QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 16 2007, 10:34 PM)
What you don't understand, is the Psychology of Belief. Unlike Bryn, I don't "believe" anything. I have opinions and theories, but I'm very wary of belief or conviction or groupthink. I used to think like you do about the things I'd been told. Then when I tried to explain something like charge I found that actually, I couldn't. I thought I understood something, but I didn't. The explanations you find on the internet for gravity will talk about "Einstein's curved spacetime", but this is not Einstein's idea, and curved spacetime is in itself not actually explained. Realising all this was quite an eye-opener. It was a wake-up call. Now I find I've explained these things in terms of geometry, and have developed a toy model called RELATIVITY+. I don't expect it's perfect, so that's why it's on a discussion forum. I've had some very useful feedback. But what's quite striking is how many people are unable to examine it rationally and enter into sincere discussion about its merits or otherwise.
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure.
It isn't me. It's you.
No, actually, it's all you.
Once again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motiviations. You're being really dishonest and annoying about this whole thing, and to be frank, it's annoying me.
So what? Because I had questions after reading your essays, somehow, I'm this troll of a parrot, that's incapable of breaking the mould he was brainwashed into?
Because I do not simply accept anything and everything that is put in front of me, that somehow makes me a brainless zombie?
Because I'm asking questions my only aim is to debunk?
Christ on a pogo stick. I'm sick of this.
Stop avoiding the issues. Either be as genuine as you claim to be and make a real effort to answer my questions, or show yourself up as a fraud and a hypocrite.
Stop being a troll and answer the question, or at the very least explain why they are wrong, or leave me with the conclusion that you can't because you wont.
Either way, keep your conceited, arrogant, and erroneous opinions about my motivations to yourself.
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure.
It isn't me. It's you.
No, actually, it's all you.
Once again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motiviations. You're being really dishonest and annoying about this whole thing, and to be frank, it's annoying me.
So what? Because I had questions after reading your essays, somehow, I'm this troll of a parrot, that's incapable of breaking the mould he was brainwashed into?
Because I do not simply accept anything and everything that is put in front of me, that somehow makes me a brainless zombie?
Because I'm asking questions my only aim is to debunk?
Christ on a pogo stick. I'm sick of this.
Stop avoiding the issues. Either be as genuine as you claim to be and make a real effort to answer my questions, or show yourself up as a fraud and a hypocrite.
Stop being a troll and answer the question, or at the very least explain why they are wrong, or leave me with the conclusion that you can't because you wont.
Either way, keep your conceited, arrogant, and erroneous opinions about my motivations to yourself.
No, it's all you. Look at the crap you come out with, at the smart-alec cracks about cranks deluding themselves. You're the one deluding yourself. Have you ever actually read anything I've said? Oh I get it, you don't you need to, because I am "clearly" a crank, and therefore a bit of a skim will suffice, followed by a few pretend questions to justify the old "debunk the crank" abuse? Here, I'll say it again. Now pay attention and watch my lips:
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure. It isn't me. It's you.
Did you get that? And get this: if you really had some "genuine" questions about TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other EXPLAINED essays, you would surely ask them on the relevant thread. Don't you think?
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure. It isn't me. It's you.
Did you get that? And get this: if you really had some "genuine" questions about TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other EXPLAINED essays, you would surely ask them on the relevant thread. Don't you think?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
On QED and a discussion of the photon speed
I do not know your reference for photon speed. My main point is that actual photon speed is irrelevant if the information cannot travel faster than c. So I strongly suspect that your reference has some qualifiers or context that isn't being conveyed.
QED is typically written in natural units in which h = 2π and c = 1. Therefore if v != 1 then the speed is faster or slower than c. But QED is just one of the most simple cases of Quantum Field Theory, and QFT has a theorem (proven naturally from the postulates of QFT) that all disturbances of QFT travel at the speed 1. Even if the particles themselves are defined to exist at v>1.
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/...r/tachyons.html
IN all honesty, the most likely explanation is that i've misunderstood what i've read. Unlike many of the people on this forum, i'm actually willing to admit the limits of my knowledge, and that has been painful at times, mostly because there are people that assume that because I can't explain something, it can't be explained in general.
I'm an environmental chemist, not a physicist, I have studied some physics at Univeristy, including a paper that covered relativity and quantum mechanics, but, I suppose, although it was a second year paper, from your perspective, it was probably pretty much introductory stuff, so I try, and I read, and sometimes the maths makes sense.
Most of my experience with QM is based around schroedingers wave equation, and solutions for it, and that's because it's relevant to chemistry, it becomes very important when dealing with HOMO/LUMO, and fronteir orbital theory (among other things). And I suppose, in essence this is the thing that is bugging me most about my conversation with Farsight at the moment - he seems to be far more content hurling around abuse and accusing other people of being trolls, then trying to address what may in fact be a simple misunderstanding on my part (or anyone elses), but it's easier to make assumptions and abuse them instead.
To put things in perspective, I'd say that a large proportion of the Physics that I know is self taught, I first started reading about Relativity when I was 10. I live in a country that uses the metric system, but by the time I hit highschool, I knew the imperial values of most of the physical constants. I had to unlearn a few things before I could relearn them in a way that would be helpful.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
At the QED-level there are not photons per-se but a photon quantum field described by QED. Physically, you can't measure a photon speed because interacting with a photon to record it's position destroys the photon, so no second measurement is possible. Mathematically, you can play games where some of the wave crests travel faster than the speed of light. So the context of your quote is needed.
QED, QCD, and QFT are things that I'm only... I suppose, peripheraly aware of, I know that (part of) the explanation for these claims about superluminal sound waves, etc has to do with the speed of the wave packet as a whole, versus the speed of components of the wave packet, and the pair of them combining to give the illusion of something travelling faster then c. Are we talking about the same thing here?
QED, QCD, and QFT are things that I'm only... I suppose, peripheraly aware of, I know that (part of) the explanation for these claims about superluminal sound waves, etc has to do with the speed of the wave packet as a whole, versus the speed of components of the wave packet, and the pair of them combining to give the illusion of something travelling faster then c. Are we talking about the same thing here?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
On c, ε_0 and μ_0
Maxwell's (vacuum) equations in SI Units were formulated in the language of flat-space-time:
F = q (E + v×B)
F is measured in Newtons
q is measured in Coulombs
E is measured in Newtons per Coulomb
v is measured in meters per second
B is measured in Newton-seconds per Coulomb per meter
∇·B = 0
∇×E = -∂B/∂t
∇·J = -∂ρ/∂t
ρ is measured in Coulombs per cubic meter
J is measured in Amperes per square meter or Coulombs per second per meter²
∇·D = ρ
D is measured in Coulomb-meters per cubic meter or Coulombs per meter²
∇×H = J + ∂D/∂t
H is measured in Coulombs per second per meter
D = ε_0 E (in vacuum)
Therefore ε_0 must have units of Coulombs² per Newton per meter²
B = μ_0 H (in vacuum)
Therefore μ_0 must have units of Newton times seconds² per Coulomb²
And therefore 1/(ε_0 μ_0) must have units like meters² per second²
The Coulombs drop out. But what is a Coulomb? The Coulomb was a amount of electric charge chosen such that the force between two charges of one Coulomb each, separated by 1 meters is given exactly by the SI version of Coulomb's Law:
F = q_1 q_2 / 4 π ε_0 r² = 1 Coulomb²/4 π ε_0 meter² = 1 Coulomb² c² μ_0/4 π meter² = (299792458)² 10^-7 Newtons = 8987551787.3681764 Newtons (exact in SI)
So the definition of a Coulomb, and ε_0 and μ_0 are just choices made by the designers of the SI units. They are linked choices, but they are not forced by the physics.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/consrpp.pdf
Soooo... Basically, what your saying is that Maxwells equation is only really valid in a flat space time (which ours ostensibly isn't) and that in spite of any logical sense that it may seem to make, c isn't really limited by ε_0?
Maxwell's (vacuum) equations in SI Units were formulated in the language of flat-space-time:
F = q (E + v×B)
F is measured in Newtons
q is measured in Coulombs
E is measured in Newtons per Coulomb
v is measured in meters per second
B is measured in Newton-seconds per Coulomb per meter
∇·B = 0
∇×E = -∂B/∂t
∇·J = -∂ρ/∂t
ρ is measured in Coulombs per cubic meter
J is measured in Amperes per square meter or Coulombs per second per meter²
∇·D = ρ
D is measured in Coulomb-meters per cubic meter or Coulombs per meter²
∇×H = J + ∂D/∂t
H is measured in Coulombs per second per meter
D = ε_0 E (in vacuum)
Therefore ε_0 must have units of Coulombs² per Newton per meter²
B = μ_0 H (in vacuum)
Therefore μ_0 must have units of Newton times seconds² per Coulomb²
And therefore 1/(ε_0 μ_0) must have units like meters² per second²
The Coulombs drop out. But what is a Coulomb? The Coulomb was a amount of electric charge chosen such that the force between two charges of one Coulomb each, separated by 1 meters is given exactly by the SI version of Coulomb's Law:
F = q_1 q_2 / 4 π ε_0 r² = 1 Coulomb²/4 π ε_0 meter² = 1 Coulomb² c² μ_0/4 π meter² = (299792458)² 10^-7 Newtons = 8987551787.3681764 Newtons (exact in SI)
So the definition of a Coulomb, and ε_0 and μ_0 are just choices made by the designers of the SI units. They are linked choices, but they are not forced by the physics.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/consrpp.pdf
Soooo... Basically, what your saying is that Maxwells equation is only really valid in a flat space time (which ours ostensibly isn't) and that in spite of any logical sense that it may seem to make, c isn't really limited by ε_0?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
For comparison, QED typically works in natural units in which h = 2π and c = 1 and the unit of charge is the charge on the positron, e, and the coupling constant is α = e²/2hc which is the same number no matter what units you measure e, h and c in. Because all the electromagnetic reactions depending on c also depend on e² and α, electromagnetic experiments cannot distinguish changes in one versus the other. Many searched for a changing speed of light have been really searches for a changing value of α, since a conspiracy of e and h would hide a change in c. But a change in α can be measured but cannot be unambiguously interpreted as a change in c.
What was Alpha again?
What was Alpha again?
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
In SR, time dilation goes hand-in-hand with length contraction so that two observers agree on the speed of light and the magnitude of the relative speed between themselves.
In GR, this is no longer so, so that two observers, when not close to each other, may disagree about a speed of light measurement made with the others rulers and clocks. So this is not saying the speed of light changes, but something about clocks and rulers. In GR, gravity is a gradient of rulers and clocks (curved space time) so that the assumptions of absolute space and time made by Maxwell's equations are no longer valid. Thus a change in (non-local) measured c doesn't even indicate an actual change in c, and therefore says nothing about α, h, e, ε_0 or μ_0 or the definition of a Coulomb.
But in GR, when the observers are close to each other, everything gets nice again. Therefore the apparent change in c must be regarded as akin to an illusion -- a paradox of trying to think locally about non-local measurements.
So, according to GR, it's possible for two non-local observers to measure a difference in c in the other observers reference frame, but it's really only an artifact of the clocks and rulers being used.
In GR, this is no longer so, so that two observers, when not close to each other, may disagree about a speed of light measurement made with the others rulers and clocks. So this is not saying the speed of light changes, but something about clocks and rulers. In GR, gravity is a gradient of rulers and clocks (curved space time) so that the assumptions of absolute space and time made by Maxwell's equations are no longer valid. Thus a change in (non-local) measured c doesn't even indicate an actual change in c, and therefore says nothing about α, h, e, ε_0 or μ_0 or the definition of a Coulomb.
But in GR, when the observers are close to each other, everything gets nice again. Therefore the apparent change in c must be regarded as akin to an illusion -- a paradox of trying to think locally about non-local measurements.
