According to the observer back at earth, all of the ships are at the same point the whole time. They never depart. |
So I guess the flaw is that you cannot ever reach the limit as your speed approaches C |
could the planet not observe that the difference in the velocities of each ship is tiny, |
and still note that they each make impact at an interval such that they each make it in time for dinner? |
c - 10 ^ ( -999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999) nano seconds |
So your question could be better put, is it possible for every ship to arrive within a 24 hour period, according to someone standing on the planet? |
I think it should have been abundantly clear what my question has been since I first asked it. |
Yes, it's possible to launch a whole bunch of ships that all hit the planet within 24 hours of each other according to someone on the planet. |
Wether or not they drank beer together depends on who's reference you watched from? |
No. Only one thing happened. Either they had a beer, or they did not. You've missed out whose clock is used to decide if they arrived within 24 hours of each other or not. |
I still don't think it's simple and easy to understand |
The same way relativity was first tested. Gravitational lensing. |
Correct. We may yet find that relativity is wrong. |
And they are testable (presumably. I don't really feel like looking it up), so they're not metaphysical. |
So yes, I would say I require evidence to accept something as true. You don't? |
I don't know what yuo're talking about. I merely replied to the statement "we cannot with mathematics explain the ultimate question of what started it ALL". |
So why was Einstein not convinced about the existence of black holes if gravitational lensing coud have been used in his time to test the theory? |
That is because that concept was discovered much later. |
Also the deflection of light by massive bodies was predicted. Although the approximation was crude, it allowed [Einstein] to calculate that the deflection is nonzero. German astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich publicized Einstein's challenge to scientists around the world.[4] This urged astronomers to detect the deflection of light during a solar eclipse, and gave Einstein confidence that the scalar theory of gravity proposed by Gunnar NordstrÃ¶m was incorrect. But the actual value for the deflection that he calculated was too small by a factor of two, because the approximation he used doesn't work well for things moving at near the speed of light. When Einstein finished the full theory of general relativity, he would rectify this error and predict the correct amount of light deflection by the sun. [...] However, in May 1919, a team led by the British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington claimed to have confirmed Einstein's prediction of gravitational deflection of starlight by the Sun while photographing a solar eclipse with dual expeditions in Sobral, northern Brazil, and PrÃncipe, a west African island. |
The black hole aspect of the Schwarzschild solution was very controversial, and Einstein did not believe that singularities could be real. However, in 1957 (two years after Einstein's death in 1955), Martin Kruskal published a proof that black holes are called for by the Schwarzschild Solution. |
If relativity is proven wrong then white holes may have no basis for existence at all within the realm of relativity so will then be metaphysical. |
So with the prediction made by string theory concerning the existence of a multi-verse, we may find scientist in the future capable of looking with other means to the cosmic background radiation and beyond, thereby allowing them to discover new measurements they could take of some newly discovered concept such that they could test if the string theory models of a multi-verse holds true. |
I was trying to point out that you gave a mathematical conceptual example to support your claim that the very first event didn't need to have some external event kicking it off. |
With reference to what we have currently (the big bang model), where everyting is asumed to have started from a point, then we can say that the elements within this point existed in a state of harmony for eternity before the big bang. This is a closed system, so if all elements within existed in a state of harmony for eternity prior to big bang, then what could have change/influenced elements such that they never got influenced at some point earlier? |
That is because that concept was discovered much later. |
What changed was that the particles collided. If they had reached each other "earlier", their paths still would have been infinite in length and would have required an infinite number of steps to traverse. |
All of this may be true. However, here's the key difference for me. If relativity predicted that atoms are made of chocolate, I'd be more compelled to believe it than if string theory predicted it. Why? Because lim{x -> m} n/x = +infinity Where n is the number of experiments on relativity and m is the number of experiments on string theory. |
If you had a deck of cards being shuffled and displayed an infinite number of times, then we will have every possible combination occurring an infinite number of times. So even the odd sequence of all cards being sorted in the deck after being shuffled would have occurred an infinite number of times as well as every other combination. |
Consider the function d(s) which gives the distance between the particles at state s. By definition, the particles travel along the same straight line and at constant and opposing velocities. Then it's clear that d(S[n]) > d(S[n+1]), where S is the string of all states walked by the automaton. There you go. If s and t are two equal states, then any function applied to them must give the same result. Yet we have an infinite substring of states (S[n], S[n-1], ...) such that d(S[n]) < d(S[n-1]) < ... < d(S[n-m]) < ... Thus, all elements in that substring are unequal to each other. Every state in it is unique. |