Thus it slows relative to its own other components, hence the clock turns slower (a motion relative to itself).

But that is only half the story.

And what does it mean if some people are really good at speculating with the same knowledge base? Can we infer from that that (scientific) empiricism is not the only way to knowledge? Corporations aim money at some of these people. Are they foolish?

If a law can break down in certain conditions, is it a law? Maybe it is a habit. Most scientists assume that laws are permanent facets of the universe, but perhaps this in not the case - one could bring in Hume’s critique of induction here.

Rupert Sheldrake presents the position that laws and constants change and can change.

sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Speculation I would say is good but assuming you can’t be wrong is bad, most likely.

I would say any path can lead to the point. (perhaps the leading is endless…though I don’t know i would think that) Some paths may take longer, perhaps especially those that spend more time on details, but then a wide use of multiple paths can often lead one farther faster, I would think.

You mean those who accept things as “proven” or in other words: not possibly wrong? I don’t know that it would be as fair to call them foolish as much as manipulated, if corporations are using them.

Actually, what would happen is length contraction. The entire universe would contract infinitely such that whatever point the traveller started from would coincide with his destination point, essentially making his trip instantaneous. His clock would slow down to a halt but the trip would have 0 distance and take 0 time anyway. This is what I mean when I say that relative to the traveller, he does not experience the cosmic speed limit of c; his speed can become ‘infinite’.

Wow, huge in-between set of possibilities left out.

Sounds like Feyarabend in Against Method.

I don’t know where the concept of ‘infallible’ entered my post. I didn’t intend it, nor can I see it there. I wasn’t suggesting anyone speculates without error. I merely meant that some speculate better than others, some of these well above chance.

But you can’t say that his speed is infinite for a couple of reasons.

First “infinite” means having no limit, not being ultra fast.
But more significantly, even though his clock stopped making it seem to him that he took zero time to get to his destination, everything else did not stop moving relative to his destination. In fact, his destination wouldn’t be where he first saw it because it didn’t stop and wait for him to get there. So if the universe saw him traveling at c, the universe would have shifted around for the length of time it took for him to travel at c from where he started to his destination. When he got there, the universe would have moved around from when he left.

How would you make yourself stop at a specific point if you were traveling such as to cross any distance instantaneously?

what do you mean?

Oh, i didn’t really have a clear idea of what you meant…I imagine some do speculate better than others…

What he actually had as the content of his science, the science still used today, is that the speed of light is always c in an inertial reference frame. The speed is relative to points in the frame, not to any observer. Observers can use frames other than the one in which they are at rest to make measurements.

These arguments shouldn’t have any bearing on the Big Bang theory, since that doesn’t have a central point.

Since the measurement of the speed of light is constant to a frame, the speed of light can be different relative to objects moving in that frame. If we look at the reference frames in which those objects are at rest, we still find that the speed of light is c in those frames.

PhysB,
If you want to see the final conclusion of that Paradox issue, you can start here… Stopped Clock Paradox - page 12
…and emm… welcome back.

I got to thinking. No mirror like material, completely spectacularly emits light. in other words no matter what some light is always diffused in all directions of an object. Or I believe that is the case. The work I do works on light reflectance of materials and indicates this as being the case. I’m not certain though, I’d have to talk to my boss about it. But If that was the case, if light has a particle nature, then you would think that it would only diffuse so long as the light beam emitted was greater than the width of a single photon. So what would be interesting is to test to see that if a light beam of the width of a photon, would diffuse, if it does that would contradict the idea that the light has any singularity with respect to minimization of beam width, and would thus seem not to be particular…IDK

The other thought I had was i thought we were able to tell a particles size by judging the way light reflects off of it right? If not how else to we tell?

“They” are building optical computers using single photon emitters.
Does that answer your doubt?
O:)

Not completely. i mean do they know it is actually emitting a photon or is it just that it is emitting a single photon length beam, and regardless I guess is there diffusion? I mean even if there was diffusion a sensor would still sense the transmition…

And again I would was hoping you might no how we tell what the size of a particle is?

Off subject but this is more of a simple simple answer question then something deserving of a topic thread.

They know that the amount of energy being sent and received is that of a single photon. They even use it to change the wave length of photons. It is for the purpose of higher resolution data transfer down optical cables.

