detaljne poruke iz svemira

ali mislim da neki ovdje baš ne kuže o čemu se radi kod brzine svjetlosti. Ona je Bogom dana, nepromjenjiva, stvorena u trenutku stvaranja svemira, i baš kao što je nemoguće u našem svemiru prostoru dodati četvrtu dimenziju tako je nemoguće i prijeći brzinu svjetlosti.

Dakle da se vratimo na onu čuvenu E=mc2 koja je proizašla iz specijalne teorije relativnosti

jednostavna jednadžba, iz koje jasno proizlazi da su masa i energija zamjenjive, i da masa može prijeći u energiju i obratno, ali uz limit brzine. Da bi se nešto ubrzalo do brzine svjetlosti, potrebno je svu masu svemira pretvoriti u energiju. I potrebna energija za ubrzanje raste eksponencijalno kako se približava brzini svjetlosti. To je jednostavno tako i tu nema Boga, filozofije, teorije, Warpa, ni science fictiona ni "znanstvenih otrkića" koja će to ikad promijeniti. Kao što je 2+2 bilo 4 prije milijun godina i bit će i za milijun godina i uvijek. Neke stvari su jednostavno takve, dva i dva nikad neće biti pet, i nikad neće biti dovoljno energije u svemiru da bi ikakvu masu ubrzalo preko brzine svjetlosti, jer su masa i energija u svemiru određene brzinom svjetlosti.

kod kvatnog sprezanja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement moguće je da postoji nešto brže od brzine svjetlosti

dva brata wrote:kod kvatnog sprezanja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement   moguće je da postoji nešto brže od brzine svjetlosti

nije.

In conclusion, the result shows that it is quite impossible for the measurement of one particle's properties to determine the other's properties[citation needed], even though it seems that way at first, as the speed of light is the universal speed limit, and nothing can travel faster than that speed.

to je iz tog linka koji si stavio

ovo je odgovor na ono dedino o red shiftu i ekspanziji svemira


The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if proper distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally.[22] (See comoving distance for a discussion of different notions of 'velocity' in cosmology.) Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies. This expansion rate is thought to have been at its peak during the inflationary epoch thought to have occurred in a tiny fraction of the second after the Big Bang (models suggest the period would have been from around 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to around 10−33 seconds), when the universe may have rapidly expanded by a factor of around 1020 to 1030.[23]

There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. Because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can actually be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us faster than light does manage to emit a signal which reaches us eventually.[24][25]

"Our effective particle horizon is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), at redshift z ∼ 1100, because we cannot see beyond the surface of last scattering. Although the last scattering surface is not at any fixed comoving coordinate, the current recession velocity of the points from which the CMB was emitted is 3.2c. At the time of emission their speed was 58.1c, assuming (ΩM,ΩΛ) = (0.3,0.7). Thus we routinely observe objects that are receding faster than the speed of light and the Hubble sphere is not a horizon."[26]

However, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, it is projected that most galaxies will eventually cross a type of cosmological event horizon where any light they emit past that point will never be able to reach us at any time in the infinite future,[27] because the light never reaches a point where its "peculiar velocity" towards us exceeds the expansion velocity away from us (these two notions of velocity are also discussed in Comoving distance#Uses of the proper distance). The current distance to this cosmological event horizon is about 16 billion light-years, meaning that a signal from an event happening at present would eventually be able to reach us in the future if the event was less than 16 billion light-years away, but the signal would never reach us if the event was more than 16 billion light-years away.[25]

marcellus wrote:Dakle da se vratimo na onu čuvenu E=mc2 koja je proizašla iz specijalne teorije relativnosti

masa i energija zamjenjive, i da masa može prijeći u energiju i obratno,

nisu zamjenjive, to je formula za kinetičku energiju tijela koje se giba brzinom c

masa proizlazi iz subatomskih fenomena, masa je kvantno mehanički efekt

ako se npr. cijepa atom oslobođena energija je posljedica kidanja veze jake sile, razdvojeni protoni i neutroni ne gube masu

Nuclear reactions may be shown in a form similar to chemical equations, for which invariant mass must balance for each side of the equation, and in which transformations of particles must follow certain conservation laws, such as conservation of charge and baryon number (total atomic mass number).

kvantna mehanika negira da je masa posljedica zakrivljenosti 4D prostor vremena, teorija relativnosti je u direktnoj suprotnosti s kvantnom mehanikom

marcellus wrote:ali mislim da neki ovdje baš ne kuže o čemu se radi kod brzine svjetlosti. Ona je Bogom dana, nepromjenjiva, stvorena u trenutku stvaranja svemira, i baš kao što je nemoguće u našem svemiru prostoru dodati četvrtu dimenziju tako je nemoguće i prijeći brzinu svjetlosti.

