more thoughts about relativity

[*Jess♥]

I was just thinking about relaivity again.

I'm sorry it just doesn't sit right with me and I guess it never will.

well I was thinking along these terms..

they say that you cannot go faster than the speed of lilght.

however, the escape velocity of a black hole is said to be FASTER than the speed fo light.

so here is what I don't get... there is a speed faster than the speed of light. that speed exists. theoretically that speed is a fact.

it is the escape velocity of a black hole. so... gravitons go faster than the speed of light... right?

because that is how a black hole works, with gravitons, isn't that what gravity is?

also the fabric of space is faster than light, and time is also faster than light.

so when they say nothing can go faster than light... well gravitons can. I guess this is how warp theory works. through manipulation of gravitons.

because if you can create a dense field of gravitons at your destination via some quantum physiks or summink... then you are creatikng a black hole type effect..

you are creating a faster than light conduit.

ok sure, in the normal fabric of space, you can't exceed the speed of light... not as MATTER...

but I think .. I think the main problem I have with relativity is that it seems that most of the time it is assumed that it is rteh be all and end all. a lot of People use it as the be all and end all.

so anyhow.. thats my thought.

a FTL travel could be accomlished by using gravitons somehow.

[*zeo]

Neither time nor Gravitons would move faster than light, and the only way for Gravitons to move FTL is by using them to create a wormhole for a short cut.

There are theoretical particles called Tachyons that move FTL but their existence has never been proven. In fact we have yet to prove Gravitons exists.

This wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light , covers most aspects of the subject. Including the alternate points of view on the matter.

Course there are anti-relativity sites you could check out if you really want to get into alternate theories and talk with others who also don't like Relativity.

[*Jess♥]

I appreciate you taking time to reply adn thank you for priovideing the currently accepted standpoint, but I have a small problem.

my post included the logic of why I think that way. I provided a means to explain why I have said those things, but you have not provuided a logical basis for your statements. only stated them as accepted facts.

I'd appreciate some more background in your countermandments.

quick edit: because black hole influences the outside area using gravitons and in order to do that, the gravitons must come from the black hole and if they can do that, it means their velocity must be greater than escape velocity and thus that of light.

[*zeo]

I appreciate you taking time to reply adn thank you for priovideing the currently accepted standpoint, but I have a small problem.

my post included the logic of why I think that way. I provided a means to explain why I have said those things, but you have not provuided a logical basis for your statements. only stated them as accepted facts.

I'd appreciate some more background in your countermandments.

Well, like I said before, the link provided covers all of that, including the ALTERNATE points of view!!!

You can also check, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Expe...tal_observation

quick edit: because black hole influences the outside area using gravitons and in order to do that, the gravitons must come from the black hole and if they can do that, it means their velocity must be greater than escape velocity and thus that of light.

Now lets compare, a black hole is like a whirlpool sucking everything down towards it but just like a whirlpool everything moves faster towards the center, not the outer edges!

So the very idea of a black hole goes against your theory to begin with. Not to mention if you were correct then black holes wouldn't be black as even FTL particles would be slowed down as they escaped the black hole and would become visible. Since this doesn't happen then we know that isn't what happens.

We live in an Entropy based universe, things go from high energy to low and not the other way around.

You're also assuming how gravitons work but just to give an example you are neglecting alternative ideas like gravitons could all be moving towards the black hole, just like water rushing towards the center of a whirlpool, and there passage is what causes gravity.

After all how gravitons would interact with matter hasn't been entirely worked out and there is the direction of gravity to take into account. But shows one possible alternative.

There is also the more accepted idea that the existence of the mass of the black hole could also generate gravitons outside of the event horizon, which bypasses the problem altogether.

Leaving your only reason for assuming anything would need to go faster than light is the idea that gravitons would need to escape a black hole from within but they don't actually need to escape a black hole. All that needs be done is for space to be curved.

Aside from the fact your idea requires gravitons to effect gravitons, which since gravitons aren't traditional particles would seem very unlikely.

At the point space gets curved in on itself is the event horizon of the black hole, which once it exists means space is already curved and thus propagating the effects of gravity, and that is why nothing can escape it pass the event horizon but this is only true for anything that travels through space and goes past the event horizon. Outside the escape velocity is less than the speed of light and anything not traveling through space in the traditional sense would not be effected.