So, according to GR, it's possible for two non-local observers to measure a difference in c in the other observers reference frame, but it's really only an artifact of the clocks and rulers being used.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 08:43 AM)
We don't have an experimental method to change c. In real dielectrics the dielectric constant, n, is a function of the frequency of the light, so that the measured values of ε(f=0) and μ(f=0) (because direct measurement of these tend to happen at a f much smaller than of light) might not be in the relation predicted by v(f) = c/n(f) = 1/sqrt(ε(f) μ(f)). So the dielectric model of a change in c is not very good.
In contrast there is no evidence that gravitational lensing produces evidence of dispersion, so that any change is uniform for all frequencies. The description of GR as curved space time does predict gravitational lensing with this non-dispersive behavior. This description of GR has no effect on the local values of c or on the local action of electromagnetism.
So, if i've understood you correctly, it's possible, from our perspective for light to appear to slow down in the vicinity of say a neutron star, but that this slow down is really just an illusion created by the fact that we're a non-local observer, and is an artifact of our clocks and rulers? And modelling gravity as a change in the permittivity of a vacuum, would lead to effects that are not observed - like the dispersion of light we see when looking through an optical lens?
In contrast there is no evidence that gravitational lensing produces evidence of dispersion, so that any change is uniform for all frequencies. The description of GR as curved space time does predict gravitational lensing with this non-dispersive behavior. This description of GR has no effect on the local values of c or on the local action of electromagnetism.
So, if i've understood you correctly, it's possible, from our perspective for light to appear to slow down in the vicinity of say a neutron star, but that this slow down is really just an illusion created by the fact that we're a non-local observer, and is an artifact of our clocks and rulers? And modelling gravity as a change in the permittivity of a vacuum, would lead to effects that are not observed - like the dispersion of light we see when looking through an optical lens?
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine.
Fortunately that's how physics works Farsight. Whenever a new idea is introduced or a discovery is made, it is scrutinised very closely and lots of difficult questions are asked.
That way, if it is valid then it will be able to answer the difficult questions and will become more solid.
If this didn't happen, there'd be millions of crackpot theories floating around all over the place!
(I'm sure yours would be the only right one, though.)
Fortunately that's how physics works Farsight. Whenever a new idea is introduced or a discovery is made, it is scrutinised very closely and lots of difficult questions are asked.
That way, if it is valid then it will be able to answer the difficult questions and will become more solid.
If this didn't happen, there'd be millions of crackpot theories floating around all over the place!
(I'm sure yours would be the only right one, though.)
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 17 2007, 10:23 AM)
No, it's all you. Look at the crap you come out with, at the smart-alec cracks about cranks deluding themselves. You're the one deluding yourself. Have you ever actually read anything I've said? Oh I get it, you don't you need to, because I am "clearly" a crank, and therefore a bit of a skim will suffice, followed by a few pretend questions to justify the old "debunk the crank" abuse? Here, I'll say it again. Now pay attention and watch my lips:
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure. It isn't me. It's you.
Did you get that? And get this: if you really had some "genuine" questions about TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other EXPLAINED essays, you would surely ask them on the relevant thread. Don't you think?
Even your assumptions about what I do and don't read are wrong.
I made a genuine effort to understand what you said in your essays, and asked you a few questions that seemed to be pertinent, but may well have been due to some fundamental misunderstanding on my part. ALL you have offered in response is abuse.
You're the one that's deluded. You've convinced yourself that everyone with a rating better then yours is ONLY interested in debunking your theories.
What YOU are not getting is that I asked questions of relativity when I first met it.
What you are not getting is that I have examined MANY alternatives to relativity, and I liked them ALL for different reasons. But wait, how is that possible if I'm as narrow minded as you seem to think I am. I'm not afraid of new ideas (as you seem to think I am) Never have been, never will be.
You're the one with the psychological issue here.
You're the one avoiding answering the questions - see how RPenner is answering my questions, and I'm asking him more? It's part of my learning process (actually, it should be part of any scientests learning process).
You don't get to do science without being curious.
You don't get to do science without asking questions.
I'm not interested in dealing with you and your assumptions anymore.
Step up, or stuff off.
The problem is this: your questions aren't actually genuine. Because you have a predisposition that says "this new idea runs counter to my belief, therefore it must be wrong". This prevents you from being sincere and open. Hence you claim that some idea is "clearly" wrong, when it isn't, and you haven't actually provided any evidence that it is. Your only "evidence" is your beliefs, and you will not examine those beliefs. Try explaining what charge is, write it down, and then look at it critically. You will find that actually, it is no explanation at all. But you will dismiss my explanation without examining it carefully in an open-minded and rational fashion. Instead you persuade yourself that some new idea is "clearly" crank material to be debunked. And then you bolster your conviction by fooling yourself that people like me have some kind of psychological issue and are insecure. It isn't me. It's you.
Did you get that? And get this: if you really had some "genuine" questions about TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other EXPLAINED essays, you would surely ask them on the relevant thread. Don't you think?
Even your assumptions about what I do and don't read are wrong.
I made a genuine effort to understand what you said in your essays, and asked you a few questions that seemed to be pertinent, but may well have been due to some fundamental misunderstanding on my part. ALL you have offered in response is abuse.
You're the one that's deluded. You've convinced yourself that everyone with a rating better then yours is ONLY interested in debunking your theories.
What YOU are not getting is that I asked questions of relativity when I first met it.
What you are not getting is that I have examined MANY alternatives to relativity, and I liked them ALL for different reasons. But wait, how is that possible if I'm as narrow minded as you seem to think I am. I'm not afraid of new ideas (as you seem to think I am) Never have been, never will be.
You're the one with the psychological issue here.
You're the one avoiding answering the questions - see how RPenner is answering my questions, and I'm asking him more? It's part of my learning process (actually, it should be part of any scientests learning process).
You don't get to do science without being curious.
You don't get to do science without asking questions.
I'm not interested in dealing with you and your assumptions anymore.
Step up, or stuff off.
If you've got genuine questions, ask them on the appropriate thread. Like this one:
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 16 2007, 11:04 PM)
If you've got genuine questions, ask them on the appropriate thread. Like this one:
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
The problem is that it is fake physics.
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
The problem is that it is fake physics.
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 16 2007, 10:32 PM)
Fortunately that's how physics works Farsight. Whenever a new idea is introduced or a discovery is made, it is scrutinised very closely and lots of difficult questions are asked.
That way, if it is valid then it will be able to answer the difficult questions and will become more solid.
If this didn't happen, there'd be millions of crackpot theories floating around all over the place!
(I'm sure yours would be the only right one, though.)
Er, no, it isn't scrutinised closely. Difficult questions are not asked. Instead it's an airy wave of "crank" dismissal followed by a self-justifying fiction that it has been scrutinised closely and difficult questions have been asked. That's why GR wasn't accepted into mainstream physics until the late twenties. Thirteen years, FFS. You want to justify yourself? Be my guest:
TIME EXPLAINED
But hey, what do you know, no close scrutiny, and no difficult questions.
That way, if it is valid then it will be able to answer the difficult questions and will become more solid.
If this didn't happen, there'd be millions of crackpot theories floating around all over the place!
(I'm sure yours would be the only right one, though.)
Er, no, it isn't scrutinised closely. Difficult questions are not asked. Instead it's an airy wave of "crank" dismissal followed by a self-justifying fiction that it has been scrutinised closely and difficult questions have been asked. That's why GR wasn't accepted into mainstream physics until the late twenties. Thirteen years, FFS. You want to justify yourself? Be my guest:
TIME EXPLAINED
But hey, what do you know, no close scrutiny, and no difficult questions.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 17 2007, 11:04 AM)
If you've got genuine questions, ask them on the appropriate thread. Like this one:
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
What does it matter which thread I bring the questions up in?
You brought your essays into this thread, not me.
And I did ask them (initialy) in the threads you started, but lo and behold, you largely ignored them there as well.
TIME EXPLAINED
What's the problem?
What does it matter which thread I bring the questions up in?
You brought your essays into this thread, not me.
And I did ask them (initialy) in the threads you started, but lo and behold, you largely ignored them there as well.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 11:09 PM)
What does it matter which thread I bring the questions up in?
It matters, because by asking them here you're exhibiting your predisposition and effectively calling me a crank whilst suppressing exhibition of open debate on the relevant thread.
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
I don't know if it's just me, but I found those posts particularly unenlighteing, and lacking in substance
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
I've read the article a couple of times now. To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything.
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
It matters, because by asking them here you're exhibiting your predisposition and effectively calling me a crank whilst suppressing exhibition of open debate on the relevant thread.
QUOTE
You brought your essays into this thread, not me. And I did ask them (initialy) in the threads you started, but lo and behold, you largely ignored them there as well.
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You brought your essays into this thread, not me. And I did ask them (initialy) in the threads you started, but lo and behold, you largely ignored them there as well. |
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
I don't know if it's just me, but I found those posts particularly unenlighteing, and lacking in substance
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
QUOTE
An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant.
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant. |
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
I've read the article a couple of times now. To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything.
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 17 2007, 11:38 AM)
It matters, because by asking them here you're exhibiting your predisposition and effectively calling me a crank whilst suppressing exhibition of open debate on the relevant thread.
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant.
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
You're right. I didn't say anything in Time Explained. Why would I bother after the response I got elsewhere.
Let's look at what else I said shall we?
Energy explained:
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
You're right. I didn't say anything in Time Explained. Why would I bother after the response I got elsewhere.
Let's look at what else I said shall we?
Energy explained:
One of the things that I have realized that irked me about Farsights posts was his assertions around Cubane
In the early 1980's it was pointed out that cubane's very high density and high heat of formation would make it an especially good explosive, especially if each carbon could have a nitro group attached. The resulting molecule would decompose to eight molecules of carbon dioxide, and four molecules of nitrogen, and release a lot of heat in the process. A cubane with a nitro group on each carbon is called octanitrocubane. Several factors are important in making a good explosive. The decomposition must be energetic. In cubane derivitives, the strain energy ensures a very energetic decomposition.
Did you catch that? It’s the strain energy. There’s compressed “springs” in there.
It's inaccurate. Why is it inaccurate?
Cubane is composed of 8 SP3 hybridized carbon atoms (and 8 of whatever's attached to the corners, irrelevant at this time). SP3 Hybridized Carbon likes to sit with it's bonds pointing 117 or 119 degrees away from each other (This is something that has been experimentally verified for decades, and can be deduced from first principles with ONLY the assumption that the bonds like to be as far apart from each other as they can due to electrostatic repulsion). So, when the bonds are forced closer together, the fact that they repell each other means that you're storing energy in the molecule (If memory serves, it's elastic potential energy) because the bonds connecting the carbon skeleton want to be further apart then they are, because they repell each other. It's exactly the same process that lets you store potential energy between two magnets by pushing two poles together (Or between two charged objects by pushing them closer together). This stored energy is what the refer to when they talk about strain energy. It makes the bonds between the carbons weaker, because they have a tendency to 'bulge outwards' to reduce the repulsion between them, and there's a certain amount of energy availble to the bonds already for breaking, because the bonds do not exist in their ground state. IN a sense, they're already partially broken. One of the ironies of this is that because there is already some energy stored in the molecules, and less energy is required for breaking up the carbon skeleton, more of the energy released by the oxidation of Cubane is released directly as heat energy.
Muscle fibres are able to do work because, as he pointed out ATP gets converted to ADP, but, the conversion process affects a shape change in the fibre.
Take Keratin, the stuff of nails, it's shaped like a spring, but it's pretty rigid.
My point in all of this is that it's simply not as simple as he is making it out to be.
So, you're lying. I raised a valid point which you chose to ignore.
Oh yeah, and lets look at the context of the statement.