How wide is an ocean wave?
When dealing with things that do not have a well contrasted border, we assign a percentage of affect as the declared “edge”.
We can declare whatever we find useful. All truth begins with definitions in sight of relevance.
For example, in statistics, the “standard” or “normal bell curve” is well known but it has no definitive width until it is assigned one.
The width of any actual bell curve tends to be very relevant so they assigned it a relative value for a standard and very imaginatively named it, “standard deviation” [from the normal/center value];

The standard deviation, σ, is a value that can be easily calculated and tells you of the variations (the “variance”) involved in a sample that yields a non-definitive wave.

The wave has no sharply contrasted border, so it is given a calculable and significant (for the issues at hand) value. Sometimes in Science, the value of 5.25% is used as merely a standard for identifying when something has become significant enough to be noteworthy.

So when it comes to how wide the ocean wave is, or a particle, they declare a percentage of affect as being the “standard” and everyone then uses that as the “true width” all the while knowing that it is merely a measuring point and not an actual contrasting border.

what do you mean?
[/quote]
Between it being mere speculation, speculation that does better than chance and presuming one cannot be wrong. I suppose my ‘between’ was unclear. But I was surprised by your caution about thinking one could never be wrong. It didn’t seem a response to what I said, but perhaps it fit with the flow of this discussion as a whole.

That is interesting not what I thought, makes a lot more sense. but in the case of the atom how do we assert that say the part that we call the mass is the mass. rather than say that the thing or particle or mass is the combination of the aspect of the part we would currently call the mass and the magnetic field?

The reply to both of these is as follows: It would indeed be a problem if the traveler actually was moving at c, but this in relativity is impossible. c represents an impossible limit. One can accelerate to it ever so close, but nothing can actually travel that fast except light.

So our traveler would have to accelerate close to the speed of light and then decelerate as he approaches his destination. The universe will contract but not infinitely (or maximally) but still enough to make everything you pass by seem to move slower than it would if no contraction occurred.

As for James’ point about the contents of the universe moving around as you traveled, I think having a continuous non-instantaneous transition from origin to destination addresses this, but I think the relativity of simultaneity also has to be considered. Do things in the universe move around at the same time as the traveler leaves his point of origin, arrives at his destination, or any point in between? Does an event E in the universe occur at the same time as the traveler’s arrival at any point on his trip? Simultaneity is not an absolute in relativity and so we don’t need to say that any event that occurs in the universe must be traveling faster than light relative to the traveler. If that event only had the chance to complete half its unfolding by the time he arrived at his destination (whereas perhaps it unfolded completely relative to someone who stayed at home before the traveler arrived at his destination), then we say that relative to the traveler, the event was only half over by the time he arrived but completely over relative to the stay-at-home.

Well, as pointed out in the Stopped Clock Paradox, relativity doesn’t actually work anyway. I can only surmise based on what is logically derivable, not what is fantasy contingent. Either items would have relocated by the time he arrived, or they wouldn’t. If he arrives instantaneously, even by his own clock, there would have been no time for anything to have moved at all. Whether they are thought to have moved more by one person than another is another issue that would only lead to conflicts in reality (what is would not be what is).

that would indicate that all light had to always exist, how else could anything not light have been accelerated to light speed.

I don’t see how a contraction of the universe could occur without some sort of disruption to the consistency of the object being accelerated?

And wouldn’t the universe/ exterior contracting be another way of looking at things whereas one could take an alternate relative perspective and say the object being sped up was expanding?

And it would seem that any apparent relative movement after a stationary actuality would be faster seeming then any stillness, I don’t know how things could appear slower than when two things seem not to be moving relatively apparent to each other. this would indicate and what I suspect you might be saying is that while things seem to go by faster after some speed is achieved (what specific speed?) things would begin to seem to slow down again. This doesn’t seem far fetched when one say considers one of those rims on a car that spin, if a car is going slow it appears to be moving in the same direction of the wheel whereas when it speeds up even faster it begins to appear as if it is rotating in the opposite direction. But then i think if a car speeds up more this alters back to a seeming forward motion. and i speculate that it may coninue altering at a faster and faster rate such that eventually it may actually appear to not be rotating at all…