But as far as we know Gravitons pass right through space, this is why gravity is the weaker cosmic force compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces as gravitons aren't limited by the dimensional membranes of space/time.

Then again gravitons are still just a theoretical particle but the fact gravitons was an accidental discovery from string theory that the math itself states they don't travel faster than light.

Never mind there have been many experiments which support that gravity doesn't travel faster than light.

But even if we change this for arguments sake and make gravitons get trap-able like other particles would not change anything as space itself would still get warped by their presence and thus the effects of gravity would still spread out from the black hole.

So either way the speed of light limit is not violated.

And there is also Hawking Radiation which shows that quantumly energy can escape a black hole at a finite and very slow rate.

The thing to remember is gravitons isn't a particle like electrons, etc. It's a carrier particle like photons, which exist only to transfer some form of energy. For gravitons this energy is momentum and black holes don't stop momentum.

Also remember unlike other forces gravity doesn't weaken over time, otherwise stuff like Earth's gravity would be a lot less now then when the planet first formed. So there is no direct energy loss with gravitons. Unlike photons which draw energy away from the source. So they don't draw energy away from a black hole and thus don't violate the event horizon.

Course this isn't anywhere near being a simple concept which is why I provided the link. The above is pretty much as simple as it gets and it is still pretty long winded.

Other links, http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/ , particularly part IV covers how warp drive could work.

Edited December 26, 2007 by zeo

[*Jess♥]

i already read that though. a while back.

it's not really in line with my thoughts.

and the reason why i said that, is because I wanted a discussion not a reference links.

but now you replied a great deal, so I am happy

I didn't get some parts so you'll have to forgive me if I missed something important.

the way I see it is this :-

particles exist in an equilibrium. compounds etc, work because of covalent bonds etc.

so I am looking at gravity and applying similar principles.

let's say that we look at gravioty.. I don't want to think about this rubber mat thing. it's too simplisstic a concept to work with. I would rather think about gravity in it's actual form. not a simlpified 2d construct.

I think about attractive and repulsive forces. explosions are repulsive. expansion. expansion caused by a release of energy. so contraction is caused by a sucking in of energy. how does it suck in energy?

well it must be some kind of negative energy. thats what i think gravitons are made of. this negative energy that causes things to contract instead of expand.

it's almost like heat in the way that is radiated.

I always viewed gravity like a huge array of lines coming out fro the central point. whereas light or anby other form of rasdiation would cause a propulsive force, due to the high energy content.. the gravitons would create an attractive force due to negative energy content.

so in my view gravitons are radiated. now if gravitons can be radiated to a degree that they come OUT of the black hole... they must be faster than the escape velocity of light.

unless of course.. my mind os just messed up. I just thought that escape velocity would be govermned by gravitons so gravitons themselves are not subject to the limiting effect of their own influience. damn.

well at least you made me think properly about it!!

so there is the conclusion of my idea!

anyhow. I won't go onto time to much. I always think time has to be faster than light. otherwise it would be impossiblet o measure the speed of light. because the speed of light is dependantt upon a small incriment of time. if time was the same speed of light, then light would be everywhere all at once.

[*zeo]

I just thought that escape velocity would be govermned by gravitons so gravitons themselves are not subject to the limiting effect of their own influience. damn.

well at least you made me think properly about it!!

You could try looking at tachyons, a theorized faster than light particle, and the theories about them?

Also Virtual Particles?

anyhow. I won't go onto time to much. I always think time has to be faster than light. otherwise it would be impossiblet o measure the speed of light. because the speed of light is dependantt upon a small incriment of time. if time was the same speed of light, then light would be everywhere all at once.

Welcome to quantum physics :wink:

Really though time as we know it involves both perception and imagination, we can dream of infinite speed but this is seperate from the actual flow of time.

For what we understand time is another dimension like the three that make up space and as thus is only as fast or as slow as the dimensional interactions allow.

This tethers time to space and vice versa, which means time isn't really fast or slow but a perceptional aspect of existence just like the other three dimensions.

We can perceive it, we can measure some aspects of it but it isn't seperate from the other dimensions as they all work together to create the universe we live in.

It's just that time like space encompasses the entire universe and thus is an inescapable fact of existence.

Ergo, it doesn't have to be faster than light to allow light to be measured as time really is everywhere.

So saying that it is faster than light is like saying your destination got there before you just because it was there before you got there, even though it never moved and only you did!

