In this model, the universe is still expanding, it's not static at all. So redshift is just explained the normal way, in fact the Hubble constant is mentioned in the actual paper.
The paper is far above my level of understanding but, as far as I understood, when you play time backward but take quantum trajectories (whatever those are) into account, the universe doesn't come together in a single point but in some other state, much more dense than today but not a singularity. So the universe is still expanding from a very dense earlier state, but there's no longer an actual singularity in the beginning. At a point in the past where people used to naïvely think the density had to become infinite, quantum trajectories actually keep it from reaching a singularity.
Some day we'll be able to travel a huge distance, actually exiting the part of the universe that's filled with matter, look down on the entire thing, and see that all those galaxies together form just two, huge words: "first post". Slowly blinking between red and yellow, which explains the red shift.
Tired light used to be considered a possible explanation for cosmological redshift, photons losing energy (which means their frequency is lowered) on a long trip through space, but afaik this was inconsistent with certain observations. But who knows it might actually fit into this new theory.
Your logic is flawed. Let's assume for a minute that people's actions are predetermined. That means you are still free to do whatever you want, but someone with perfect information about the universe and your brain is able to tell in advance what you will want to do. It doesn't matter for you, you couldn't even tell the difference because you just do whatever it is you want to do, whether you had "free will" (whatever that means) or not.
In that case, if our actions are predetermined, locking up criminals still makes perfect sense. We don't lock up criminals out of revenge, we lock them up to reduce crime. The fact that people know they can be locked up for certain crimes may deterministically keep them from wanting to do that crime. And people who have been punished, may be (hopefully) less likely to do it again. And of course society is safer during the period they are in jail. You might say "it's not fair, because they couldn't help it", but that doesn't matter. In fact, the existence of punishment may actually help a lot of would-be criminals by keeping them from becoming a criminal in the first place.
Animals are often killed after attacking humans. Not because we are angry at them, or because we fell it is "just", but simply because we don't want that kind of animals around. Makes perfect sense, whether they have free will or not.
Really, what's the difference in "justness" between punishing someone who, out of "free will", killed a man or someone who killed a man because his brain happened to be wired that way? In both cases, we consider him to be bad person and we hope the punishment will prevent more murders in the future by that person or others.
Why do we punish children? Because we want them to learn the consequences of their actions and grow up to be responsible people. In a way we're just programming them.
But the energy you need to fire the thing ALSO scales quadratically with speed. If anything, it's probably easier to launch a heavy thing at low speed than a light thing at high speed, with the same energy.
I was kind of wondering why everybody was writing about aluminum slugs, wouldn't exactly be my first choice. Maybe it's an aluminum coating around a depleted uranium interior...
Yes, it's almost scary to see a dentists' office clerk refered to as an "insider". From the headline I first thought it was an insider at Apple. But the clerk doesn't work for Apple or for any of the banks. He or she just happened to have access to some personal information. That makes an awful lot of "insiders" to be afraid of.
I love how you call a jar of tomato pasta sauce "actual ingredients":-)) That really says a lot about Australian and American food culture.
Ever tried with onions, tomatoes, basil leaves (fresh, of course) and some salt and pepper? Plus any other stuff you like to put in (other vegetables, herbs, olives, mushrooms,...). Much better than the jar! The jar probably contains a fair amount of sugar, among other preservatives.
Yes, "real" actual ingredients do take some more time. It's worth it.
But oscillations imply some kind of meta-time so that history itself can change. There would need to be some other, perpendicular time-dimension in which these changes to spacetime would take place. History "used to be" a certain way but "now" (measured in meta-time) history is different.
And then we can start arguing about whether or not it's possible to go back in meta-time, etc...
So what exactly is your solution to the paradox? There are a few possibilities: alternate universes, total lack of free will preventing you from killing your grandfather, some sort of physical conspiracy of the universe always making something happen that thwarts your efforts (gun not firing), etc.) but none of them are as straightforward and obvious as you make it seem.
Yes, I meant rest mass, not relativistic mass. But if they are still traveling at light speed but in a roundabout way, like you say, that probably explains it.
If they stay at the slower speed, do they gain mass? I'm not really an expert, but seem to remember that sub-lightspeed particles have mass while particles traveling at the speed of light don't. Feel free to bring me up to... err... speed.
Even at 10 mph you can clearly hear the tires of an electric car. Especially blind people who usually have excellent hearing.
Now, of course, if you compare an electric car to a Ford Mustang, people are probably more likely to notice the sound of the latter. Compare it to a Rolls Royce, though, and you'll find a much smaller difference if any at all. They'll have us add noise to electric cars to actually let them noisier than some conventional cars, it's ridiculous.
Please, can we just have quieter roads? Does everything have to make noise all the time to warn the idiots who don't pay attention? I would just like to hear the birds sing.
Slashdot Mirror
In a word: entropy.
Good call! Don't see red shift explained either.
In this model, the universe is still expanding, it's not static at all. So redshift is just explained the normal way, in fact the Hubble constant is mentioned in the actual paper.
The paper is far above my level of understanding but, as far as I understood, when you play time backward but take quantum trajectories (whatever those are) into account, the universe doesn't come together in a single point but in some other state, much more dense than today but not a singularity. So the universe is still expanding from a very dense earlier state, but there's no longer an actual singularity in the beginning. At a point in the past where people used to naïvely think the density had to become infinite, quantum trajectories actually keep it from reaching a singularity.