LOL. You are so easy to nail. Shall we have a look? You said nothing in TIME EXPLAINED. Would you like to check out what you said in ENERGY EXPLAINED? Let’s see now. Your first “genuine question” was:
QUOTE
I don't know if it's just me, but I found those posts particularly unenlighteing, and lacking in substance
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't know if it's just me, but I found those posts particularly unenlighteing, and lacking in substance |
And your second post ended with the immortal phrase:
An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant.
And let’s take a look at MASS EXPLAINED What do we see? Your first post:
QUOTE
I've read the article a couple of times now. To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything.
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
You're right. I didn't say anything in Time Explained. Why would I bother after the response I got elsewhere.
Let's look at what else I said shall we?
Energy explained:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've read the article a couple of times now. To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything. |
And as far CHARGE EXPLAINED, why, you don’t feature at all.
Bah. You might be fooling yourself, Trippytoes. But you don’t fool anybody else.
You're right. I didn't say anything in Time Explained. Why would I bother after the response I got elsewhere.
Let's look at what else I said shall we?
Energy explained:
One of the things that I have realized that irked me about Farsights posts was his assertions around Cubane
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 10 2007, 12:32 AM)
In the early 1980's it was pointed out that cubane's very high density and high heat of formation would make it an especially good explosive, especially if each carbon could have a nitro group attached. The resulting molecule would decompose to eight molecules of carbon dioxide, and four molecules of nitrogen, and release a lot of heat in the process. A cubane with a nitro group on each carbon is called octanitrocubane. Several factors are important in making a good explosive. The decomposition must be energetic. In cubane derivitives, the strain energy ensures a very energetic decomposition.
Did you catch that? It’s the strain energy. There’s compressed “springs” in there.
It's inaccurate. Why is it inaccurate?
Cubane is composed of 8 SP3 hybridized carbon atoms (and 8 of whatever's attached to the corners, irrelevant at this time). SP3 Hybridized Carbon likes to sit with it's bonds pointing 117 or 119 degrees away from each other (This is something that has been experimentally verified for decades, and can be deduced from first principles with ONLY the assumption that the bonds like to be as far apart from each other as they can due to electrostatic repulsion). So, when the bonds are forced closer together, the fact that they repell each other means that you're storing energy in the molecule (If memory serves, it's elastic potential energy) because the bonds connecting the carbon skeleton want to be further apart then they are, because they repell each other. It's exactly the same process that lets you store potential energy between two magnets by pushing two poles together (Or between two charged objects by pushing them closer together). This stored energy is what the refer to when they talk about strain energy. It makes the bonds between the carbons weaker, because they have a tendency to 'bulge outwards' to reduce the repulsion between them, and there's a certain amount of energy availble to the bonds already for breaking, because the bonds do not exist in their ground state. IN a sense, they're already partially broken. One of the ironies of this is that because there is already some energy stored in the molecules, and less energy is required for breaking up the carbon skeleton, more of the energy released by the oxidation of Cubane is released directly as heat energy.
Muscle fibres are able to do work because, as he pointed out ATP gets converted to ADP, but, the conversion process affects a shape change in the fibre.
Take Keratin, the stuff of nails, it's shaped like a spring, but it's pretty rigid.
My point in all of this is that it's simply not as simple as he is making it out to be.
So, you're lying. I raised a valid point which you chose to ignore.
Oh yeah, and lets look at the context of the statement.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 12 2007, 10:12 AM)
My other point, I suppose is that again, there's nothing actually new or enlightening in anything that he's said. Everything that he's said is stuff that anyone who has studied first year physics at university should be able to figure out for themselves, where Farsight keeps talking as if he has uncovered some sort of fundamental truth, and only by coming to him will we be able to find enlightenment, and he's the only person on the forum who's got it right.
An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant.
So we can see you're being dishonest, by quoting me out of context. What's more, everything you have done, your refusal to adress the points I have raised, choosing instead to slosh around abuse, and make assumptions about people and their motivations has done nothing to dissuade me of this opinion.
Right, so... Let's examine Mass explained a little more closely shall we?
I've read the article a couple of times now.
To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything.
Okay, so you propose that mass is effectively 'static energy'. I'm of the personal opinion that anybody who has studied first year physics could figure this out for themselves. In fact, most things I've seen take this into account. But the thing is, you still haven't actually explained the property of mass, last wise not that I can see.
The most you have said is "Okay, the value for the mass of an electron could be what it is because of this mechanism".
Well, what about Neutral Fermions?
What about Protons?
What abou Quarks?
What about Pions, and Muons, and the rest of the Menagery?
I'll give you credit where credit's due. You actually almost seemed to be making a genuine effort to answer this. But you completely ignored
Your essay also doesn't explain systems of Electron-Positron collisions where three or more photons are liberated.
The closest thing to an answer that i've ever been able to get out of you on this was in this thread and amounted to "I don't see why this should be a problem."
As far as charge explained goes, that's right, I haven't posted there, for much the same reason that I haven't posted in Time Explained.
Shame on you Shortsight, claiming to be a crusader for rationality, and honesty, and going to all this trouble of misquoting, and cherrypicking.
You might be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling anybody else.
An attitude which I find, quite frankly, repugnant.
So we can see you're being dishonest, by quoting me out of context. What's more, everything you have done, your refusal to adress the points I have raised, choosing instead to slosh around abuse, and make assumptions about people and their motivations has done nothing to dissuade me of this opinion.
Right, so... Let's examine Mass explained a little more closely shall we?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 11 2007, 12:56 PM)
I've read the article a couple of times now.
To be honest, I've found it particularly uninsiteful, and seemingly unable to actually explain anything.
Okay, so you propose that mass is effectively 'static energy'. I'm of the personal opinion that anybody who has studied first year physics could figure this out for themselves. In fact, most things I've seen take this into account. But the thing is, you still haven't actually explained the property of mass, last wise not that I can see.
The most you have said is "Okay, the value for the mass of an electron could be what it is because of this mechanism".
Well, what about Neutral Fermions?
What about Protons?
What abou Quarks?
What about Pions, and Muons, and the rest of the Menagery?
I'll give you credit where credit's due. You actually almost seemed to be making a genuine effort to answer this. But you completely ignored
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 11 2007, 01:02 PM)
Your essay also doesn't explain systems of Electron-Positron collisions where three or more photons are liberated.
The closest thing to an answer that i've ever been able to get out of you on this was in this thread and amounted to "I don't see why this should be a problem."
As far as charge explained goes, that's right, I haven't posted there, for much the same reason that I haven't posted in Time Explained.
Shame on you Shortsight, claiming to be a crusader for rationality, and honesty, and going to all this trouble of misquoting, and cherrypicking.
You might be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling anybody else.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
Are we talking about the same thing here?
I'd like to think so. But I haven't read anything on "superluminal sound waves." Did you mean superluminal wave crests?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
Soooo... Basically, what your saying is that Maxwells equation is only really valid in a flat space time (which ours ostensibly isn't) and that in spite of any logical sense that it may seem to make, c isn't really limited by ε_0?
Correct. c is a physical constant, in principle measurable and expressible in terms of a standard time and length measurement. ε_0 is defined by ones choice of units for force and charge.
In Planck Units, where h = 2π, G = 1, and c = 1, the Coulomb force between two electrons, 1 Planck unit, sqrt(h G / 2π c^3), apart is given by
F = ( e² / 4 π ε_0 ) ( c^3 2π / h G ) = (e² / 2 h c ε_0) (c^4/G) = α (Planck Force)
So α, in a sense is more fundamental than e_0.
In Planck Units, where h = 2π, G = 1, and c = 1, the Coulomb force between two electrons, 1 Planck unit, sqrt(h G / 2π c^3), apart is given by
F = ( e² / 4 π ε_0 ) ( c^3 2π / h G ) = (e² / 2 h c ε_0) (c^4/G) = α (Planck Force)
So α, in a sense is more fundamental than e_0.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
What was Alpha again?
The fine-structure constant. About 1/137. It's smallness (relative to 1) is why Feynman diagrams are a good way to calculate in QED, since they are nothing more than a bookkeeping mechanism for expansion of QED calculations in terms of α.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
So, according to GR, it's possible for two non-local observers to measure a difference in c in the other observers reference frame, but it's really only an artifact of the clocks and rulers being used.
Correct. It's an artifact of the assumption of flat space time where SR doesn't apply.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
So, if i've understood you correctly, it's possible, from our perspective for light to appear to slow down in the vicinity of say a neutron star, but that this slow down is really just an illusion created by the fact that we're a non-local observer, and is an artifact of our clocks and rulers?
That is the GR viewpoint.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:23 PM)
And modelling gravity as a change in the permittivity of a vacuum, would lead to effects that are not observed - like the dispersion of light we see when looking through an optical lens?
That is my thinking. Also, the clocks and rulers thinking lets you predict that if light is observed to "slow down" then all other effects should slow down, as if time was slower. This is observed. Supernovae in very distant galaxies are observed to "explode slower" than supernovae in nearer galaxies, and this is directly as predicted by their redshift factors. The gravity of the Earth actual makes space-time non-Euclidean enough to affect a gyroscope. Etc.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 12:16 PM)
I'd like to think so. But I haven't read anything on "superluminal sound waves." Did you mean superluminal wave crests?
Nope, talking about this article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApPhL..90a4102R think it also showed up in the Physorg news as well.
Nope, talking about this article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApPhL..90a4102R think it also showed up in the Physorg news as well.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 12:16 PM)
Correct. c is a physical constant, in principle measurable and expressible in terms of a standard time and length measurement. ε_0 is defined by ones choice of units for force and charge.
In Planck Units, where h = 2π, G = 1, and c = 1, the Coulomb force between two electrons, 1 Planck unit, sqrt(h G / 2π c^3), apart is given by
F = ( e² / 4 π ε_0 ) ( c^3 2π / h G ) = (e² / 2 h c ε_0) (c^4/G) = α (Planck Force)
So α, in a sense is more fundamental than e_0.
Gotcha, I think.
In Planck Units, where h = 2π, G = 1, and c = 1, the Coulomb force between two electrons, 1 Planck unit, sqrt(h G / 2π c^3), apart is given by
F = ( e² / 4 π ε_0 ) ( c^3 2π / h G ) = (e² / 2 h c ε_0) (c^4/G) = α (Planck Force)
So α, in a sense is more fundamental than e_0.
Gotcha, I think.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 12:16 PM)
The fine-structure constant. About 1/137. It's smallness (relative to 1) is why Feynman diagrams are a good way to calculate in QED, since they are nothing more than a bookkeeping mechanism for expansion of QED calculations in terms of α.
D'oh. I knew that as well. *Head desk* Well, that Alpha was the fine structure constant anyway.
D'oh. I knew that as well. *Head desk* Well, that Alpha was the fine structure constant anyway.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 12:16 PM)
Correct. It's an artifact of the assumption of flat space time where SR doesn't apply.
That is the GR viewpoint. That is my thinking. Also, the clocks and rulers thinking lets you predict that if light is observed to "slow down" then all other effects should slow down, as if time was slower. This is observed. Supernovae in very distant galaxies are observed to "explode slower" than supernovae in nearer galaxies, and this is directly as predicted by their redshift factors. The gravity of the Earth actual makes space-time non-Euclidean enough to affect a gyroscope. Etc.
Right. This all makes sense.
That is the GR viewpoint. That is my thinking. Also, the clocks and rulers thinking lets you predict that if light is observed to "slow down" then all other effects should slow down, as if time was slower. This is observed. Supernovae in very distant galaxies are observed to "explode slower" than supernovae in nearer galaxies, and this is directly as predicted by their redshift factors. The gravity of the Earth actual makes space-time non-Euclidean enough to affect a gyroscope. Etc.
Right. This all makes sense.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 17 2007, 12:31 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 12:16 PM)
I'd like to think so. But I haven't read anything on "superluminal sound waves." Did you mean superluminal wave crests?