Though if you read the last link I gave about warp drive it shows how FTL could be possible if we have a seperate but universal reference point for time/space interaction which would allow FTL.

The main problem with most theories about FTL is getting past the cause and effect violation of the flow of time as FTL will be seen as going backwards in time and thus would cause a paradox that would destroy the universe as we know it.

Star Trek gets around it via a seperate uiniversal reference point they call sub-space, which avoids the paradox and thus allows FTL.

The whole trick being avoiding the paradox, figure a way how and then FTL could become a reality but we've still to develope a working theory of quantum gravity which we need to create a true unified field theory which in turn is needed to figure out how this could really be done.

So until then we can only speculate but that's basically the summary of the matter.

Edited December 27, 2007 by zeo

[*Youngtusk]

Can anyone give me a quick crash course in the debate between Relative Physics and Quantum Physics?

Cause as i've understood Relativity works really well on big things like Cars, Airplanes, Stars, and Black Holes.

But then quantum physics works really well with particles and subatomic particles.

But how can they both work when they contradict each other?

[*zeo]

The universe is basically a result of interacting energy/dimensions.

Complicated stuff aside it all basically breaks down to flow of information for which everything in existence basically represents, in essense the flow of information acts like an anchor but in the quantum world the flow of information is stunted and thus everything is not anchored and can pretty much do whatever it wants and thus there is the disparity.

For example a quantum object can exist in more than one place at a time but once we observe that object, the very act of viewing it increases the flow of information and thus anchors it into a set state.

So the difference is from the seen to the unseen, which leaves quantum physics to effect the very small (and thus hard to observe), while Relativity takes over the rest as the flow of information ensures the universe follows a set state that we can easily be measure and dealt with.

The point of contention is where one leaves off and where the other takes over, but until we understand quantum gravity we can't figure out how to bridge the gap between the two and figure out how it all works together.

Traditionally the debate stemmed from the originators of both quantum physics and relativity in that Einstein hated the idea that god would gamble, Einstein was a purist for the definable and facts of science. While the quantum world is basically alien to anything we have ever considered before, a world without order.

So for many quantum = chaos and relativity = order.

The things we know now however lead us to believe the two basically are both part of how it works, there is just a distinct separation of the two according to the flow of information.

For example if you stem the flow of information of a large object, then you will eventually reach the point in which that object will behave quantumly just like subatomic particles.

But that's all part of the Unified Field Theory debate in which they are presently trying to make a theory that will fit for everything but like I said until they work out a theory for quantum gravity they can't really make a working theory as there are too many gaps right now.

However we are getting a pretty good picture of how it all works, the devil is just in the details.

[*Youngtusk]

Well i'm jsut in College Algebra right now, so I don't think that I could keep up with the details/devil.

Quantum Gravity, is that the same thing as Gravitons? A particle of gravity er something??

And what exactly qualifies as an observer? For example, was the universe all crazy and chaotic until the first interactive life form was created, in which case things began to calm down because the universe knew it was being 'watched'?

Does that make any sense? I don't know exactly what i'm trying to say...

But if particles act like waves only on a subatomic level, then how can quantum physics be practical when we all deal with things bigger than atoms? Because it would only produce chaos on a field of reality too small to affect us, right?

[*zeo]

Effects can be accumulative, check out Chaos Theory, and for things like quantum encryption and certain medical technologies the effects are very useful.

Not to mention there are things like photons which lay on the border and thus exhibit properties of both.

It's just for the day to day stuff we won't ever notice the quantum world, even though it is all around and through us.

It should interest you that one of the theories about human consciousness is that the human brain acts like a quantum computer and that is the root of our self awareness and free will.

While the flow of information is exactly that, whether someone is there observing isn't really necessary. Only the link to everything else is required.

In laymen terms think of it like glue, when by itself it flows freely but with company things get sticky.

Properties of matter for example can be very different on the molecular scale versus our scale for example, a lubricant can be the exact opposite on the molecular scale and vice versa.

Basically ever since String Theory came about we understand that the universe is basically just all energy of one form or another and the only difference is how that energy expresses itself.

In the case of string theory everything is represented by vibrating stringlets and curved up dimensions.

Matter is really an illusion of interacting energy fields, made up of mostly empty space.

Quantum Gravity though is just what scientists want to figure out on how gravity works on the quantum scale, we really have no idea right now and thus we are missing a big piece to the puzzle.

