| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Calvin" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2007 07:13:16 PM |
| Object: |
observing universe affecting it? |
Is this plausible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
.
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 12:09:11 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:a9e388a4-6ca3-456b-baaf-6b154dde45f2@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Is this plausible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
wherein it says:
**Mankind 'shortening the universe's life' **. In a nutshell, the [QM]
theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them.
Schrodinger's cat in which it is both alive and dead until someone
decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies, [or in this
case] the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a
dead one. --- [So] in 1998 [with] our detection of the dark energy we
may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe. We may have
caused the cosmos, Prof Krauss & James Dent tell New Scientist,
to trigger a new big bang. [But] the good news is that theory suggests
that the universe should remain in its current state [becuase] of the
"quantum Zeno effect," which suggests that if an "observer" makes
repeated, quick observations of a microscopic object undergoing
change, the object can stop changing - just as a watched kettle never
boils. -- Not all agree, since Krauss' interpretation hinges on one of
the issues at the heart QT: "Do you need people to do the observing?"
-- [Unlikely], since the calculated mass of the universe ranges anywhere
from 10^53 kg to 10^60 kg and is complicated by the fact that there
is invisible matter we cannot see, called dark matter.
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Very cute story but still this is a very feeble
attempt in the current paradigm of science where you go public only
if you can scare the living motherfuck out of the peasantry with some
immediate, impending doom. -- Kraus & Dent are clearly dilettantes
at that. They ought to take lessons from the Green shits & the Global
Warmers who have mastered that art... .... to sell and instill fear
accentuated by suggested guilt... ... in order to make a fat buck!
IOW, anything and everything is plausible in/by & thru interpretations
of astronomical observations when explained by QM-assters and
Einsetinstein Dingleberries... ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 01:23:04 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:a9e388a4-6ca3-456b-baaf-6b154dde45f2@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: Is this plausible?
:
:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
Does a rocking horse have a wooden *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 08:10:56 AM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 2:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:a9e388a4-6ca3-456b-baaf-6b154dde45f2@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: Is this plausible?
:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/sci...
Does a rocking horse have a wooden *****?
All rocking horses are female.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 09:22:56 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:d2da5014-e0d6-43bc-86cc-11273df4d968@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 24, 2:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: > news:a9e388a4-6ca3-456b-baaf-6b154dde45f2@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: > : Is this plausible?
: >
:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/sci...
: >
: > Does a rocking horse have a wooden *****?
:
: All rocking horses are female.
That's as plausible as the nutters who think the universe
had a beginning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 09:43:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 10:22 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: On Nov 24, 2:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > Does a rocking horse have a wooden *****?
:
: All rocking horses are female.
That's as plausible as the nutters who think the universe
had a beginning.
Those nutters not only are plausible, they exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 10:31:16 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:2c8129cc-7969-40eb-a749-5b8c72cbfaff@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 24, 10:22 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: > : On Nov 24, 2:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > : > Does a rocking horse have a wooden *****?
: > :
: > : All rocking horses are female.
: >
: > That's as plausible as the nutters who think the universe
: > had a beginning.
:
: Those nutters not only are plausible, they exist.
The Victorians had lunatic asylums for them, but since then it
has been decided that if they are harmless they can say whatever
they want and go free. And they do. How's Hobbes doing, I
haven't seen him lately?
http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/humor/calvin-hobbes.gif
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 01:32:19 PM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 11:31 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: On Nov 24, 10:22 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > That's as plausible as the nutters who think the universe
: > had a beginning.
:
: Those nutters not only are plausible, they exist.
The Victorians had lunatic asylums for them, ...
I think you mean asylums for those who thought the opposite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 02:24:32 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:bb6b9486-689d-4cc4-a440-4c3ffac8548e@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: I think ...
Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
back at ya.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 03:29:53 PM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: I think ...
Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
back at ya.
There was no ill intent in snipping. You said the Victorians
had lunatic asylums for 'them' (being those who thought the
universe had a beginning). But in those days biblical belief
in God's creation (beginning) was expected. Those who
denied it often suffered for it. You know all this, I'm sure,
so I don't see why you're contesting the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 03:39:04 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:50f3cea2-1674-4ef8-95bf-71012a6090e6@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > : I think ...
: >
: > Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
: > Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
: > back at ya.
:
: There was no ill intent in snipping.