Let me repeat: if you wish to discuss Time, Energy, Mass or Charge Explained with sincerity, then ask your genuine questions on the relevant thread.
.
Holy smoke, Farsight! you are so naive (Jeez, I hope I spelt it right this time), totally hilarious,
The other funny one is True Relativity who thinks Mr E, got it wrong and has took it upon himself to put things right, Christ 'ole mighty thats funny.
Cheers Guys
Darren
Nope, talking about this article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApPhL..90a4102R think it also showed up in the Physorg news as well.
Ah, yes. Here the Physorg.com story was actually of more use than the abstract of the paper.
http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html
Thanks to Microsoft's war with Java, I am having a hard time looking at this site, but it has a visual and mathematical explanation for superluminal group propagation as a boring natural consequence of "anomalous dispersion"
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
Ah, yes. Here the Physorg.com story was actually of more use than the abstract of the paper.
http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html
Thanks to Microsoft's war with Java, I am having a hard time looking at this site, but it has a visual and mathematical explanation for superluminal group propagation as a boring natural consequence of "anomalous dispersion"
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
That sound was faster than light!!
The output pulse peak exited the system before the input pulse peak entered. That's not just faster than light, that's NEGATIVE group velocity. However it's only possible because the information of the Gaussian input pulse allows the system to automatically synthesize a similar output pulse. No energy or information however travels faster than 0.00001 c (acoustic speeds).
I still can't get IE 7 to view that applet.
I still can't get IE 7 to view that applet.
You know Nick, if you're going to critiscize people and give them negative feedback, you should at least get your facts straight.
Oh look at that, what do you know.
Keratin really IS shaped like a spring.
Oh look at that, what do you know.
Keratin really IS shaped like a spring.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 03:56 PM)
The output pulse peak exited the system before the input pulse peak entered. That's not just faster than light, that's NEGATIVE group velocity. However it's only possible because the information of the Gaussian input pulse allows the system to automatically synthesize a similar output pulse. No energy or information however travels faster than 0.00001 c (acoustic speeds).
I still can't get IE 7 to view that applet.
For some reason, I always thought that supermluminal velocities implied negative group velocities.
But yeah, I remember reading a paper some time ago written by a group that was playing around with super luminal light pulses. At the time the paper was written, AFAIK, there was still some unceartainty into the mechanism of the superluminal travel, and one of the contentions that had been raised was that the leading edge of the pulse train was not neccessarily the first part of the pulse train that's detected, so maybe all that was really happening was that the part that was being first detected was moving forwards in the pulse train. They ended up shaping the pulse so that they had two different pulses, I don't remember what all the details were, something about introducing a sharp dropoff part way through the pulse. The idea was that it was the equivalent of sending a series of F E through a fax machine upside down - you can't tell whether the next character is going to be an F or an E until you have all of the information, and what they found, basically, was that all though the light pulse might have appeared to have been travelling faster then c, the information that it was carrying was only travelling at c.
I still can't get IE 7 to view that applet.
For some reason, I always thought that supermluminal velocities implied negative group velocities.
But yeah, I remember reading a paper some time ago written by a group that was playing around with super luminal light pulses. At the time the paper was written, AFAIK, there was still some unceartainty into the mechanism of the superluminal travel, and one of the contentions that had been raised was that the leading edge of the pulse train was not neccessarily the first part of the pulse train that's detected, so maybe all that was really happening was that the part that was being first detected was moving forwards in the pulse train. They ended up shaping the pulse so that they had two different pulses, I don't remember what all the details were, something about introducing a sharp dropoff part way through the pulse. The idea was that it was the equivalent of sending a series of F E through a fax machine upside down - you can't tell whether the next character is going to be an F or an E until you have all of the information, and what they found, basically, was that all though the light pulse might have appeared to have been travelling faster then c, the information that it was carrying was only travelling at c.
Nick: I'm not interested in your PM's unless you've got something constructive or genuine to say.
As to why you should believe that Keratin is shaped like a spring? I dunno, maybe because that's what the experimental evidence tells us?
It's not exactly hard to work out (or to predict for that matter) if you know anything about proteins and how the fold.
Keratin exists in two forms an Alpha Helix, and a Beta twisted sheet. Alpha Keratin is what makes up our hair and nails. Beta Keratin is what reptiles use (Beta Keratin is actually harder then Alpha Keratin). IIRC, Beta Keratin is also known as Fibroin, and is what makes up silk (including spiderweb silk).
As to why you should believe that Keratin is shaped like a spring? I dunno, maybe because that's what the experimental evidence tells us?
It's not exactly hard to work out (or to predict for that matter) if you know anything about proteins and how the fold.
Keratin exists in two forms an Alpha Helix, and a Beta twisted sheet. Alpha Keratin is what makes up our hair and nails. Beta Keratin is what reptiles use (Beta Keratin is actually harder then Alpha Keratin). IIRC, Beta Keratin is also known as Fibroin, and is what makes up silk (including spiderweb silk).
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 16 2007, 11:08 PM)
That's why GR wasn't accepted into mainstream physics until the late twenties. Thirteen years, FFS. You want to justify yourself? Be my guest:
GR took so long to be accepted because lots of people were asking questions of it and since it was SO controversial it required a lot of evidence and robustness to be trusted.
When I first encountered you on this forum, Farsight, I read some essays and asked some pertinent questions. The answers were weak at best. Since then I have asked questions across a range of difficulties and you have difficulties even bothering to try and answer some of them. That's why most people see you as nothing more than a joke
GR took so long to be accepted because lots of people were asking questions of it and since it was SO controversial it required a lot of evidence and robustness to be trusted.
QUOTE
But hey, what do you know, no close scrutiny, and no difficult questions.
When I first encountered you on this forum, Farsight, I read some essays and asked some pertinent questions. The answers were weak at best. Since then I have asked questions across a range of difficulties and you have difficulties even bothering to try and answer some of them. That's why most people see you as nothing more than a joke
Rpenner
could to imagine that a positron travelling backward in time would part of the curvature of the spacetime,where the effect of time dilatation be equivalent to the
electron if transforming into positron,that to the observer is travelling backward in time,as a semi-circle of the spacetime.
then the tachyons are generated by transformations in the spacetime,backward
and forward in it orientation in the time,then particles whether transforming into
antiparticles are relativistics derived of the temporal diatation and spatial contraction,that determine the speed of light,as constant and limit;and is invariant
to the inertial referential systems in relative motions,that explain transformations left-handed rotational systems into right-handed rotational systems and viceversa
that are spinors.
then appear two photons,one real that measure the spacetime by us mapped and other,that is virtual that does transitions of particles and antiparticles,changing
the orientations of the spinors,in a non-euclidean spacetime( semi-riemannian),with non-commutativity topologic geometry,where the spinor change
it orientations in the spacetime,and beyond that spacetime,appear a complex spacetime manifolds,where travel the tachyons.
could to imagine that a positron travelling backward in time would part of the curvature of the spacetime,where the effect of time dilatation be equivalent to the
electron if transforming into positron,that to the observer is travelling backward in time,as a semi-circle of the spacetime.
then the tachyons are generated by transformations in the spacetime,backward
and forward in it orientation in the time,then particles whether transforming into
antiparticles are relativistics derived of the temporal diatation and spatial contraction,that determine the speed of light,as constant and limit;and is invariant
to the inertial referential systems in relative motions,that explain transformations left-handed rotational systems into right-handed rotational systems and viceversa
that are spinors.
then appear two photons,one real that measure the spacetime by us mapped and other,that is virtual that does transitions of particles and antiparticles,changing
the orientations of the spinors,in a non-euclidean spacetime( semi-riemannian),with non-commutativity topologic geometry,where the spinor change
it orientations in the spacetime,and beyond that spacetime,appear a complex spacetime manifolds,where travel the tachyons.
Well Trippy, I can't see any "genuine questions" in that last post of yours either. Just the same old sneering from the off, along with a total lack of sincerity, followed by lies as you pretend to be the epitome of politeness and rationality.
Let me repeat: if you wish to discuss Time, Energy, Mass or Charge Explained with sincerity, then ask your genuine questions on the relevant thread.
If you won't ask them there, you make it even more obvious that you aren't genuine. Because asking them here merely demonstrates that all you're really interested in is calling me a crank.
Let me repeat: if you wish to discuss Time, Energy, Mass or Charge Explained with sincerity, then ask your genuine questions on the relevant thread.
If you won't ask them there, you make it even more obvious that you aren't genuine. Because asking them here merely demonstrates that all you're really interested in is calling me a crank.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 16 2007, 10:34 AM)
Having read Mass explained, charge explained, time explained and energy explained, I have to be honest and say i've found them unenlightening, and they don't live up to their titles.
For example:
Mass Explained:
Why should a photon tied in a knot suddenly have mass?
Why should untying 2 knotted photons produce three or more photons?
What is the underlying mechanism that couples mass to gravity?
Charge explained:
Why should a photon chasing it's own tail suddenly develop a charge?
Why should tying the photon in the opposite direction reverse the charge?
Why should one photon tie itself into two knots?
How can you derive the charge of the electron from the field strength of the original photon?
Time explained:
I found the first part of this frought with erroneous analogies, the first and most obvious one that springs to mind is that I remember reading an article somewhere that when bats use their 'SONAR' it actually activates many of the same centers of their brain as sight does in humans, so a bat might argue for the existence of Phonons.
My other biggest objection to this 'essay' is a funadmental one.
You're conjecture that time is the passage of events is neither provable nor disprovable, because in order to confirm it, we must make an observation, or a measurement, but observations and measurements are in themselves events.
You also haven't explained why the direction that we perceive time to flow in happens to also be the direction of increasing entropy. Fundamentally, it would seem that any attempt to explain time must account for this observation.
I've also outlined my objection to describing gravity as a gradient in permittivity, and conjecturing that gravitational lensing occurs because light slows down - an objection the author has failed to adequitely explain, or demonstrate where my conjecture is in error.
As far as energy explained goes. There were several things that bugged me, but I can't put my finger on any of them. Maybe once i've gotten over this flu/chest infection i'll take another look and see if I can nail down specifics.
Farsight: Seeing as how your obviously too busy sneering, passing judgement, and making criticisims of other people to actually take the time to read what they're saying. I've quoted my most recent list of questions from when I made them Two days ago. What you do with them is of course, entirely up to you.
But i'm bored with this argument with you.
For example:
Mass Explained:
Why should a photon tied in a knot suddenly have mass?
Why should untying 2 knotted photons produce three or more photons?
What is the underlying mechanism that couples mass to gravity?
Charge explained:
Why should a photon chasing it's own tail suddenly develop a charge?
Why should tying the photon in the opposite direction reverse the charge?
Why should one photon tie itself into two knots?
How can you derive the charge of the electron from the field strength of the original photon?
Time explained:
I found the first part of this frought with erroneous analogies, the first and most obvious one that springs to mind is that I remember reading an article somewhere that when bats use their 'SONAR' it actually activates many of the same centers of their brain as sight does in humans, so a bat might argue for the existence of Phonons.
My other biggest objection to this 'essay' is a funadmental one.
You're conjecture that time is the passage of events is neither provable nor disprovable, because in order to confirm it, we must make an observation, or a measurement, but observations and measurements are in themselves events.
You also haven't explained why the direction that we perceive time to flow in happens to also be the direction of increasing entropy. Fundamentally, it would seem that any attempt to explain time must account for this observation.
I've also outlined my objection to describing gravity as a gradient in permittivity, and conjecturing that gravitational lensing occurs because light slows down - an objection the author has failed to adequitely explain, or demonstrate where my conjecture is in error.
As far as energy explained goes. There were several things that bugged me, but I can't put my finger on any of them. Maybe once i've gotten over this flu/chest infection i'll take another look and see if I can nail down specifics.
