Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I'm More Interested In The How Than The Why

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 17, 2002 19:24:05 UTC


***Moving an electric charge which was at rest (versus us) makes charge space contract as prescribed by Lorents transformations (coordinate transformation from moving to non moving reference system)***

I'm not looking for why a charge space contracts, I'm looking for how an electric charge makes a space contract. For example, if I asked you why you ate lunch you might tell me because you were hungry. On the other hand, if I asked how you ate lunch, you might tell me step for step. If I focus on the difference between one step to the next step you need to tell me how one step becomes merges or blends into another step.

As we know since QM, when we get to the point of uncertainty (UP) there is no 'how' as to how a quantum state jumps from one state to another. It simply does based on quantum probability. Therefore, what does your statement mean?:

***Basicly, there is no such "thing" as time, there are events following from each other. Not following each other, but FROM each other.***

If there is no description is to how one event transpires into another (other than it 'jumps' from one state to another), then how can you say that there is no such thing as time (especially since QM which we use to describe these quantum motions is time-dependent!). Time is describable as these quantum advancements of one state to another. On the other hand, 'causality' becomes very murky when you deal with the relationship of one quantum moment to the subsequent one. The relationship is purely probablistic and, what's worse, the states can be in superposition. Entanglement throws a wrench into existing concepts of cause such as what you described in your post.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins