|
I really wish I had a good grasp of the math involved to explore some of these questions myself. Sure I can see how infinitely large/small are limits when you plot an equation, the TAN function for example goes up to infintity when graphed then mysteriously jumps to negative infinity as it passes through x=0. Graphs are a good way of demonstrating things but also misinforming. In physics and black holes the use of "infinity" I dont think is a measured /measurable value its just the point a graph is approaching the more you measure but never mathematically reaches.
Theres also this speed of light thingy, it applies to acceleration not velocity which are different things.
Then there's dark matter and dark energy. With all the observations people have made in the past few decades the values of the physical constants are still the same I was taught 30 yrs ago, the data never feeds back to refine values that were set from observational data in the first place. Which should them feed back into theoretical equations and may show some "missing" mass and energy is due to computational precision. Simply because the way we work is still the same making use of approximations rather than precise values to make the calculations easiest.
Also why does nobody ever seem to consider the missing energy etc as being sound and heat energy? Just because sound doesnt travel in a vacuum doesn't mean its not being generated constantly by all the billion of billions of active objects in the universe. I've never sat around a bonfire that roared in total silence as it burnt logs etc. So how much energy is being generated and "lost" as sound and heat by stars and collisions of all sorts.
The word relativity is also important, its just one point of view of a specific event. In practice multiple observations from different position and methods are required to build up a picture of what occurs in various frames of reference. eg colour, velocity, mass, shape, etc. I have my doubts about black holes and spaghettification as the energies involve are so extreme they effect space-time. Which is commonly accepted. So yes to an observer something approaching and entering the event horizon appears stretched. But that doent mean squat to the item approaching the event horizon. Maybe the difference in gravity for example of a person entering feet first between head and feet is great enough to rip them apart, but atoms are not connected and are full of empty space dont forget. Also dont forget that space and time the person is moving through are likewise being stretched the same amount. So the end result to the person experiencing it they may not notice anything occuring at all as all their sensory signal etc are being distorted the same way.
Its like sitting on the side of a road looking straight across and declaring all cars are streaky, stretched and transparent because you can see through them as they whiz past, even take photographic proof too if you like. the observation holds up. but at the moment you observe the car a person inside the car isnt feeling streaky or transparent. Theres so much analogy explanations out there now that people take them at face value as fact to declare all sorts of things. sounds religious to me.
So much of physics is tending to pseudo science and doesnt in practice do what they claim is the scientific method of developing an idea, making suitable observations, analysing the data etc. Watching a documentary on the Higg's boson it was horrifying to see all the work and expense to create this highly precise experiment to generate and elusive particle which would have a precise energy value of X but instead nothing beyond background noise level was found at X instead they had two peaks either side of X unexpectedly. So they declared one to be the Higgs and the other needing further explanation and set about adjusting their Higgs prediction equations to predict the observed value. Plus even if one of the observed particles is a higgs its being done so under abnormal conditions. A poor relative observation point again, and it in no way explains my gut which clearly has mass. What we call mass clearly exists everywhere we look and pick things up, weight may change though relative to gravity. So is it a fundamental part of physics or is it a result of something we havent yet thought about. How would the world around us look if we could control mass much like sound or light? I dont think we yet have found how to make or predict or measure an event from the point of view of the event itself but only from an external vantage point which may not provide an accurate impartial result.
Now for something completely different: A is for Apple, B is for Bottom, C is for Chalcopyrite.....
|