Farsight: Seeing as how your obviously too busy sneering, passing judgement, and making criticisims of other people to actually take the time to read what they're saying. I've quoted my most recent list of questions from when I made them Two days ago. What you do with them is of course, entirely up to you.
But i'm bored with this argument with you.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 17 2007, 12:44 PM)
Let me repeat: if you wish to discuss Time, Energy, Mass or Charge Explained with sincerity, then ask your genuine questions on the relevant thread.
.
Holy smoke, Farsight! you are so naive (Jeez, I hope I spelt it right this time), totally hilarious,
The other funny one is True Relativity who thinks Mr E, got it wrong and has took it upon himself to put things right, Christ 'ole mighty thats funny.
Cheers Guys
Darren
Euler - The Psyche Of The Common Crank
Euler and his fellow forum mafia friends, are perfect examples.
The title of section is, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!"
I posted a simple but revolutionary new version of the DSE, which once and for all dismisses any misconception of the duality of the 'electron' and makes (shows) the connection between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Yet for the past several months, all that Euler and fellow members of the forum mafia, have done is defend a self confessed paedophile and attack his victim. They have done nothing but attack and insult me, based on no scientific evidence or justification.
Because they cannot argue with my physics, which I have discussed with some of the greatest physicists and mathematicians in the world, all they have done is carried out their own private campaign of personal attacks, false insults and accusations.
They are the real cranks, they have no imagination or intuition and attack anyone who questions what they have been taught.
They hide behind false name and have nothing to show of their own.
I wish NOB, would not post portraits of himself, the only subject he is an expert on, an ***, on his own feed back rather than mine.
If you disagree with someone or do not like someone, you can say it once or ever twice.
But I have checked my feed back report, of the 48 negative attacks I have received, 42 came from only six members of this forum.
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
As I have discovered, to my cost, anyone with self respect, dignity, pride and honor, like myself, cannot defend themselves against scum, like NOB or Alpha. Especially when I am given warnings for posting pictures of John Lennon and Winston Churchill and my comments are deleted, whilst members of the 'forum mafia' can do or say or post any images they feel like, with the full support of the physics forum.
An open discussion and a constructive exchange of ideas is not allowed on this forum. You either agree and go along with the 'party' line, you'r either with them or against them, there is no middle ground, freedom of speech has no meaning here.
We cannot allow ALPHA NOB's of the world, to win.
If you disagree with the narrow single minded options of the 'forum mafia' you are attacked.
If you can prove your physics is correct, with a valid experiment, you are crucified.
What does not kill you, makes you stronger.
Kind regards
Terry Giblin
http://web.mac.com/terry_giblin/ - You might learn something.
Euler and his fellow forum mafia friends, are perfect examples.
The title of section is, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!"
I posted a simple but revolutionary new version of the DSE, which once and for all dismisses any misconception of the duality of the 'electron' and makes (shows) the connection between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Yet for the past several months, all that Euler and fellow members of the forum mafia, have done is defend a self confessed paedophile and attack his victim. They have done nothing but attack and insult me, based on no scientific evidence or justification.
Because they cannot argue with my physics, which I have discussed with some of the greatest physicists and mathematicians in the world, all they have done is carried out their own private campaign of personal attacks, false insults and accusations.
They are the real cranks, they have no imagination or intuition and attack anyone who questions what they have been taught.
They hide behind false name and have nothing to show of their own.
I wish NOB, would not post portraits of himself, the only subject he is an expert on, an ***, on his own feed back rather than mine.
If you disagree with someone or do not like someone, you can say it once or ever twice.
But I have checked my feed back report, of the 48 negative attacks I have received, 42 came from only six members of this forum.
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
As I have discovered, to my cost, anyone with self respect, dignity, pride and honor, like myself, cannot defend themselves against scum, like NOB or Alpha. Especially when I am given warnings for posting pictures of John Lennon and Winston Churchill and my comments are deleted, whilst members of the 'forum mafia' can do or say or post any images they feel like, with the full support of the physics forum.
An open discussion and a constructive exchange of ideas is not allowed on this forum. You either agree and go along with the 'party' line, you'r either with them or against them, there is no middle ground, freedom of speech has no meaning here.
We cannot allow ALPHA NOB's of the world, to win.
If you disagree with the narrow single minded options of the 'forum mafia' you are attacked.
If you can prove your physics is correct, with a valid experiment, you are crucified.
What does not kill you, makes you stronger.
Kind regards
Terry Giblin
http://web.mac.com/terry_giblin/ - You might learn something.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
Euler - The Psyche Of The Common Crank
Euler and his fellow forum mafia friends,
Euler and his fellow forum mafia friends,
Well, at least, they're not Nazis.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
are perfect examples.
Perfect examples of what? What is your thesis? With what evidence do you support it? How could you go to school in England and not learn how to write an essay?
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
The title of section is, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!"
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!"
This is an argument from the dictionary - which is generically a rather weak logical argument, and one that is deeply flawed in this case. The general topic of the whole board is focused on science and technology. The topic of this sub-board is new theories, as is this "forum". But the topic of of this new thread, as defined by its creator, Euler, is the personality and personality flaws of the average person who thinks they are going to revolutionize physics but somehow fail to do so. Thus, by missing the nested contexts, your dictionary attack is rendered impotent.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
I posted a simple but revolutionary new version of the DSE, which once and for all dismisses any misconception of the duality of the 'electron' and makes (shows) the connection between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
According to what authority or based on what data? These are claims, but where's the evidence?
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
Yet for the past several months, all that Euler and fellow members of the forum mafia, have done
You have no idea of all that they have done. You haven't even adequately summarized their collective contributions to this forum. You certainly aren't capable of listing their accomplishments and activities when not on this board.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
is defend a self confessed paedophile
That would be based on your unsupported attacks on "RH" of the WIPO? Didn't you list him as a reference? http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-125000.html
(I have just noticed the forum administrators have kindly purged previous references to "RH", which probably means certain lawyers have been busy. Only a damn fool would use their real name to make legal accusations against another on the Internet.)
(I have just noticed the forum administrators have kindly purged previous references to "RH", which probably means certain lawyers have been busy. Only a damn fool would use their real name to make legal accusations against another on the Internet.)
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
and attack his victim.
Even if what you say about RH is true, you are hardly a child. This is another example of unclear writing.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
They have done nothing but attack and insult me,
This is rather crude hyperbole. There's no money in attacking and insulting you. Not all of the forum mafia are independently wealthy.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
based on no scientific evidence or justification.
I seem to recall a lot of justification going as far back as an epistemological base of Socrates or Bacon (Roger, not Kevin).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15394&page=3
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15394&page=4
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=216633
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15394&page=3
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15394&page=4
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=216633
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
Because they cannot argue with my physics,
You can't argue with physics. You can't argue with a physics theory. You can only argue with a reasonable person. By inference you are saying you are not yourself a reasonable person. Interesting.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
which I have discussed with some of the greatest physicists and mathematicians in the world,
Since you did not specifically support this claim, the average reader is going to assume not one of these "greatest physicists and mathematicians in the world" endorsed even so much as examining your ideas.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
all they have done
See Above.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
is carried out their own private campaign of personal attacks, false insults and accusations.
God! I hope no one tells them about "RH", your other enemy, because then they could... oh, wait. You told them about "RH". Well, that wasn't very wise.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
They are the real cranks, they have no imagination or intuition and attack anyone who questions what they have been taught.
There is no evidence you questioned anything. You state categorically you have solved everything, not that you have questions. Rhetorical questions don't count, and while it's taken some time, many people assume that your use of question marks is a flawed attempt at rhetoric.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
They hide behind false name and have nothing to show of their own.
Only a damn fool would use their real name to express opinions on the Internet.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
I wish NOB, would not post portraits of himself, the only subject he is an expert on, an ***, on his own feed back rather than mine.
While I wish many things myself, I think the ability to post feedback on oneself would be subject to rampant abuse.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
If you disagree with someone or do not like someone, you can say it once or ever twice.
What's the authority for this statement? Wouldn't it be a problem if people who knew stuff to stop correcting people who were incorrect on the third try? One could imagine the problems of a President, who by law must be at least 35 years of age and presumably was wrong at least twice before in his life, insulating himself from dissent and them becoming completely out of touch with the world. I imagine that the results would be unpleasant.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
But I have checked my feed back report, of the 48 negative attacks I have received, 42 came from only six members of this forum.
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
I have checked and you have "9 unique negatives and 8 unique positives." So, as I understand a negative vote, you have failed to convince even half of those people that you are worth listening to.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
As I have discovered, to my cost, anyone with self respect, dignity, pride and honor, like myself,
All fine things in Southern Italy or Spain or Mexico, or Alabama. But I notice, nowhere do you list "intelligence, clear thinking, good exposition skills and wisdom."
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
cannot defend themselves against scum, like NOB or Alpha.
Other than disagreeing with you, in what way are "N O M" and Alpha similar?
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
Especially when I am given warnings for posting pictures of John Lennon and Winston Churchill and my comments are deleted, whilst members of the 'forum mafia' can do or say or post any images they feel like, with the full support of the physics forum.
Lack of action by management should not be construed as approval by management. You went many months before any action was taken against you, as I recall.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
An open discussion and a constructive exchange of ideas is not allowed on this forum.
... says the person making criticisms not only of other posters but of management.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
You either agree and go along with the 'party' line, your either with them or against them, there is no middle ground, freedom of speech has no meaning here.
(insert Princess Bride quote here.) Perhaps you are confusing freedom of speech with freedom from ridicule. Neither guarantees the other.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
We cannot allow ALPHA NOB's of the world, to win.
Why not?
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
If you disagree with the narrow single minded options of the 'forum mafia' you are attacked.
I'm certain "N O M" and Alpha disagree on many things. Can Communism ever succeed? What filling makes the best pirogi? How often a day should one wash the hands? What is the actual point of Dostoevsky's The Idiot? How long are you allowed to hug your male friend before it gets "gay?" Important questions and we haven't yet seen proof that they are of one mind.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
If you can prove your physics is correct, with a valid experiment, you are crucified.
It's amusing to think that you conveyed a proof of it. It's more amusing to think you have a valid experiment. "Quantum Barriers" are not stocked in my laboratory, sir. Not even a merely infinite number of them.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=228488
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=228488
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
What does not kill you, makes you stronger.
Not true of polio and amputations, to name but two examples.
LOL! Welcome aboard!
Until recently I really did not know even the meaning of the word "crank". Free thinking, wright or wrong thinking, any thinking should not be in any a priori "frame". Mind, Spirit is a free and open teritory without ANY limits.
But I am against "anarchy" from the simple reason of "personality". A real "person" simply should have s/his "copyright" but on the other hand, s/he will ALWAYS give his fruits to the community basicaly for free.
Respect
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+Aug 18 2007, 12:49 AM)
Kind regards
This feels insincere.
QUOTE (Terry Giblin+)
But I have checked my feed back report, of the 48 negative attacks I have received, 42 came from only six members of this forum.
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
Join the club. I didn't count them but roughly 80% of the negative comments I've received came from the same crowd.
It's just a symptom of public educational. I know at least a couple of them are employed by tax dollars as well, so you have both long term exposure to public education and then public employment following that. That's what "the system" does to some people (sadly it happens to many of what would otherwise be the best because Uncle Sam can print up enough dollars to buy the best).
After a while it dawns on you why science can get stuck into institutionally reinforced deadends. If people can only see a problem from a certain perspective then they'll come up with the same answers. (Einstein even commented on that before also)
11 from NOB, 8 from Alpha, 7 from Pupamancur, 6 from Euler and 4 from FD and Alpha.
Join the club. I didn't count them but roughly 80% of the negative comments I've received came from the same crowd.
It's just a symptom of public educational. I know at least a couple of them are employed by tax dollars as well, so you have both long term exposure to public education and then public employment following that. That's what "the system" does to some people (sadly it happens to many of what would otherwise be the best because Uncle Sam can print up enough dollars to buy the best).