to nije znanost to je filozofija

deda ilerminatus wrote:

marcellus wrote:ali mislim da neki ovdje baš ne kuže o čemu se radi kod brzine svjetlosti. Ona je Bogom dana, nepromjenjiva, stvorena u trenutku stvaranja svemira, i baš kao što je nemoguće u našem svemiru prostoru dodati četvrtu dimenziju tako je nemoguće i prijeći brzinu svjetlosti.

to nije znanost to je filozofija

ne, to je znanost. Čista matematika.

deda ilerminatus wrote:teorija relativnosti je u direktnoj suprotnosti s kvantnom mehanikom

prijavi se za Nobelovu s tim otkrićem... ili bar za IG Nobela...

dva brata wrote:bh magazin

bosanska posla

 Znam ali pogledaj koliko stranica su ovi glupani tu  ( računajući i tebe , koji serendaš o -kvantnom sprezanju kao da kurca kužiš o tome )

  

tu naštancali???????????

Malo manje ili više nego o "vijesti" o sletanju na Sunce..........


Stvarno je ljudska glupost bezgranična...............................veća i od Svemira

marcellus wrote:

deda ilerminatus wrote:

marcellus wrote:ali mislim da neki ovdje baš ne kuže o čemu se radi kod brzine svjetlosti. Ona je Bogom dana, nepromjenjiva, stvorena u trenutku stvaranja svemira, i baš kao što je nemoguće u našem svemiru prostoru dodati četvrtu dimenziju tako je nemoguće i prijeći brzinu svjetlosti.

to nije znanost to je filozofija

ne, to je znanost. Čista matematika.

čista matematika nema veze s fizikom, npr. teorija struna ili multiversa je isto čista matematik, a nikakve veze sa stvranošću nema

uz to matematika nije znanost, jer ju je nemoguće falsificirati pokusima

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper

deda ilerminatus wrote:

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper

a neš autoriteta karl popper

sorošev profa s faksa, lijevo smetalo čije su premise komedija, u biti sofist

a to da matematika nije znanost može tvrditi samo kompletni kreten

al dobro on je inače tvrdio svašta i napravio više štete nego karl marx sa svojom imbecilnom filozofijom "paradoksa" tolerancije, demokracije, itd.

paradoksi ne postoje, postoji samo nerazumijevanje problema

Samo vi tragajte za tim signalima...hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

i da čista matematika i te kako ima veze s fizikom, matematika je derivat stvarnog fizičkog modela svijeta

gle došao je i imbecil

marcellus wrote:gle došao je i imbecil

Vidiš, ovaj ''imbecil'' bi te mogao mnogo čemu naučiti...Ali, nisam došao na Zemlju podučavati...

marcellus wrote:

deda ilerminatus wrote:

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper

a neš autoriteta karl popper

sorošev profa s faksa, lijevo smetalo čije su premise komedija, u biti sofist

što nije točno u tome da se matematiku ne može falsificirati pokusima?

misliš da napadom na nečiju ličnost negiraš valjanost argumenta?

@marcelluse, zbog tebe ću napraviti iznimku...

''Tijelo vaše hram je Duha Svetoga koji je u vama! ''   (1 Kor 6, 19)

Ljudsko tijelo je Božji hram...Sad vidi u što ste ga pretvorili?...Još zazivate Boga nad nepravdama svijeta?...Pa kako Vas nije sram...

deda ilerminatus wrote:

marcellus wrote:

deda ilerminatus wrote:

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper

a neš autoriteta karl popper

sorošev profa s faksa, lijevo smetalo čije su premise komedija, u biti sofist

što nije točno u tome da se matematiku ne može falsificirati pokusima?

misliš da napadom na nečiju ličnost negiraš valjanost argumenta?

to što to što nešto nije moguće falsificirati pokusima ne znači da to nije znanost, osim po popperu

Bartley in 1978 claimed,[11]

Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology."

— W. W. Bartley in Philosophia 6 1976
Rafe Champion said,[12]

"Popper's ideas have failed to convince the majority of professional philosophers because his theory of conjectural knowledge does not even pretend to provide positively justified foundations of belief. Nobody else does better, but they keep trying, like chemists still in search of the Philosopher's Stone or physicists trying to build perpetual motion machines."

— Rafe Champion "Agreeing to Disagree: Bartley's Critique of Reason" 1985
David Miller,[13]
What distinguishes science from all other human endeavours is that the accounts of the world that our best, mature sciences deliver are strongly supported by evidence and this evidence gives us the strongest reason to believe them.' That anyway is what is said at the beginning of the advertisement for a recent conference on induction at a celebrated seat of learning in the UK. It shows how much critical rationalists still have to do to make known the message of Logik der Forschung concerning what empirical evidence is able to do and what it does."

— David Miller "Some hard questions for critical rationalism" 2011