Jump to content

Math and Science


Recommended Posts


#sondreaas #cosmos #travel #physics #education 

Except from the sun- the closest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri, which is situated about 4 light years from us. 
This means that if we send a laser beam towards Alpha Centauri it would take the laser beam 4 years until it would be visible on Alpha Centauri.


This might seem «close» to Earth, but the light travels 9.45*10^15m during one year- hence the term light-years, so even just 4 light years is very very far away. Especially when we think about that  the speed of light in vacuum is approximately 300.000 km/s.

Imagine that we were travelling to the Alpha Centauri with a spacecraft which can hold a constant velocity of 100 km/s. 

We would pass both Venus and Mercury. 
The sun is about 150.000.000 km away from the Earth. 
Our spacecraft has managed to both reach- and pass the sun after about 20 days, so we are on a steady course against Alpha Centauri. 

But there is a very big problem here, and that would be time for those who are travelling. 
It would take the spacecraft 12.000 years to reach- and arrive at Alpha Centauri
So when we think of distances in space, even «just» 4 light years would take us 12.000 years to travel.

12.000 years is a long time. 

My personal opinion says YES! 
It would be difficult to believe that we are the only intelligent species on the whole universe, or The Milky Way. 
But the distances are our biggest problem- as we understand physics today we are trapped on Earth at least our solar system.  

On the picture Alpha Centauri is the star to the left- the one to the right is Beta Centauri. 
The red circle is Proxima Centauri

Picture from Wikipedia. 

Best Wishes 
Sondre Åkerøy Sundrønning


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

#sondreaas #education #einstein #facts #mathematic #physics

Lorentz transformations are a set of equations from the theory of special relativity (See pictures in the post)
They help us understand how measurements of space and time by two observers are related to each other when these observers are moving at a steady speed relative to one another. 
Originally derived by Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, these transformations gave us a deeper, relativistic interpretation through Albert Einstein’s work.

Einstein, when he published The Special theory of Relativity in 1905, argued that any uniform motion in a straight line is relative. This concept is a cornerstone of the special relativity principle. 
He also posited that the speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter how fast they are moving relative to the source of that light. 
Building on these foundational ideas, Einstein formulated the Lorentz transformation, bridging the gap between the physics of motion and the constancy of the speed of light across different frames of reference. 
This bridging has profound implications for our understanding of time, space, and motion.


If we consider a train moving alongside a station platform. 
Both the train and the platform will act as reference frames that are in motion relative to one another. 
They are outfitted with rulers and clocks to track distances and times, respectively. 
The rulers on the train read coordinates designated as x' and t', whereas those on the platform display x and t. 
Referred to as co-moving coordinates, (x, t) for the platform and (x', t') for the train, these coordinate systems travel with their respective frames.

The train advances in the positive direction along the x-axis at a velocity v relative to the platform. 
In the field of Newtonian physics, the synchronized clocks on both the train and the platform facilitate the monitoring of a stationary point on the train from the platform using the formula x = vt. 
This relationship is summarised by what is known as the Galilean transformation, mathematically expressed as x = x' + vt', and t = t'. 
This transformation is fundamental for the concepts of motion within classical mechanics and illustrates how different frames of reference perceive the same physical phenomena.

Research on binary star systems, where our viewing angle directly intersects their orbital plane, demonstrates an intriguing phenomenon: light from a star retreating from us and light from an approaching star both travel at the universal constant speed, denoted as 'c'. 
The theory of Relativity suggests that we could perceive one of the stars as stationary with Earth in motion. 
Under the traditional Galilean transformations, this view should result in varying light speeds—light speed should decrease (c-v) as the star recedes and increase (c+v) as it approaches. Empirical data consistently show that light speed remains constant at 'c', challenging the application of classical relativity principles as defined by Galilean transformations. 
This discrepancy also prompted Albert Einstein to question and reconsider these classical assumptions in his theories.

The Galilean transformations limitations was troublesome for Einstein, because it failed to align with his assertion that the principles of relativity should apply universally, not excluding the behavior of light. 
This led him to propose that the traditional model was flawed when it came to phenomena involving light. 
To highlight these shortcomings, Einstein proposed for a revision of the transformation equations, which culminated in what we now recognize as the Lorentz transformation. 