After a while it dawns on you why science can get stuck into institutionally reinforced deadends. If people can only see a problem from a certain perspective then they'll come up with the same answers. (Einstein even commented on that before also)
Of course Farsight, something else occurs to me.
A rather obvious solution, that you don't seem to have figured out.
I'll give you a clue.
I am not demanding that you address my questions in any specific thread, just that you do so.
A rather obvious solution, that you don't seem to have figured out.
I'll give you a clue.
I am not demanding that you address my questions in any specific thread, just that you do so.
mostly complaining of excessive criticism. some avoiding of direct questions. some loose semantic nonsense. some articulating of profound modifications to our perceptions of reality while attempting to show the corruption of the brainwashed academic intelligencia.
well, good luck reconstructing an alternate mathematical basis independent of several thousand years of history to justify your claims.
well, good luck reconstructing an alternate mathematical basis independent of several thousand years of history to justify your claims.
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 16 2007, 08:08 AM)
If there were an example of spatial deformation, how would you expect to observe it? What properties would you expect it to have?
Look up the LIGO experiment and other gravity telescopes and find out how they expect to detect gravitational waves.
Look up Gravity Probe B and find out what two effects it measured.
Look up the LIGO experiment and other gravity telescopes and find out how they expect to detect gravitational waves.
Look up Gravity Probe B and find out what two effects it measured.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 15 2007, 09:44 PM)
Nope, I'm just trying to generalize them. For example, the Aether theory doesn't appears very general hypothesis of our Universe, because it leads to the requirement of infinite dense and hot Aether at the same time. Infinities are problem in every causal theory.
Fortunately it seems, the infinitely hot and dense Aether is rather sort of optical illusion: sort of mirror hall or bumpy glass effect, which multiplies the images and the motion of Aether particles observed. This renders whole the concept of observable reality rather abstract and apparently anthropocentric. The reality appears as density gradient driven, because it's the most effective way, how to see it. For example, we can see the laser ray in the dark just because of dispersion of light at the atmosphere fluctuations. We can see the reality just because we are density gradients formed too and just a pair of gradients can interract mutually. What's the real reality, after then? On the other hand, if the atmosphere fluctuations would become too strong, the light would become absorbed readily - so here's a sort of reality optimization problem. This can be why we see the reality both chaotic, both causal so we can ask, how the reality should appear to become best observable?
After all, even the AWT doesn't explain, what the Aether really is! So here's a lotta place for explanation and generalization of Aether concept on behalf to avoidance of the Aether concept less or more completely. But this is not so easy task and it's way, way outside of every practical possibility to prove or refute it. The AWT predicts, we are living inside of black hole and the outer Universe differs very slightly from the inside Universe (a generalization of heliocentric principle, which basically says, the mankind existence isn't exceptional by any way both in space, both in time). But how to verify such hypothesis, extrapolate the less?
Despite of their complexity from formal point of view, the contemporary theories appears as a childish toy models with compare to the recursive Aether concept.
Of course, you can help me to think about it.
I do not know how relevant this is, but that picture reminded me of something. I am sure everyone gets bored once in a while and fiddles around with those red laser pointers, pointing it at all sorts of things and though things. I pointed it through the shower door which is made of a glass that looks like the glass in Zephir's picture that the ball goes behind. The light of the laser spreads out in a pattern on the wall sort of like that one, except it looks like myriads of tiny sparkles. The pattern moves unless I set it to rest on something so it is still. These sparkles are not stuff of any sort. It is light, weird, but light. Perhaps this ether or whatever is a mysterious energy?
Fortunately it seems, the infinitely hot and dense Aether is rather sort of optical illusion: sort of mirror hall or bumpy glass effect, which multiplies the images and the motion of Aether particles observed. This renders whole the concept of observable reality rather abstract and apparently anthropocentric. The reality appears as density gradient driven, because it's the most effective way, how to see it. For example, we can see the laser ray in the dark just because of dispersion of light at the atmosphere fluctuations. We can see the reality just because we are density gradients formed too and just a pair of gradients can interract mutually. What's the real reality, after then? On the other hand, if the atmosphere fluctuations would become too strong, the light would become absorbed readily - so here's a sort of reality optimization problem. This can be why we see the reality both chaotic, both causal so we can ask, how the reality should appear to become best observable?
After all, even the AWT doesn't explain, what the Aether really is! So here's a lotta place for explanation and generalization of Aether concept on behalf to avoidance of the Aether concept less or more completely. But this is not so easy task and it's way, way outside of every practical possibility to prove or refute it. The AWT predicts, we are living inside of black hole and the outer Universe differs very slightly from the inside Universe (a generalization of heliocentric principle, which basically says, the mankind existence isn't exceptional by any way both in space, both in time). But how to verify such hypothesis, extrapolate the less?
Despite of their complexity from formal point of view, the contemporary theories appears as a childish toy models with compare to the recursive Aether concept.
Of course, you can help me to think about it.
I do not know how relevant this is, but that picture reminded me of something. I am sure everyone gets bored once in a while and fiddles around with those red laser pointers, pointing it at all sorts of things and though things. I pointed it through the shower door which is made of a glass that looks like the glass in Zephir's picture that the ball goes behind. The light of the laser spreads out in a pattern on the wall sort of like that one, except it looks like myriads of tiny sparkles. The pattern moves unless I set it to rest on something so it is still. These sparkles are not stuff of any sort. It is light, weird, but light. Perhaps this ether or whatever is a mysterious energy?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 16 2007, 12:11 PM)
Nah, that's just the gravity of the mass you are using as a lens, pulling the photons (light freq) towards it, slightly bending it's path in the process, to enable lensing.
I see gravity as a merely 'matter to matter' interaction, just like when photons hit you, the particle of gravity (gravitons?) hit you too. Albeit unlike photons, they pull you towards the source, rather than repel you away from it. It's a state system, push/pull, on/off, true/false etc. Same thing when it comes to kinetic energy, which has attract/repel states People need to get out of the mentality that when something collides with you, it will always push you away in classic Newtonian ways. Take atomic bonds for instance. They attract rather than repel. Or how about the strong force? That attracts rather than repels. Same with gravity too.
Imho, the whole 'spatial deformation due to gravity' theory (As created by Einstein), has been a grand deception.
Then why did a very picky austere bunch of physicists who worshipped Newton believe that Einstein got it right after they saw evidence of light warping in 1919? They did not sound like the sort of people who wanted someone to come along and overturn their established ways.
Wormholes....I am not sure. I have generally accepted the warping of space idea but am not sure how far it goes. Does it go as far as Gene Roddenbery thought?
I see gravity as a merely 'matter to matter' interaction, just like when photons hit you, the particle of gravity (gravitons?) hit you too. Albeit unlike photons, they pull you towards the source, rather than repel you away from it. It's a state system, push/pull, on/off, true/false etc. Same thing when it comes to kinetic energy, which has attract/repel states People need to get out of the mentality that when something collides with you, it will always push you away in classic Newtonian ways. Take atomic bonds for instance. They attract rather than repel. Or how about the strong force? That attracts rather than repels. Same with gravity too.
Imho, the whole 'spatial deformation due to gravity' theory (As created by Einstein), has been a grand deception.
Then why did a very picky austere bunch of physicists who worshipped Newton believe that Einstein got it right after they saw evidence of light warping in 1919? They did not sound like the sort of people who wanted someone to come along and overturn their established ways.
Wormholes....I am not sure. I have generally accepted the warping of space idea but am not sure how far it goes. Does it go as far as Gene Roddenbery thought?
May I present Your Imperial Majesty, the technical term: "Speckle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_pattern
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_speckle_pattern.html
http://www.rp-photonics.com/speckle.html
In addition to lasers, the image of distant stars is particularly vulnerable to atmospheric-based "speckle". Both "Speckle imaging" and "Lucky imaging" are techniques to try and get around this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Imaging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_pattern
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_speckle_pattern.html
http://www.rp-photonics.com/speckle.html
In addition to lasers, the image of distant stars is particularly vulnerable to atmospheric-based "speckle". Both "Speckle imaging" and "Lucky imaging" are techniques to try and get around this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Imaging
is possible that calaby-yau in 6-dimension,we could obtain the negative spacetime(
as the observer sees the particle changing it spin,and traveling in opposed direction the arrow of time,that have consciouness in 4-dimensions).then in 4D the
spacetime seen as negative is positive,to the holomorplics transformation of the
half-sphere observed in to the reality of the positive energy.then the spins and its
generations of spacetimes,are associated to quaternions without it conjugate.the proper quaternions are transformed into the proper spacetime,changing it signature,withour the energy states,that are always positive and definite,that is
given by complex manifold.with spins connected whitin the spatial direction,without
violate causality,already that the operator- time( that links the Reversal time operator and Parity operator) is twisted in direction only one.
then the time dilatations as symmetry in 6-dimensions,is the the electron moving
in opposed direction in the time,and therefore the spacetime is curved by two
chirality;that is the asymmetry right-left handness,that is the desitter space,hyperboloid.then in octonion space( C^4),the nonassociativity geometry
permit the continuum and discrete structures be conjugated into spacetime continuos positive totally( it is positive definite metric).
as the observer sees the particle changing it spin,and traveling in opposed direction the arrow of time,that have consciouness in 4-dimensions).then in 4D the
spacetime seen as negative is positive,to the holomorplics transformation of the
half-sphere observed in to the reality of the positive energy.then the spins and its
generations of spacetimes,are associated to quaternions without it conjugate.the proper quaternions are transformed into the proper spacetime,changing it signature,withour the energy states,that are always positive and definite,that is
given by complex manifold.with spins connected whitin the spatial direction,without
violate causality,already that the operator- time( that links the Reversal time operator and Parity operator) is twisted in direction only one.
then the time dilatations as symmetry in 6-dimensions,is the the electron moving
in opposed direction in the time,and therefore the spacetime is curved by two
chirality;that is the asymmetry right-left handness,that is the desitter space,hyperboloid.then in octonion space( C^4),the nonassociativity geometry
permit the continuum and discrete structures be conjugated into spacetime continuos positive totally( it is positive definite metric).
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Aug 18 2007, 09:24 AM)
The pattern moves unless I set it to rest on something so it is still. These sparkles are not stuff of any sort. It is light, weird, but light.
Yep, try to illuminate the piece of dense soap foam by laser pointer, for example: whole foam will start to shine! This is basically how the AWT explains perceived infinite mass / energy density of Aether foam. If we have look to the far distance or into Planck scale instead, we will see the space-time multirefringent and heavily polarized like during observation through mirror hall or bumpy glass. The myriads of Universe particles can become mostly result of giant optical illusion.
Because the number of hidden dimensions is restricted by any meaningful way, we can observe the Universe as a infinite glass labyrinth or foam. The whole Universe can still remain pretty limited, due the nearly infinite number of path combinations inside of foam: you can never get the distant target by unique way. Furthermore, the Universe at the Planck scale can be formed by exactly this material, which we observe at the distant scale - both spaces are interconnected mutually by some nontrivial way.
Yep, try to illuminate the piece of dense soap foam by laser pointer, for example: whole foam will start to shine! This is basically how the AWT explains perceived infinite mass / energy density of Aether foam. If we have look to the far distance or into Planck scale instead, we will see the space-time multirefringent and heavily polarized like during observation through mirror hall or bumpy glass. The myriads of Universe particles can become mostly result of giant optical illusion.
