Yep, it's magic.
They may call it 'the good old theory of relativity' but we know what it is, don't we?
Pure, plain, good'ol' magic folks, and knocking on our door no less.
They can't fool me anyway, under those lab-coats rests the wands, and as they go home, their pointy hats wobbling in the dark, one can hear them mumbling their secret incantations if getting to close. But beware, should they see you they might try to make you a familiar, or even worse, their familiar. Not all scientists are mad scientists though, there are said to be some good ones too, I've heard? But it is as they say "Sure we can be friends, but would you let one marry your sister?"
Ah well, it's physics, and so hard to describe in a ordered way, for me it is at least. But the concepts presented are (almost) true, and the effects described I believe to be correct, not that I've ever sat on a mirror, well, not willingly. So if you can swing your head around it, then you too may end up as one of those confused old men, and women, standing in front of a black board, suddenly finding a white chalk protrude from your hand. And that happening at the same time as you desperately are trying to guess what those young maniacs sitting there, in front of you, expect from you. Just don't start throwing food at them, it's not a zoo. It might at times resemble one, but it's not.. And even if it was, remember where feeding frenzies can take you.
Now, that is some serious food for thoughts...
Not that I know of course?
Comments
Might as well be magic for
Might as well be magic for all I understand it!
But then, who was it that said sufficiently advanced science must be regarded as 'magic' by someone who doesn't have the tech base to grasp what is being done? (paraphrased, of course)
Real magic is us being able to communicate in almost real time. With words and pictures...
Like this...
Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue
Bumble Bees can't fly.
Not soooo many years ago, perhaps in the 60's, I read an article that said there was no logical reason a Bumble Bee could fly. Then later, they realized that bees are more like helicopters than airplanes. Hmmm. I rather liked the magic better, it is more fun.
Gwen
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodyna...
Which theory of relativity?
Special or general? Or are you tied to string theory?
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
What a lovely picture Brute
What a lovely picture Brute :) Very nice. Yeah, no theory will be done until it can explain consciousness, at least that's what I think. As for what strings my lute Renee, well, I'm leaning towards Einsteins view of the universe, with quantum magic and chaos theory as two close collaborators. When it comes to string magic I don't know, imagine a piece of matter, like a book, ok :)
Can you see it? It has three properties in space, length, depth and width (and times arrow).
Now, string theory talks about a origin of all matter where the 'strings' are one-dimensional. Either in the form of loops, like a ring, or being open ended, like a piece of ah, string.
:)
But now, let's take one of those properties away from that imaginary book we made, let's take width.
What we now have is a two-dimensional object, having a length and depth, but no width. So if I now started to turn that book around in my hands? Would it exist from all angles?
The one where I ordinarily would see it having a width for example?
And turning it so that I saw that non-existing width, would it even exist? And, that's why I'm having problem with string theory, because a one-dimensional object I can't even describe. My imagination ends with a two-dimensional one. Doesn't mean that it needs to be wrong though. It may as well be that I'm not thinking it through as I should.
You can use the same sort of thinking every time you hear someone say 'two-dimensional lattice' :)
Physicists love buzz-words. It's all to easy to prove that we don't have any two-dimensional objects in SpaceTime. What they really mean speaking about something being two-dimensional is that this thingie they are looking on, observing, have the same behavior as if it would exist in two dimensions, only able to act in two dimensions. Doesn't mean it isn't a three dimensional object though, as long as we're not discussing light that is :)
A lattice of graphene for example can be a piece of matter, only one atom thick, that means that you can't get any further down without splitting the atoms, looking somewhat like a honeycomb in where those atoms 'rests'. They can't move up and down there as it's only one atom-layer thick but they can move to the sides, so there f.ex a physicist may want to call it two-dimensional. But it's the behavior he describes, not the piece of matter.
And the bumblebee is weird, it gets two times the lift-power as it seems to be able to create an air-pillar no matter if its wings beats up or down, giving it a double airworthiness as compared to a bird who only get a lift when the wings go down. So I still think there has to be some magic to them Gwen :)
Thanks for the comments.
==
And on a totally different matter, when did this 'Kudos' system come to be?
And why?
Strings can't be just one-dimensional even in string theory,
otherwise they would just be points. A string has two dimensions, but if you are looking at one from one 'end' it would sppear to be just be a point.
But one dimensional objects could theoretically exist if two universes coexist that share only one of the N dimensions that describe them.
Owie, I think I just hurt my brain ...
A stranger is just a friend that you haven't met yet.