Gravitons is just a theoretical particle predicted by String Theory that is the carrier particle for the force we call gravity just like photons are the carrier particle for light.

It gets pretty deep in the science to properly explain that but suffice it to say it's a kind of virtual particle that exists solely for the purpose of transfering a form of energy.

We have yet to actually prove they exist or not but would help explain the dynamics of gravity energy interactions. But it is hardly the only theory for gravity.

[*Jess♥]

And what exactly qualifies as an observer? For example, was the universe all crazy and chaotic until the first interactive life form was created, in which case things began to calm down because the universe knew it was being 'watched'?

I don't knwo about anyone else... but this suggests that for life to have formed there needed to be something before that.

a consciousness that exhisted before lifeforms did...

seems to suggest some kind of spiritual presence.

I love how science is now going into the realms of what a lot of religions are suggesting.

mind over matter is a nice phrase.

also with what quantum physics suggests, psychic powers is easily possible.

[*zeo]

Well, it might help everyone to remember that science was started by the church.

It wasn't until they started to question the church conclusions on stuff like Earth being the center of the universe that caused the split.

[*Youngtusk]

I don't knwo about anyone else... but this suggests that for life to have formed there needed to be something before that.

a consciousness that exhisted before lifeforms did...

seems to suggest some kind of spiritual presence.

I love how science is now going into the realms of what a lot of religions are suggesting.

mind over matter is a nice phrase.

also with what quantum physics suggests, psychic powers is easily possible.

It is interesting indeed. A movie you might like to watch is "What the bleep Do We Know?" Its all about how spirituality has been reinvigorated by the possibilitys of Quantum Physics. It was very unscientific, but it was entertaining.

I myself as an existentialist believe in existence precedes essence, that is, we were created before the thought of us was created. I'm also kind of a determinist, so Relative physics works with my philosophys, meanwhile Quantum Physics seems to dissmiss them; many People would love to know that Determinism is false, including me. Basicly I don't want to be dissapointed, so i'm expecting the worst(determinism) and hoping for the best(quantum physics).

[*Jess♥]

It is interesting indeed. A movie you might like to watch is "What the bleep Do We Know?" Its all about how spirituality has been reinvigorated by the possibilitys of Quantum Physics. It was very unscientific, but it was entertaining.

I myself as an existentialist believe in existence precedes essence, that is, we were created before the thought of us was created. I'm also kind of a determinist, so Relative physics works with my philosophys, meanwhile Quantum Physics seems to dissmiss them; many People would love to know that Determinism is false, including me. Basicly I don't want to be dissapointed, so i'm expecting the worst(determinism) and hoping for the best(quantum physics).

wow!!

you hurt my brain...

well I don't like that thought tbh.... although i can understand it... because i guess if you look at the worst possibility (in my view), it can only get better.

i never heard of that determinism.. is it just a more advanced pessimism?

I like this suggestion by quantum physics because it puts a lot of stock in hte power of thought.

this also agrees with many of my beliefs.. because all of teh powers in the body, they move from lower power to higher power.. and teh ones right at the top is sight, thought, then knowing/trust/spirit(enlightenment).

apparently teh buddha, when achieving enlightenment can manipulate matter. this makes sense to me considering quantum physics. if you can understand teh workings of the universe, you can do anything.

damnit, this thread is kinda wandering off track....

let's see how it goes, maybe we can split it off.

[Guest Wyrm]

Alright, folks. Prepare to get your mind blown because the answer to Ryuki's original question is weirder than you can possibly imagine.

First off, we have no consistent theory of gravitons because we don't have a quantum field theory of gravity. Simply put, things get really, really ugly when you try to quantize gravity: non-renormalizable infinities crop up that will simply not go away. Theorists are still trying to get quantum gravity to work.

There's a further thing to say about quantum field theories: the particles in those theories are allowed to go FTL (in the lingo, they are allowed to travel in paths that are 'spacelike'); what is restricted is information going FTL.

Although we don't know what a graviton looks like, we do know that gravitions cannot carry information faster than light. This is because the field associated with the gravition, curved spacetime, also cannot propagate information (disturbances) faster than c.

So how does a black hole's field remain if information is not allowed to escape faster than c?

The answer is that the speed limit of information propagation requires the field to remain! (I told you the answer would blow your mind!)