Because the number of hidden dimensions is restricted by any meaningful way, we can observe the Universe as a infinite glass labyrinth or foam. The whole Universe can still remain pretty limited, due the nearly infinite number of path combinations inside of foam: you can never get the distant target by unique way. Furthermore, the Universe at the Planck scale can be formed by exactly this material, which we observe at the distant scale - both spaces are interconnected mutually by some nontrivial way.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 17 2007, 06:39 AM)
Thanks to Microsoft's war with Java, I am having a hard time looking at this site, but it has a visual and mathematical explanation for superluminal group propagation as a boring natural consequence of "anomalous dispersion"
This is nonsense, the MS Java can be installed into MS IE7 by the same way, like the Sun Java runtime. The omitting of MS Java was the explicit request of Sun Company, not the Microsoft's idea. I've no problems when running Java applets on the site quoted by you in MS IE7 + Vista 32-bit environment.
Some MS VJ downloads:
http://www.saigoninfo.com/msjavx86.exe
http://www.meetingworks.com/files/msjavx86.exe
http://www.linktivity.com/home/java/msjavx86.exe
http://visiteinteractive.free.fr/VM_java/msjavx86.exe
http://www.laplink.com/download/pcsync/upgrade/msjavx86.exe
http://www.zxxl.com/files/msjavx86/
https://www.alibre.com/alibrelibraries/ftp/...T4/msjavx86.exe
Steps to install the Microsoft Virtual Machine:
This is nonsense, the MS Java can be installed into MS IE7 by the same way, like the Sun Java runtime. The omitting of MS Java was the explicit request of Sun Company, not the Microsoft's idea. I've no problems when running Java applets on the site quoted by you in MS IE7 + Vista 32-bit environment.
Some MS VJ downloads:
http://www.saigoninfo.com/msjavx86.exe
http://www.meetingworks.com/files/msjavx86.exe
http://www.linktivity.com/home/java/msjavx86.exe
http://visiteinteractive.free.fr/VM_java/msjavx86.exe
http://www.laplink.com/download/pcsync/upgrade/msjavx86.exe
http://www.zxxl.com/files/msjavx86/
https://www.alibre.com/alibrelibraries/ftp/...T4/msjavx86.exe
Steps to install the Microsoft Virtual Machine:
- Download the file using the links above and save it to your hard drive.
- Once the file is on your hard drive, execute it and thus load the Virtual Machine.
- As the file begins execution, answer Yes to the License Agreement question and then once complete, re-boot your PC.
- Once the PC is re-booted you should be set to go
majkl
What about- The existence of universe is impossible because it came out of nothing. Nothing can come out of nothing. So universe is simply non-existent.
This is a common misconception. Absolute nothing is a perfect vacuum complete with vacuum force; the force is creative in that the quantity of vacuum force cannot be reduced without reducing the quantity of nothing and that can only be done by replacing the reduction of nothing with an equal quantity of something. The only question that cannot be answered is why does an infinite vacuum have force.
To see one possible way this works see:
http://69.5.17.59/clf4.pdf
(The compaction mentioned in this model occurs in vortexes).
The so-called anti-force is actually the effect that vacuum force has on the elasticity of matter. It is for that reason that the elastic force (i.e. anti-force) is always equal in strength and opposite in direction to the vacuum force.
What about- The existence of universe is impossible because it came out of nothing. Nothing can come out of nothing. So universe is simply non-existent.
This is a common misconception. Absolute nothing is a perfect vacuum complete with vacuum force; the force is creative in that the quantity of vacuum force cannot be reduced without reducing the quantity of nothing and that can only be done by replacing the reduction of nothing with an equal quantity of something. The only question that cannot be answered is why does an infinite vacuum have force.
To see one possible way this works see:
http://69.5.17.59/clf4.pdf
(The compaction mentioned in this model occurs in vortexes).
The so-called anti-force is actually the effect that vacuum force has on the elasticity of matter. It is for that reason that the elastic force (i.e. anti-force) is always equal in strength and opposite in direction to the vacuum force.
Ok, ok, ok!
I give up!
I'm a crank and proud of it!
Fu@k the mainstream. Screw Intellectual property and patents.
Anarchy Rulez!
I give up!
I'm a crank and proud of it!
Fu@k the mainstream. Screw Intellectual property and patents.
Anarchy Rulez!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Aug 18 2007, 06:48 PM)
Ok, ok, ok!
I give up!
I'm a crank and proud of it!
Fu@k the mainstream. Screw Intellectual property and patents.
Anarchy Rulez!
LOL! Welcome aboard!
I give up!
I'm a crank and proud of it!
Fu@k the mainstream. Screw Intellectual property and patents.
Anarchy Rulez!
LOL! Welcome aboard!
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 18 2007, 09:14 PM)
LOL! Welcome aboard!
Until recently I really did not know even the meaning of the word "crank". Free thinking, wright or wrong thinking, any thinking should not be in any a priori "frame". Mind, Spirit is a free and open teritory without ANY limits.
But I am against "anarchy" from the simple reason of "personality". A real "person" simply should have s/his "copyright" but on the other hand, s/he will ALWAYS give his fruits to the community basicaly for free.
Respect
QUOTE (Turya+Aug 18 2007, 09:37 PM)
Until recently I really did not know even the meaning of the word "crank". Free thinking, wright or wrong thinking, any thinking should not be in any a priori "frame". Mind, Spirit is a free and open teritory without ANY limits.
But I am against "anarchy" from the simple reason of "personality". A real "person" simply should have s/his "copyright" but on the other hand, s/he will ALWAYS give his fruits to the community basicaly for free.
Respect
I think fraud is the issue here, but would agree that people should be free to pursue their thoughts and ideas and if someone feels a need to not share some of their thoughts etc. with others, that's fine, or if they desire to exchange something (yes, including cash or property or even a "thank you") it's up to them as they're free to offer what they want as well.
The problem with the idea of copyrights and patents is that they can be abused to truly allow theft to occur (without these, at most someone can copy you but thay can't deny you still using your own knowledge as you desire) as you can legally force someone else into not using whatever knowledge they possess.
In a free market under capitalism people own their life, property and labor, etc. not envisioned marketplaces they aren't competing in, nor ideas that others have that might be similar to yours nor something that someone else builds that resembles something you've created etc.
A new way to reward content creators, inventors, engineers etc. would automatically arise without the current system and it would benefit everyone better and make such knowledge more valuable and require less reinventing the wheel (to get around someone else's patent). Customers want products, designers want to get paid to create them and producers want stuff to make. Without artificially constructed legal monopolies on intangible entities like a market (and the effective ability to steal ideas via. intellectual property) you'd see a natural shift toward producers within a common industry paying designers to create content for them to produce and consumers having the best of all this as no designer can sit on a great patented idea and do nothing with it, nor can he delegate production of only limited supply creating an unnecessary scarcity as some alternate producer would utilize that same knowledge to compete and those designing would be worth more because their creations wouldn't be limited to single producers but entire industries.
Not only this but it removes the possibility for corruption and inefficiencies in the assignment and enforcement of patents and I.P. as well as all the legal burdens and police actions accompanying them.
So, for example, if you've discovered a cure for AIDS, without a system of patents or I.P laws (which interestingly enough many, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed adding to the constitution ... truly the system has been abused and I.P. laws are a recent addition), you'd not be making individual doses of this cure yourself as you'd have no ability to claim the market as solely yours, so instead you'd offer to sell/reveal the information to any and all interested (at some time at which you feel the offers are adequately compensating). So you'd be marketing simultaneously to people having AID and those companies capable of providing that cure and the offers would be effectively pooled. If someone with AIDs felt it was worth offering $1000 for you to release this information, they could offer that, or if they didn't care, they could offer nothing. You'd likely need a reliable, private third party (company) to broker these offers and only pay the inventor once the claims were verified, but in this way noone is physically impeded in doing anything or using whatever knowledge they have to its fullest (if someone else found another way of curing AIDS in the interim, they could similarly compete with you and only expect maybe $10 million incompensation instead of $100 million)
Similarly, Microsoft doesn't need I.P. laws to sell Windows (and we'd be better off without I.P. laws creating artificial impediments to competition). Microsoft can offer upgrades to Windows and publicly release them once customers have offered adequate compensation in exchange for this (if people truly don't feel a new upgrade for Windows is worth X hundreds of billion of dollars, then that's fine, Microsoft can sit on it and hope people get hungry or up the marketting pressure). Of course the issue here would be over maintaining the secrecy of developments (but seriously even WITH the patent and I.P. systems we have such secrecy and in some ways even more because a competitor can current patent something you've worked on and even deny you from using your own thoughts ... now that really sucks and it can make people not want to share knowledge are feel obligated to waste a lot of time trying to assure knowledge is adequately marked as "public domain". The fact that so many people spend so much effort to create open standards etc. should be an indication of the level of the problem)
Ok, so I'm totally off thread here but maybe a few of these "crank" ideas will become a bit more mainstream in the future. We'll see ... (it might be impossible to maintain the current system in the U.S. if it impedes technological growth too much here ... it's not that the U.S. couldn't do well competing with many countries but that we're effectively cutting our own throats technologically and economically in many ways).
(What I initially meant to say was that I believe your concern is over fraudulent representation of something. Competition should be free and people own themselves their thoughts and should be free to whatever they want with their body or whatever physical property they possess etc. but intentionally misrepresenting something, like painting a picture and signing it as if it were painted by someone else, or selling a product and claiming it does various things you know it doesn't do, should be seen as destructive and illegal, just as trashing someones house or stealing their car etc. though it's a finer line to determine what someones intentions are and "truth" can be a flexible subject. At a minimum, the buyer should be wary if laws against fraud don't exist)
Truly the current system is effectively unconstitutional anyway because patents were required to expire and recently Congress just keeps extending their duration so they aren't expiring (likely some of their buddies are pressuring for this in maintaining artificially constructed legal monopolies that simply inhibit alternatives and provide no new value .... and it makes no logical sense to say that if a patent was created under the expectation of a 7 year window, then it was worth it that time for someone to seek that patent for 7 years. Later allowing them to possess the patent for 15 or 20 years etc. provides no additional incentive to create anything else, so even under the logic by which the system was constructed, it makes no sense to extend the duration of existing patents).
BTW, if we had a bit more anarchy, I'd grab a few buddies and do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
(Truth is that, even though I don't think communism is likely to work well for anyone, if it's a system built upon non-coercive participation within a limited group of people, it's not impossible to be doable, but you can do the same under capitalism by pooling some resources and effectively "profit sharing". As long as some boundaries are respected ("good fences make good neighbors") you could have a wide diversity of communities living in various ways and noone would need to feel much of any political obligation to compete over national laws ... there are truly only a few realms where interests between such communities would overlap, like pollution, and so for those issues you'd need some way to resolve conflicts, but otherwise you can have Christian, capitalists, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists etc. all living peacefully side by side with little inherent conflict - if some group of people decide they can handle some forms of drug use, they'd be responsible for whatever consequences or benefit resulted from this and that wouldn't create a conflict within some other community desiring not to allow this or the same for marriages or Social Security or the War in Iraq as well. There are few issues that truly need to be addressed nationally but you won't here anyone in D.C. admitting it because it pays to keep the scam going.
But I am against "anarchy" from the simple reason of "personality". A real "person" simply should have s/his "copyright" but on the other hand, s/he will ALWAYS give his fruits to the community basicaly for free.
Respect
I think fraud is the issue here, but would agree that people should be free to pursue their thoughts and ideas and if someone feels a need to not share some of their thoughts etc. with others, that's fine, or if they desire to exchange something (yes, including cash or property or even a "thank you") it's up to them as they're free to offer what they want as well.
The problem with the idea of copyrights and patents is that they can be abused to truly allow theft to occur (without these, at most someone can copy you but thay can't deny you still using your own knowledge as you desire) as you can legally force someone else into not using whatever knowledge they possess.
In a free market under capitalism people own their life, property and labor, etc. not envisioned marketplaces they aren't competing in, nor ideas that others have that might be similar to yours nor something that someone else builds that resembles something you've created etc.