Oh good, I'll do it then.
How is Hobbes doing, I haven't seen him lately?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 03:41:12 PM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > : I think ...
: > Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
: > Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
: > back at ya.
: There was no ill intent in snipping.
Oh good, I'll do it then.
How is Hobbes doing, I haven't seen him lately?
Re-read the thread and have a nice day, jerk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 03:59:39 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:010123eb-8da9-4d3e-ae8f-3a576fe405dc@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > : On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > : > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > : > : I think ...
: > : > Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
: > : > Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
: > : > back at ya.
: > : There was no ill intent in snipping.
: > Oh good, I'll do it then.
: > How is Hobbes doing, I haven't seen him lately?
:
: Re-read the thread and have a nice day, jerk.
Oh, insults now. No ill intent, I suppose?
*****, you ignorant *****.
*plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
25 Nov 2007 03:49:32 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Calvin
<crice5@windstream.net>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
<50f3cea2-1674-4ef8-95bf-71012a6090e6@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: I think ...
Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
back at ya.
There was no ill intent in snipping.
Regrettably, that's for him to determine, not for mere mortals
such as you or me.
You said the Victorians
had lunatic asylums for 'them' (being those who thought the
universe had a beginning). But in those days biblical belief
in God's creation (beginning) was expected. Those who
denied it often suffered for it. You know all this, I'm sure,
so I don't see why you're contesting the point.
His latest question was "How's Hobbes doing?". That is
the question you have yet to answer. Why it's important to
him that you answer it is another question entirely; both
questions are well outside of the realm of physics anyway.
He could just as easily mentioned the Calvinists, a sect
following John Calvin and emphasizing the rule of God over
all things, according to Wikipedia anyway. (That he didn't
is more evidence of how he thinks.)
As for the subject of this thread, which is hopefully
far more interesting -- I'd say that we are affecting the
Universe, though extremely slightly. A star such as our
Sun is pouring out ridiculous amounts of energy per second
-- 3.86 * 10^26 W. (At least, such is the reasonable
hypothesis given observations of the Sun and of other
stellar phenomena and our understanding of stellar fusion,
of which there are several variants depending on stellar
mass, star age, and star composition.)
Sirius, say, pours out even more (its absolute magnitude --
+1.4 -- is brighter than our Sun's +4.8) and yet Sirius is
easily outshined by our admittedly rather rare and large
and nearby Moon which yet only shines by reflected light,
as observed here on Earth.
I'll admit to wondering where the rest of Sirius's energy
-- or for that matter, our Sun's, when it's not accounted
for by striking the other planets -- is going.
Clearly, though, Sirius gives us a tiny bit of extra heat.
How that affects Sirius -- which has to generate that heat
-- isn't entirely clear, though one could make a case that
we're reflecting a ridiculously small amount of energy
back to the Sirian system. Under ideal circumstances (and
a very large telescope array) they would see this energy
reflected back, if they can compensate for Sol's glare.
(Not that Sol would be that impressive to them anyway;
we might be a magnitude 3 star or so at the very most.
And then there's our radio energy, which might be far more
interesting -- and powerful, though still ridiculously
feeble -- to them anyway than the miniscule fraction of
their own light returned to the sender.)
I am also curious as to whether the sender will be affected
if a recipient swallows the photons the sender generates,
as opposed to reflecting them back, scattering them,
reflecting them somewhere else, or converting them into
random heat and then scattering them back.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
25 Nov 2007 05:28:36 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:c2tn15-av8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics, Calvin
: <crice5@windstream.net>
: wrote
: on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
: <50f3cea2-1674-4ef8-95bf-71012a6090e6@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
: > On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: >> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: >> : I think ...
: >>
: >> Not a chance, you couldn't answer the question you snipped.
: >> Thinking requires original thought, snipping only comes right
: >> back at ya.
: >
: > There was no ill intent in snipping.
:
: Regrettably, that's for him to determine, not for mere mortals
: such as you or me.
:
: > You said the Victorians
: > had lunatic asylums for 'them' (being those who thought the
: > universe had a beginning). But in those days biblical belief
: > in God's creation (beginning) was expected. Those who
: > denied it often suffered for it. You know all this, I'm sure,
: > so I don't see why you're contesting the point.