Cast your mind back to HS physics. Remember that in Newtonian gravity, a spherical shell of some mass generates precisely the same gravitational field as does a point mass on the outside. It doesn't matter how big the shell is, the outward field is the same. This same principle applies in general relativity (Birkhoff's Theorem) that guarantees that a spherically-symmetric, static, uncharged shell will have the Schwartzchild solution. (The Earth's outward field is the Schwartzchild solution — its consequences are just far less extreme than for a Schwartzchild black hole.)

Now, imagine a spherically-symmetric collapse of such a shell. At any particular moment, the external field will stay exactly the same as it was, and as the edge of the matter moves inward, it will bend spacetime to match the Schwarzschild solution. When the shell achieves the Schwartzchild radius and crosses the event horizon, that information cannot escape the black hole. Therefore, even when (if) the shell is destroyed, the fact of its nonexistence can never be known outside the event horizion, even by the disappearance of the field. Therefore, the speed limit of information requires the field to remain. Some call a black hole's field a "fossil field", as there's nothing actually generating it anymore. The fossil field even behaves like it has a mass equal to the original shell (plus anything we happen to throw in): it'll conserve momentum (linear and angular), energy, and even electric charge (though it will no longer be a Schwartzchild black hole). Again, it has to; whether there is a man behind the curtains is forever unknown to us observationally.

What's left? Ah, "escape velocity". First, "escape velocity" is a feature of Newtonian gravity, and an equivalent exists in general relativity only when the gravitational field is weak... which a black hole's field is not, so we really shouldn't expect "escape velocity" to behave sensibly. Second, even if "escape velocity" were definable for a black hole, it doesn't mean that velocity is physical.

[*Jess♥]

mmmmmmmmmmmm

MOMMMYYY!!!!!!

can somebody please translate?

ok, in fairness, i followed some of it.. about enough for me to generate an idea...

if you can get no flow of information out of a blackhole, then that means it's a pure quantum environment?

a totally isolated space.. anything can be possible inside a black hole.

I mean, the particles can be in any state.

inside the center of a black hole is infinite possibility.

and so it's not such a stretch of teh imagination to consider the power of creation exhisting there.

if anything is possible inside the black hole...

if you could withstand the forces at teh event horizon... you could theoretically travel between black holes. since you are not being observed.. you would not be onserved in any black hole so you would technically be in every black hole at the same time. so you could emerge from any one you wanted.

but this also makes me think about the big bang...

I oft thought that if the universe is expanding, then how would it ever become a singularity in order for another big bang to occur?

well if we consider teh nature of the center of black holes.. they are every where at once, and everywhere is one place at once. in a sense, all of the center of all black hoes,in exhistance are actually one singularity at the same time.

at some point, eventually all mass may become subject to hte pull of one black hoel or another, and once that occurs, then... everything is everywhere and the same place at the same time and all that is left maybe... mauybe ther is one astray particles left.. and if that particle observes just one thing, it can observe anything it wants. being that our perception is ofetn subjective.. that we all see things differently.. this last shred of consciousness could imagine anything it wants and teh univers would instantly be that because of the bahaviour of the quantum physics.

and perhaps that one last shred of consciousness doesn't like the dark and loneliness..

and so it utters teh words..

"let there be light"

[Guest Wyrm]

if you can get no flow of information out of a blackhole, then that means it's a pure quantum environment?

a totally isolated space.. anything can be possible inside a black hole.

As Richard Rosen said, "Anything is possible, but only a few things actually happen."

Current theory says that the space inside a black hole is not some woo-woo realm of infinite possibility. If you chose your coordinates right (such as Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates), that space looks rather mundane — almost Minkowskian (ie, normal boring relativistic spacetime). It's when you get really close to the central singularity (about 1e-15 m — about the size of a quark) that current physical theory goes casters up. By that point, any structure would be well squeezed out.

I mean, the particles can be in any state.

inside the center of a black hole is infinite possibility.

and so it's not such a stretch of teh imagination to consider the power of creation exhisting there.

You're too late claiming the idea, sport. Lee Smolin beat you to the punch by about seven years. Not only that, he wrapped up a kind of evolution by natural selection into the mix, suggesting that the kind of physics favoring carbon-based life are the same physics favoring black hole formation, so universes with physics favoring production of more black holes make more baby universes.

if anything is possible inside the black hole...

if you could withstand the forces at teh event horizon... you could theoretically travel between black holes. since you are not being observed.. you would not be onserved in any black hole so you would technically be in every black hole at the same time. so you could emerge from any one you wanted.