This significant modification not only reconciled discrepancies in light speed observations but also extended the scope of relativity to encompass all motion, establishing a more robust framework for understanding the dynamics of moving bodies and light in physics.

The Lorentz transformation, a fundamental concept in the Theory of Relativity, is formulated through specific mathematical equations. 

See pictures for Lorentz transformations

Relativistic kinematics, a part of physics derived from Einstein's theories, examines how objects move under the influence of relativity, primarily guided by the principles integrated in Lorentz transformations. 
This field of study unveils some fascinating phenomena:


When an object, such as a rod, is measured to be at rest, its length is noted as L0. 
When this same object moves at a velocity v aligned with its length, it undergoes what is known as Lorentz contraction. 

The length of the moving rod is the speed of light. This contraction effect highlights how lengths shorten in the direction of motion as they accelerate towards light speed, altering our perception of space dimensions.


A clock at rest ticks away time at its intrinsic rate. If this clock is set in motion at a speed v, it experiences a slowing of time, this is known as time dilation. 
The ticking interval expands suggesting that as velocity increases, time literally stretches, which again is causing the moving clock to tick slower compared to a stationary one. 
This phenomenon becomes increasingly noticeable as the object’s speed approaches that of light.


The relativistic formula for adding velocities addresses scenarios such as a body moving at speed u' within a train also moving at speed v in the same direction. 

This equation ensures that even if a light signal is projected forward in the train u' = c, the resultant speed adheres to the cosmic speed limit, c, rather than exceeding it as would be erroneously suggested by classical physics. 
This tells us that speeds cannot be naively added beyond the speed of light, affirming the speed of light as cosmos upper speed limit.

These elements of relativistic kinematics significantly refine our understanding of how motion and speed interact under extreme conditions, challenging and expanding upon the classical concepts laid out by Newtonian mechanics.


The theories of relativistic kinematics have been tested and confirmed through numerous scientific experiments. 
A notable instance involves the study of muons, which are subatomic particles created naturally in the upper atmosphere. 
These muons, characterized by their unstable nature, decay as they descend towards the Earth's surface. 

Scientists have utilized this natural laboratory to measure the extended lifespans of these muons as they travel at velocities close to the speed of light.

The experimental data gathered from these muons effectively demonstrate the concept of time dilation, a fundamental aspect of relativity. 
Time dilation predicts that time appears to slow down for objects moving at significant fractions of the speed of light compared to those at rest. 
By observing the decay rates of muons, scientists have provided empirical evidence for this prediction, demonstrating the accuracy- and relevance of relativistic kinematics in describing the behavior of moving objects in our universe. 
This blend of high-energy particle physics and relativistic mechanics not only substantiates Einstein's theories but also enhances our understanding of the dynamic interactions at play in the cosmos.

Best Wishes 
Sondre Åkerøy Sundrønning



Link to comment
Share on other sites

#sondreaas #math #mathematics #science #education #learning

Algebra is the branch of mathematics that uses symbols, typically letters, to represent numbers in equations and formulas. 
This allows for general statements about relationships and operations that are true no matter which numbers are involved. 
I have in this post tried to make a brief overview of the fundamental concepts of basic algebra: variables, equations- and inequalities.

In the mathematic discipline of algebra, the concept of a variable plays a crucial role. 
Defined broadly, a variable is a symbolic representation, typically manifested as an alphabetical letter, which denotes a numeric value that remains indeterminate or unspecified within the framework of a given mathematical expression or equation. 
This symbolic entity is foundational in facilitating the formulation, manipulation, and solution of algebraic constructs.

Consider the elementary algebraic equation x+5=10.
Here, «x» exemplifies a variable that stands in for an unknown quantity. 
The equation sets up a condition where the unknown, when incremented by 5, culminates in a sum of 10. 
The primary function of the variable in such an equation is not only to represent unknown values but also to enable the systematic exploration of relationships among numerical quantities and the derivation of solutions through algebraic operations.