: >
:
: His latest question was "How's Hobbes doing?". That is
: the question you have yet to answer. Why it's important to
: him that you answer it is another question entirely; both
: questions are well outside of the realm of physics anyway.
: He could just as easily mentioned the Calvinists, a sect
: following John Calvin and emphasizing the rule of God over
: all things, according to Wikipedia anyway. (That he didn't
: is more evidence of how he thinks.)
:
No sense of humour, those Calvins.
: As for the subject of this thread, which is hopefully
: far more interesting -- I'd say that we are affecting the
: Universe, though extremely slightly. A star such as our
: Sun is pouring out ridiculous amounts of energy per second
: -- 3.86 * 10^26 W. (At least, such is the reasonable
: hypothesis given observations of the Sun and of other
: stellar phenomena and our understanding of stellar fusion,
: of which there are several variants depending on stellar
: mass, star age, and star composition.)
:
: Sirius, say, pours out even more (its absolute magnitude --
: +1.4 -- is brighter than our Sun's +4.8) and yet Sirius is
: easily outshined by our admittedly rather rare and large
: and nearby Moon which yet only shines by reflected light,
: as observed here on Earth.
:
: I'll admit to wondering where the rest of Sirius's energy
: -- or for that matter, our Sun's, when it's not accounted
: for by striking the other planets -- is going.
:
: Clearly, though, Sirius gives us a tiny bit of extra heat.
: How that affects Sirius -- which has to generate that heat
: -- isn't entirely clear, though one could make a case that
: we're reflecting a ridiculously small amount of energy
: back to the Sirian system. Under ideal circumstances (and
: a very large telescope array) they would see this energy
: reflected back, if they can compensate for Sol's glare.
: (Not that Sol would be that impressive to them anyway;
: we might be a magnitude 3 star or so at the very most.
: And then there's our radio energy, which might be far more
: interesting -- and powerful, though still ridiculously
: feeble -- to them anyway than the miniscule fraction of
: their own light returned to the sender.)
:
: I am also curious as to whether the sender will be affected
: if a recipient swallows the photons the sender generates,
: as opposed to reflecting them back, scattering them,
: reflecting them somewhere else, or converting them into
: random heat and then scattering them back.
:
See Olbers' paradox.
(That you didn't mention it is more evidence of how you don't think.)
Olbers was not aware of galaxies, discard
"If the universe is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly
distributed luminous stars" (and all that follows from it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
Wackipedia says:
"Though the sky would not be infinitely bright, every point in the sky would
still be like the surface of a star."
Every point in the sky is just bright enough to radiate the CMBR.
"The work of Ray D'Inverno suggests that if just the assumption that the
universe is infinite is dropped the paradox still holds. "
The CMBR suggest there is no paradox, the universe is infinite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
01 Dec 2007 04:42:53 AM |
|
|
To ya all Micro quantum realm of the universe is greatly disturbed by
gamma photon probes. red light is better. Best to keep in mind gamma
photons can kick free electrons and get them moving,but red light can't
no matter how intense their source. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 04:49:11 AM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 7:13 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
Is this plausible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/sci...
No.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
25 Nov 2007 12:51:13 AM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 8:13 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
Is this plausible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/sci...
I often wonder what happens to used car salemen when they get too old
and senile to sell cars. Clearly they find careers as cosmologists!
These clowns KILL ME! They start with absolutely ZERO information on
a universe of which they can only examine a tiny portion with any
accuracy at all, and then mix it with totally bogus theories like the
"big bang" and come up with all manner of wild conclusions designed to
make all the pretend-journalists in the big media gasp!
A measurement in 1998 "nudged" the universe toward destruction?
Hollywood, are you paying attention?
BWAhahahahahaha!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: observing universe affecting it? |
24 Nov 2007 05:21:20 AM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 8:13 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
Is this plausible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/sci...
Just as plausible as the contrary assertion, i.e. that we are
'lengthening the life of the universe' by observing it, by exactly the
same line of 'reasoning'.
Equally plausible is that we are are having no effect on the 'length
of life of the universe.'
Mathematically, a finite change in something infinite is relatively
infintesimal.
"Infinity + 1" is indistinguishable from "infinity - 1", neither of
which is measurably different from "infinity."
Not that we'll be around to observe the effects, anyway. This is just
some lame shot at publicity by some less-than-illustrious college
professors - probably both up for tenure...
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
