h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I enjoyed this entry very much,however it brings up a few points I have been beating to death with every professor,science guy(girl)and lab geek who will listen to me.

1.I feel the word 'infinite' and all words derived from it should have no place in science.Just because we are not aware of the exact number doesn't mean there isn't one and this changes the math quite a bit.
(example-a photon has 'infintesimal'mass,yet solar sails work)

2.I generally agree with the 'Big Bang'theory,however just because that was the beginning of the matter in the universe(or rather the expansion of it)doesn't mean it was the beginning of time.If our universe ends in a 'Big Crunch' we could just be along for the ride in a cosmic oscillation.

3.The speed of light is not constant.If I am to believe the science journals I read it has been slowed.Also black holes have enough gravity that light cannot escape them,which leads back around to the problem of photons having 'infintesimal' mass and the whole constant speed thing.

4.Just because we don't,as of yet,have the technology to travel faster than light doesn't mean nothing can.At one point in our history it was thought we would never break the sound barrier.Also if you look closely at the current incarnation of the 'Big Bang' theory you will notice that it is claimed that ALL matter in the universe was moving at faster than the speed of light for a short period of time.

These may appear to be minor points and perhaps they are,but even a minor flaw in a math problem changes it's answer dramatically.

Feel free to mock my ignorance at your leisure.I enjoy being wrong more than right.If I'm right,I've gained nothing from the discussion.
If I'm wrong,I've learned something.

I'm not expert in cosmology, but I'm pretty good at mathematics, so I'll deal with your points as I see them:

1.I feel the word 'infinite' and all words derived from it should have no place in science.Just because we are not aware of the exact number doesn't mean there isn't one and this changes the math quite a bit.
(example-a photon has 'infintesimal'mass,yet solar sails work)

Infinite means "without limit". That's all that it means. Photons do not have infinitesimal mass. They have a small measurable mass when they are moving, and zero mass when they are stopped.

2.I generally agree with the 'Big Bang'theory,however just because that was the beginning of the matter in the universe(or rather the expansion of it)doesn't mean it was the beginning of time.If our universe ends in a 'Big Crunch' we could just be along for the ride in a cosmic oscillation.

But the mathematical theories show that it was in fact the start of time. Since neither space nor matter existed at the instant of the big bang, it is meaningless to say that there was any time beforehand. Since there was no connection between anything that happened "before" and anything that happened "after", you can't say that one happened before the other. Similarly at the other end.

3. The speed of light is not constant.If I am to believe the science journals I read it has been slowed.Also black holes have enough gravity that light cannot escape them,which leads back around to the problem of photons having 'infintesimal' mass and the whole constant speed thing.

I don't know anything about the speed of light not being constant, except that it of course reduces when travelling through water or air or another medium. As far as I know, it is constant in a vacuum.

4.Just because we don't,as of yet,have the technology to travel faster than light doesn't mean nothing can.At one point in our history it was thought we would never break the sound barrier.

The limitation of the speed of light is a mathematical one, not a technological one. The only way of speeding something up is by throwing matter in the opposite direction. As the spaceship gets faster it gains mass, so the effect of throwing stuff out the back has less and less effect. Eventually it has no effect at all and the ship reaches a steady speed.

THere's another reason too, which I don't understand. APparently if you could travel faster than light, you could send signals to yourself which would arrive before they were sent, allowing you to see into the future, which seems to be logically impossible. As I said, I don't understand this theory.

>>Also if you look closely at the current incarnation of the 'Big Bang' theory you will notice that it is claimed that ALL matter in the universe was moving at faster than the speed of light for a short period of time.

That's never claimed. Space expanded faster than light, but matter didn't.

Here's a link to an article on science daily which sums up some my problems with it nicely.There are also several on slowing or stopping photons.(though this doesn't mean i believe it entirely either)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

If the edges of the observable universe are farther apart than possible in the time alloted(beginning of time)then matter had to travel faster than light or be there already.

For the edge to be observed there must be matter there,you can't observe empty space can you?(i try but it ends up with crossed eyes)

how can you tell space expanded if not for matter being there?
if photons have mass they are matter.

I hope it doesn't have something to do with radioactive zombie cats in boxes.Whenever I think of schroedinger's cat I get paranoid.

the cat never dies believe me...

Quantic theory can explain some of the stuff.

In terms of mass, space, light and travelling i always prefer to think in terms of a river flowing, and you being a small sphere. Now imagine the sphere flowing with the current or gaining mass. Also try to see the river as the only possible universe there is, where the river goes, space exists and time is happening.

It's a very simple image of all this physical thing. The cat problem, for me, is the reaction of the river. You never know if there will be any kind of disturbances (space phenomena), where will the river flow and expand?