Variables are integral to the generalization of mathematical ideas. 
By abstracting specific numbers into variables, mathematicians and students can develop general formulas or rules that apply across a countless situations, rather than being confined to particular instances. 
This abstraction is crucial for advancing mathematical theory and enhancing the applicability of mathematical models in various scientific domains. 
The use of variables facilitates a deeper understanding of functional relationships, allowing for the exploration of continuity, limits, and other fundamental concepts in more advanced fields of mathematics such as calculus.

An equation in mathematics is a formal statement that affirms the equivalence of two algebraic expressions by employing the equality symbol (=). This declaration facilitates the determination of unknown values, often represented as variables, by asserting that the expressions on either side of the equality sign yield identical values under certain conditions.

Consider the following equation x + 3 = 7. 
This simple linear equation illustrates the fundamental concept of solving for the unknown variable «x», which in this case, when manipulated appropriately, reveals that x = 4.

The process of solving equations involves determining all possible values of the variables that satisfy the equation's stated equality. This is achieved through a series of permissible algebraic operations that maintain the equation's balance. The principal operations include:

These operations are used to eliminate constants or coefficients from one side of the equation to simplify the expression or isolate the variable.

Since we have added on one side of the equation- we have to subtract on the other side of the equation, so the correct way of solving this equation would be the following
x+3= 7
x= 7-3 
x= 4
(Since we now moved 3 over the equal sign the positive number 3 (+3) will change to negative (-3), since 7-3= 4, x has to be 4.  

These are utilized to solve equations involving coefficients linked to the variable. Multiplying or dividing both sides of the equation by the same non-zero number ensures that the equivalence is maintained while simplifying the equation. For instance, in the equation 2x = 8, dividing both sides by 2 results in x = 4.
2x= 8
2x/2 = x ; 8/2= 4
The answer would therefore be:
x= 4

The purpose of solving an equation is to manipulate the expressions, using these operations, until the variable of interest is isolated on one side of the equation. 
This isolation of the variable provides a solution that, when substituted back into the original equation, verifies the truth of the equality statement.

An inequality is a mathematical statement that indicates a relationship of non-equivalence between two expressions. Unlike an equation, which declares two expressions to be equal, an inequality specifies that one expression is either greater than or less than the other. The symbols used to denote these relationships include (>) for "greater than," (<) for "less than. 
For instance, the inequality (x + 3 > 5) suggests that the value of (x + 3) exceeds 5.

The process of solving inequalities is akin to solving equations, requiring similar algebraic manipulations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division applied to both sides. 
A key distinction arises when these operations involve multiplying or dividing by negative numbers, as this action reverses the direction of the inequality. 

Inequalities are invaluable for defining not just a single value but a range of possible values for variables. This characteristic makes them particularly useful in scenarios that involve constraints or conditions. For example, in optimization problems—one of the common applications of inequalities.
The purpose of this is to find the maximum or minimum value of a function within a given set of boundaries. 
These problems require a clear understanding of how to establish and manipulate inequalities to determine feasible solutions that meet the specified conditions.

To mastering inequalities it is essential for anyone engaging in mathematical modeling or problem-solving in various fields, as they provide a fundamental tool for expressing and resolving conditions and limitations within numerous real-world and theoretical contexts.

Best Wishes
Sondre Åkerøy Sundrønning



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two years ago CNN released a photo taken by the photographer Anil Prabhakar in the forest in Indonesia. The image shows an orangutan, currently under threat of extinction, while stretching out his hand to help a geologist who fell into a mud pool during his search. When the photographer uploaded the photo, he wrote this as a caption: “In a time when the concept of humanity dies, animals lead us to the principles of humanity.”


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Laws of Science—by God

From Issue: R&R – Issue 32 #12

The laws of nature have been discovered through extensive scientific investigation—gathering mounds and mounds of evidence, all of which has proven consistently to point to one conclusion. They are, by definition, a concluding statement that has been drawn from the scientific evidence, and therefore, are in keeping with the rule of logic known as the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127). If anything can be said to be “scientific,” it is the laws of science, and to hold to a view or theory that contradicts the laws of science is, by definition, irrational, since such a theory would contradict the evidence from science.

The laws of science explain how things work in nature at all times—without exception. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Notice that the writers use the word “all” rather than “some” or even “most.” There are no exceptions to a law of science. Wherever a law is applicable, it has been found to be without exception.