Unfortunately, a black hole has at least one property that distinguishes it from other black holes: it's mass. Every different mass will form a distinct Schwartzchild geometry which is observable from within the black hole (as well as from without). By the way, the flow of information impeded by the main event horizon I described earlier? It applies doubly so within that event horizion. (There are, in fact, an infinite number of event horizions impeding the flow of information leaking out.) A real black hole would almost certainly be slightly charged and rotating with a helluva lot of angular momentum, and would have a Kerr-Newman geometry, with every combination of mass, angular momentum and (to a smaller degree) charge. You could easily tell which black holes you are not in, even from within the black hole (for all the time you last).

but this also makes me think about the big bang...

I oft thought that if the universe is expanding, then how would it ever become a singularity in order for another big bang to occur?

Had the universe been closed (having density parameter of Ω > 1), then the universe would have enough matter in it to eventually slow down the expansion, stop, and reverse itself. The key word is "eventually"; it would still take billions of years for the expansion to be reverse in the models current at the time. Just like a ball thrown up would eventually return to the Earth.

We've since discovered that there is, in fact, not enough matter in the universe to do this. (The density parameter is quite firmly Ω < 1.) Indeed, current observations suggest that the expansion is accelerating, and the possible fate of the universe may be the Big Rip. :Vincent Price:

and perhaps that one last shred of consciousness doesn't like the dark and loneliness..

and so it utters teh words..

"let there be light"

Have you been reading Azimov, perchance? :wink:

Anyway, I think you've exceeded the bounds of current scientific theory there.

[*Jess♥]

thats nice to know.

I always like to think outside the boundaries.

dreaming up new ideas and possibilities.

I'm trying to find a happy medium between spirituality, religion, philosophy and science.

no, I don't read asimov these days, but i do like his style.

that part was my own way of theorising about how religious texts could be based more on 'reality' than we realise.

[*Youngtusk]

Sorry for the late reply, but I jsut saw you're peaked interest in Determinism.

Basically, Determinism is a view in the good-old arguement for free will. Do humans have free will or are we limited/handicapped in the decision making processes of our actions?

Consider this, its widely accepted that the events of our past shape the present moment. For example, i'm making plans with my friend because last week she wanted to hang out but we were both too busy. By the same logic, the events of the future(the events of tomorrow) are going to take place because of whats happening right now. So, i'm going to see Iron Man with my friend on Thursday because I'm making plans with her right now.

She wanted to hang out last week. I'm making plans with her now. We will see a movie on Thursday.

Past -> Present -> Future.

Well, if the Past shapes the Present and the Present shapes the Future, then essentially the Past shapes the Future.

So, I didn't make plans with her because I choose to, but rather i'm going to see Iron Man with her because she wanted to hang out last week. It had nothing to do with my will, but more to do with how the past shaped me.

Determinism basically says that we have no free will, and that our choices are not free, but they are influenced and shaped by the past. It makes sense if you think about it; why do you take side streets home from work? Because you know based on past experiences that you'll get stuck in traffic if you take the freeway. You didn't choose to take side streets, but you were determined to.

It fits well with the idea of human nature being based on Instinct and Experience. All of our decisions are based on what our Intuition tells us(Instinct) and what our Logic leads to(Experience). We don't make our decisions, but rather, our decisions make us.

Relative Physics supports Determinism, because according to Relative Physics, if you know every variable of any given equation and you know every constant, you will know exactly what the outcome/answer is. Similarly, if you know everything that a person has been through to shape who they are(variables), and you know what conditions they will be put under(constant) then you'd be able to tell how they would react to any given situation.

My friend tryed to disprove this to me by spontaneously punching me while we were drunk. He thought he'd comitted an act of free will by acting 'randomly.' But I just laughed at him as I clenched my nose and pointed out to him the fact that the only reason he'd punched me was to prove me wrong. And therefore, he wasn't acting out of free will, but rather a drive to disprove determinsim. So, he didn't choose to attempt to disprove me, he didnt choose to punch me, he was determined to prove me wrong, and so he was forced to punch me. And thus the arguement prevails.

Okay, I can elaborate, but thats enough for now.