Some day we'll be able to travel a huge distance, actually exiting the part of the universe that's filled with matter, look down on the entire thing, and see that all those galaxies together form just two, huge words: "first post". Slowly blinking between red and yellow, which explains the red shift.
Tired light used to be considered a possible explanation for cosmological redshift, photons losing energy (which means their frequency is lowered) on a long trip through space, but afaik this was inconsistent with certain observations. But who knows it might actually fit into this new theory.
Obligatory xkcd.
Their gut bacteria are simply resistant to the usual antibiotics since they are constantly exposed to them.
Those doctors seemed to think it was rather funny :-)
Your logic is flawed. Let's assume for a minute that people's actions are predetermined. That means you are still free to do whatever you want, but someone with perfect information about the universe and your brain is able to tell in advance what you will want to do. It doesn't matter for you, you couldn't even tell the difference because you just do whatever it is you want to do, whether you had "free will" (whatever that means) or not.
In that case, if our actions are predetermined, locking up criminals still makes perfect sense. We don't lock up criminals out of revenge, we lock them up to reduce crime. The fact that people know they can be locked up for certain crimes may deterministically keep them from wanting to do that crime. And people who have been punished, may be (hopefully) less likely to do it again. And of course society is safer during the period they are in jail. You might say "it's not fair, because they couldn't help it", but that doesn't matter. In fact, the existence of punishment may actually help a lot of would-be criminals by keeping them from becoming a criminal in the first place.
Animals are often killed after attacking humans. Not because we are angry at them, or because we fell it is "just", but simply because we don't want that kind of animals around. Makes perfect sense, whether they have free will or not.
Really, what's the difference in "justness" between punishing someone who, out of "free will", killed a man or someone who killed a man because his brain happened to be wired that way? In both cases, we consider him to be bad person and we hope the punishment will prevent more murders in the future by that person or others.
Why do we punish children? Because we want them to learn the consequences of their actions and grow up to be responsible people. In a way we're just programming them.
But the energy you need to fire the thing ALSO scales quadratically with speed. If anything, it's probably easier to launch a heavy thing at low speed than a light thing at high speed, with the same energy.
I was kind of wondering why everybody was writing about aluminum slugs, wouldn't exactly be my first choice. Maybe it's an aluminum coating around a depleted uranium interior...
When did the US Navy last fight a proper ship equipped with lasers?
Once missile killer lasers become standard equipment all over the world, those aluminum slugs may become quite relevant.
Except if the other ship has lasers...
Yes, it's almost scary to see a dentists' office clerk refered to as an "insider". From the headline I first thought it was an insider at Apple. But the clerk doesn't work for Apple or for any of the banks. He or she just happened to have access to some personal information. That makes an awful lot of "insiders" to be afraid of.
I love how you call a jar of tomato pasta sauce "actual ingredients" :-)) That really says a lot about Australian and American food culture.
Ever tried with onions, tomatoes, basil leaves (fresh, of course) and some salt and pepper? Plus any other stuff you like to put in (other vegetables, herbs, olives, mushrooms,...). Much better than the jar! The jar probably contains a fair amount of sugar, among other preservatives.
Yes, "real" actual ingredients do take some more time. It's worth it.
Of course. You'd just make a copy of the keys, give the originals back, wait a year ot so, then break in. Or sell the key to someone else.
But oscillations imply some kind of meta-time so that history itself can change. There would need to be some other, perpendicular time-dimension in which these changes to spacetime would take place. History "used to be" a certain way but "now" (measured in meta-time) history is different.
And then we can start arguing about whether or not it's possible to go back in meta-time, etc...
That's entirely possible, but that's not what the ObiWanKenblowme was talking about. He said there was no problem and compared it with Zeno's paradox.
So what exactly is your solution to the paradox? There are a few possibilities: alternate universes, total lack of free will preventing you from killing your grandfather, some sort of physical conspiracy of the universe always making something happen that thwarts your efforts (gun not firing), etc.) but none of them are as straightforward and obvious as you make it seem.
What, you don't have those in the States yet?
http://www.predictor.eu/
But what would be the focal length?
Yes, I meant rest mass, not relativistic mass. But if they are still traveling at light speed but in a roundabout way, like you say, that probably explains it.
If they stay at the slower speed, do they gain mass? I'm not really an expert, but seem to remember that sub-lightspeed particles have mass while particles traveling at the speed of light don't. Feel free to bring me up to... err... speed.
Even at 10 mph you can clearly hear the tires of an electric car. Especially blind people who usually have excellent hearing.
Now, of course, if you compare an electric car to a Ford Mustang, people are probably more likely to notice the sound of the latter. Compare it to a Rolls Royce, though, and you'll find a much smaller difference if any at all. They'll have us add noise to electric cars to actually let them noisier than some conventional cars, it's ridiculous.
Please, can we just have quieter roads? Does everything have to make noise all the time to warn the idiots who don't pay attention? I would just like to hear the birds sing.
You know what would be nice? If they could make the Mustang or F-150 sound like a Tesla. Now that would be something I would pay extra for.
I wonder what they're going to call these new objects, because they'll probably find a reason not to call them planets just like they did for Pluto.
They're too big to be dwarf planets... Maybe elf planets?
They would have added a note saying 'oh, and by the way, sorry about demoting your "planet" '.
Or 'Have fun touring your "planet", wink wink'.