Evolutionists endorse wholeheartedly the laws of science. Evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Lab, who graduated with a Ph.D. from Harvard, in his lecture series on the origin of life, states, “In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged [i.e., spontaneously generated—JM] from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics” (Hazen, 2005, emp. added). Even on something as unfounded as postulating the origin of life from non-life—a proposition which flies in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary—evolutionists do not wish to resort to calling such a phenomenon an exception to the laws of nature. After all, there are no exceptions to the laws. Instead, they hope, without evidence, that their claims will prove to be in keeping with some elusive, hitherto undiscovered, scientific evidence in the future that will be “completely consistent with the natural laws.” [NOTE: Such an approach is the equivalent of brushing aside the mounds of evidence for the existence of gravity in order to develop a theory that asserts that tomorrow, all humanity will start levitating up from the surface of the Earth. Science has already spoken on that matter, and to postulate such a theory would be unscientific. It would go against the evidence from science. Similarly, science has already spoken on the matter of life from non-life and shown that abiogenesis does not occur in nature, according to the Law of Biogenesis (see Miller, 2012), or in the words of Hazen, abiogenesis is completely inconsistent “with the natural laws of chemistry and physics.” And yet he, along with all atheistic evolutionists, continues to promote evolutionary theory in spite of this crucial piece of evidence to the contrary.] Evolutionists believe in the natural laws, even if they fail to concede the import of their implications with regard to atheistic evolution.

Richard Dawkins, a world renowned evolutionary biologist and professor of zoology at Oxford University, put his stamp of endorsement on the laws of nature as well. While conjecturing (without evidence) about the possibility of life in outer space, he said, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously” (Stein and Miller, 2008). Dawkins admits that life could not pop into existence from non-life. But why? Because that would contradict a well-known and respected law of science that is based on mounds of scientific evidence and that has no exception: the Law of Biogenesis. Of course evolution, which Dawkins wholeheartedly subscribes to, requires abiogenesis, which contradicts the Law of Biogenesis. However, notice that Dawkins so respects the laws of nature that he cannot bring himself to consciously and openly admit that his theory requires the violation of said law. Self-delusion can be a powerful narcotic.

Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, highly reveres the laws of science as well. In 2011, he hosted a show on Discovery Channel titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” In that show, he said,

[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added).

According to Hawking, the laws of nature exist, are unbreakable (i.e., without exception), and apply to the entire Universe—not just to the Earth.

Again, the atheistic evolutionary community believes in the existence of and highly respects the laws of science (i.e., when those laws coincide with the evolutionist’s viewpoints) and would not wish to consciously deny or contradict them. Sadly, they do so, and often, when it comes to their beloved atheistic, origin theories. But that admission by the evolutionary community presents a major problem for atheism. Humanist Martin Gardner said,

Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is? (2000, p. 303, emp. added).

Even if Big Bang cosmology were correct (and it is not), you still can’t have a law without a law writer. In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking boldly claims that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through atheistic evolution without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2011), but notice that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He said, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?” (“Curiosity…”). He provided no answer to these crucial questions—not even an attempt. And he is not alone. No atheist can provide an adequate answer to those questions.

The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s sidestep of that question in the “round table discussion” on the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled, “The Creation Question: a Curiosity Conversation.” Concerning Hawking, Davies said,

In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very, very close to saying, “Well, where did the laws of physics come from? That’s where we might find some sort of God.” And then he backs away and doesn’t return to the subject…. You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws (“The Creation Question…,” 2011).

In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking tries (and fails) to submit a way that the Universe could have created itself from nothing in keeping with the laws of nature without God—an impossible concept, to be sure. He says, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180). Of course, even if such were possible (and it is not), he does not explain where the law of gravity came from. A more rational statement would have been the following: “Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe must have been created by God.”

Just as the evidence says that you cannot have a poem without a poet, a fingerprint without a finger, or a material effect without a cause, a law must be written by someone. But the atheistic community does not believe in the “Someone” Who alone could have written the laws of nature. So the atheist stands in the dark mist of irrationality—holding to a viewpoint that contradicts the evidence. However, the Christian has no qualms with the existence of the laws of nature. They provide no problem or inconsistency with the Creation model. Long before the laws of thermodynamics were formally articulated in the 1850s and long before the Law of Biogenesis was formally proven by Louis Pasteur in 1864, the laws of science were written in stone and set in place to govern the Universe by the Being in Whom we believe. Recall the last few chapters of the book of Job, where God commenced a speech, humbling Job with the awareness that Job’s knowledge and understanding of the workings of the Universe were extremely deficient in comparison with the omniscience and omnipotence of Almighty God. Two of the humbling questions that God asked Job to ponder were, “Do you know the ordinances [“laws”—NIV] of the heavens? Can you set their dominion [“rule”—ESV] over the earth?” (Job 38:33). These were rhetorical questions, and the obvious answer from Job was, “No, Sir.” He could not even know of all the laws, much less could he understand them, and even less could he have written them and established their rule over the Earth. Only a Supreme Being transcendent of the natural Universe would have the power to do such a thing.

According to the Creation model and in keeping with the evidence, that Supreme Being is the God of the Bible, Who created everything in the Universe in six literal days, only a few thousand years ago. In the words of the 19th-century song writer, Lowell Mason, “Praise the Lord, for He hath spoken; worlds His mighty voice obeyed; laws which never shall be broken, for their guidance He hath made. Hallelujah! Amen” (Howard, 1977, #427).


“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Gardner, Martin (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton).

Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Howard, Alton (1977), “Praise the Lord,” Songs of the Church (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff  (2011), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pi (π) has been known for almost 4000 years, but even if we calculated number of seconds in those 4000 years and calculated π to that number of places, we would still only be approximating its actual value.

Ancient Babylonians calculated area of a circle by taking 3 times square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for π, which is a closer approximation.

Rhind Papyrus (1650 BC) gives us insight into mathematics of ancient Egypt. Egyptians calculated area of a circle by a formula that gave the approximate value of 3.1605 for π.

First calculation of π was done by Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BC), one of greatest mathematicians of the ancient world. Archimedes approximated area of a circle by using Pythagorean Theorem to find areas of two regular polygons: polygon inscribed within circle and polygon within which circle was circumscribed. Since actual area of circle lies between the areas of inscribed and circumscribed polygons, areas of polygons gave upper and lower bounds for area of circle. Archimedes knew that he had not found value of π but only an approximation within those limits. In this way, Archimedes showed that π is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.

A similar approach was used by Zu Chongzhi (429–501 CE), a brilliant Chinese mathematician and astronomer. Zu Chongzhi would not have been familiar with Archimedes’ method, but because his book has been lost, little is known of his work. He calculated value of ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter to be 355/113. To compute this accuracy for π, he must have started with an inscribed regular 24,576-gon and performed lengthy calculations involving hundreds of square roots carried out to 9 decimal places.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

#sondreaas #education #physics #learning #facts #quantumphysics

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two or more particles become interconnected in such a way that the state of one particle instantaneously influences the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. This interaction happens faster than the speed of light, which left even Einstein scratching his head and calling it "spooky action at a distance."


Imagine you have two entangled particles. If you measure the spin of one particle and find it to be "up," you’ll instantly know the spin of the other particle is "down," regardless of the distance between them. This connection remains even if the particles are light-years apart!


While quantum entanglement might sound like pure sci-fi, it’s at the heart of some groundbreaking technologies:

Entangled particles, or qubits, can process complex calculations at incredible speeds, revolutionizing the way we solve problems in cryptography, material science, and more.
Entanglement ensures secure communication. 
If an eavesdropper tries to intercept the information, the entanglement is disturbed, instantly revealing the intrusion.
Not the Star Trek kind, but quantum teleportation allows the transfer of quantum information from one location to another, paving the way for advanced communication systems.


Quantum entanglement also raises some profound questions about the nature of reality and information. Are the particles communicating faster than light, or is our understanding of space and time incomplete? These questions keeps physicist to push the boundaries of our understanding.


Understanding quantum entanglement isn’t just about exploring strange and fascinating phenomena. It’s about unlocking new technologies and deepening our understanding of the universe’s fundamental principles. It bridges the gap between the quantum world and the macroscopic world we experience every day.

Best wishes 
SSondre Åkerøy Sundrønning


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...