A new way to reward content creators, inventors, engineers etc. would automatically arise without the current system and it would benefit everyone better and make such knowledge more valuable and require less reinventing the wheel (to get around someone else's patent). Customers want products, designers want to get paid to create them and producers want stuff to make. Without artificially constructed legal monopolies on intangible entities like a market (and the effective ability to steal ideas via. intellectual property) you'd see a natural shift toward producers within a common industry paying designers to create content for them to produce and consumers having the best of all this as no designer can sit on a great patented idea and do nothing with it, nor can he delegate production of only limited supply creating an unnecessary scarcity as some alternate producer would utilize that same knowledge to compete and those designing would be worth more because their creations wouldn't be limited to single producers but entire industries.
Not only this but it removes the possibility for corruption and inefficiencies in the assignment and enforcement of patents and I.P. as well as all the legal burdens and police actions accompanying them.
So, for example, if you've discovered a cure for AIDS, without a system of patents or I.P laws (which interestingly enough many, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed adding to the constitution ... truly the system has been abused and I.P. laws are a recent addition), you'd not be making individual doses of this cure yourself as you'd have no ability to claim the market as solely yours, so instead you'd offer to sell/reveal the information to any and all interested (at some time at which you feel the offers are adequately compensating). So you'd be marketing simultaneously to people having AID and those companies capable of providing that cure and the offers would be effectively pooled. If someone with AIDs felt it was worth offering $1000 for you to release this information, they could offer that, or if they didn't care, they could offer nothing. You'd likely need a reliable, private third party (company) to broker these offers and only pay the inventor once the claims were verified, but in this way noone is physically impeded in doing anything or using whatever knowledge they have to its fullest (if someone else found another way of curing AIDS in the interim, they could similarly compete with you and only expect maybe $10 million incompensation instead of $100 million
)Similarly, Microsoft doesn't need I.P. laws to sell Windows (and we'd be better off without I.P. laws creating artificial impediments to competition). Microsoft can offer upgrades to Windows and publicly release them once customers have offered adequate compensation in exchange for this (if people truly don't feel a new upgrade for Windows is worth X hundreds of billion of dollars, then that's fine, Microsoft can sit on it and hope people get hungry or up the marketting pressure). Of course the issue here would be over maintaining the secrecy of developments (but seriously even WITH the patent and I.P. systems we have such secrecy and in some ways even more because a competitor can current patent something you've worked on and even deny you from using your own thoughts ... now that really sucks and it can make people not want to share knowledge are feel obligated to waste a lot of time trying to assure knowledge is adequately marked as "public domain". The fact that so many people spend so much effort to create open standards etc. should be an indication of the level of the problem)
Ok, so I'm totally off thread here but maybe a few of these "crank" ideas will become a bit more mainstream in the future. We'll see ... (it might be impossible to maintain the current system in the U.S. if it impedes technological growth too much here ... it's not that the U.S. couldn't do well competing with many countries but that we're effectively cutting our own throats technologically and economically in many ways).
(What I initially meant to say was that I believe your concern is over fraudulent representation of something. Competition should be free and people own themselves their thoughts and should be free to whatever they want with their body or whatever physical property they possess etc. but intentionally misrepresenting something, like painting a picture and signing it as if it were painted by someone else, or selling a product and claiming it does various things you know it doesn't do, should be seen as destructive and illegal, just as trashing someones house or stealing their car etc. though it's a finer line to determine what someones intentions are and "truth" can be a flexible subject. At a minimum, the buyer should be wary if laws against fraud don't exist)
Truly the current system is effectively unconstitutional anyway because patents were required to expire and recently Congress just keeps extending their duration so they aren't expiring (likely some of their buddies are pressuring for this in maintaining artificially constructed legal monopolies that simply inhibit alternatives and provide no new value .... and it makes no logical sense to say that if a patent was created under the expectation of a 7 year window, then it was worth it that time for someone to seek that patent for 7 years. Later allowing them to possess the patent for 15 or 20 years etc. provides no additional incentive to create anything else, so even under the logic by which the system was constructed, it makes no sense to extend the duration of existing patents).
BTW, if we had a bit more anarchy, I'd grab a few buddies and do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
(Truth is that, even though I don't think communism is likely to work well for anyone, if it's a system built upon non-coercive participation within a limited group of people, it's not impossible to be doable, but you can do the same under capitalism by pooling some resources and effectively "profit sharing". As long as some boundaries are respected ("good fences make good neighbors") you could have a wide diversity of communities living in various ways and noone would need to feel much of any political obligation to compete over national laws ... there are truly only a few realms where interests between such communities would overlap, like pollution, and so for those issues you'd need some way to resolve conflicts, but otherwise you can have Christian, capitalists, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists etc. all living peacefully side by side with little inherent conflict - if some group of people decide they can handle some forms of drug use, they'd be responsible for whatever consequences or benefit resulted from this and that wouldn't create a conflict within some other community desiring not to allow this or the same for marriages or Social Security or the War in Iraq as well. There are few issues that truly need to be addressed nationally but you won't here anyone in D.C. admitting it because it pays to keep the scam going.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 18 2007, 01:34 PM)
Yep, try to illuminate the piece of dense soap foam by laser pointer, for example: whole foam will start to shine! This is basically how the AWT explains perceived infinite mass / energy density of Aether foam. If we have look to the far distance or into Planck scale instead, we will see the space-time multirefringent and heavily polarized like during observation through mirror hall or bumpy glass. The myriads of Universe particles can become mostly result of giant optical illusion.
I'll have to give that a try the next time I am using sudsy water.
rpenner, that sure explains something (about how a rough surface or glass distorts the lasers waves so it speckles weirdly). I was wondering why only the laser did that but no other light I have.
I'll have to give that a try the next time I am using sudsy water.
rpenner, that sure explains something (about how a rough surface or glass distorts the lasers waves so it speckles weirdly). I was wondering why only the laser did that but no other light I have.
It's because for a both good quality laser and a star of negligible angular measure, indeed even for light coming though a sufficiently small pinhole, the light is spatially coherent. Spatially coherent light has flat wavefronts which strike the illuminated surface, which if not "optically flat" reflects back wavefronts in a more disorganized pattern, occasionally with geometry that cancels each other out. That's why the speckles seem to be on the illuminated surface if the laser is held still. It's an aspect of the geometry of the surface.
But lasers are much brighter than pinhole illumination or starlight, so the common man can get their hands on it with ease and without the need for fancy detectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)
Here's an experiment which used a pinhole to make a spatially coherent beam of x-rays.
http://www.aps.anl.gov/News/Reports/1999/retschc1.pdf
And here's a citation to an experiment which does the same with matter beams of helium.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97a3202P
(Which comes to no surprise to those who have embraced quantum physics from De Broglie to Feynman, etc.)
But lasers are much brighter than pinhole illumination or starlight, so the common man can get their hands on it with ease and without the need for fancy detectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)
Here's an experiment which used a pinhole to make a spatially coherent beam of x-rays.
http://www.aps.anl.gov/News/Reports/1999/retschc1.pdf
And here's a citation to an experiment which does the same with matter beams of helium.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97a3202P
(Which comes to no surprise to those who have embraced quantum physics from De Broglie to Feynman, etc.)
RPENNER
How your oppinion to respect of the possibility of the construction nonassociative and noncommutative geometry( with any contact with the differential geometry,obviuosly),based in the algebra of the octonions.this construction is made in the tentative to unify discrete and continuos spacetimes.
speaking in crank.that idea is crank?
How your oppinion to respect of the possibility of the construction nonassociative and noncommutative geometry( with any contact with the differential geometry,obviuosly),based in the algebra of the octonions.this construction is made in the tentative to unify discrete and continuos spacetimes.
speaking in crank.that idea is crank?
It's an idea which is being explored. To my knowledge the explorers have not yet made statements which can be given an experimental test. The idea is not "crank" or "crackpot," but holding to the idea after experiment has shown it to be wrong is.
So first, NCG must make a testable prediction which differs quantitatively from GR or QFT predictions from the postulates of NCG. The NCG explorers are eager to do this. That is not being a crank.
Once the prediction is made it must be compared to existing experiments and if those are not sufficient to distinguish NCG from GR or QFT, new experiments that do must be done. That is not being a crank.
If the prediction is found to be wrong and the people who previously adhered to NCG would appear to have been wrong, not cranks. If one person continues to adhere to NCG after the prediction has been shown to be wrong, that does not make them a crank. The person may find a flaw in the prediction and make an argument that NCG had not been properly tested. The person may discover a related NCG' that agrees with experiment. Future testing may have shown the experimental design was deeply flawed. Or future testing may eventually convince the NCG adherent that NCG is wrong after all. None of that behavior is that of a crank.
A crank is someone who holds to an idea which has been thoroughly rejected by experiment. A crank is someone who makes physics claims without logic and math connecting them to observations. A crank is someone who interprets disagreement as both persecution and proof of correctness. Currently, people who use or develop models with NCG, super-symmetry, a minimal Higgs model, strings, loop quantum gravity and/or axions are not considered cranks. People who advocate any of a Newtonian-dynamics immobile luminiferous ether, a Newtonian-dynamics dragged luminiferous ether, a Newtonian ballistic theory of light, the non-existence of time dilation, the exactness of Maxwell's equations, the exactness of Newton's Second Law, the exactness of Newton's Universal Gravitation, are either cranks or undereducated people who have been unwisely listening to cranks. By education, I don't mean religious indoctrination, but simple education on what the state of the art is in experimental testing. Naturally, anyone who at anytime confuses the practice of physics with slavish devotion to dogma is a crank. Physicists are slaves to logic and experiment, not dogma.
(Physics educators below the college level are a different matter. Apparently some of them are slaves and some are lazy. But there are good ones out there.)
So first, NCG must make a testable prediction which differs quantitatively from GR or QFT predictions from the postulates of NCG. The NCG explorers are eager to do this. That is not being a crank.
Once the prediction is made it must be compared to existing experiments and if those are not sufficient to distinguish NCG from GR or QFT, new experiments that do must be done. That is not being a crank.
If the prediction is found to be wrong and the people who previously adhered to NCG would appear to have been wrong, not cranks. If one person continues to adhere to NCG after the prediction has been shown to be wrong, that does not make them a crank. The person may find a flaw in the prediction and make an argument that NCG had not been properly tested. The person may discover a related NCG' that agrees with experiment. Future testing may have shown the experimental design was deeply flawed. Or future testing may eventually convince the NCG adherent that NCG is wrong after all. None of that behavior is that of a crank.
A crank is someone who holds to an idea which has been thoroughly rejected by experiment. A crank is someone who makes physics claims without logic and math connecting them to observations. A crank is someone who interprets disagreement as both persecution and proof of correctness. Currently, people who use or develop models with NCG, super-symmetry, a minimal Higgs model, strings, loop quantum gravity and/or axions are not considered cranks. People who advocate any of a Newtonian-dynamics immobile luminiferous ether, a Newtonian-dynamics dragged luminiferous ether, a Newtonian ballistic theory of light, the non-existence of time dilation, the exactness of Maxwell's equations, the exactness of Newton's Second Law, the exactness of Newton's Universal Gravitation, are either cranks or undereducated people who have been unwisely listening to cranks. By education, I don't mean religious indoctrination, but simple education on what the state of the art is in experimental testing. Naturally, anyone who at anytime confuses the practice of physics with slavish devotion to dogma is a crank. Physicists are slaves to logic and experiment, not dogma.
(Physics educators below the college level are a different matter. Apparently some of them are slaves and some are lazy. But there are good ones out there.)
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 20 2007, 05:46 AM)
It's because for a both good quality laser and a star of negligible angular measure, indeed even for light coming though a sufficiently small pinhole, the light is spatially coherent. Spatially coherent light has flat wavefronts which
Wouldn't going through a pinhole turn it into a spherical wavefront?
Wouldn't going through a pinhole turn it into a spherical wavefront?
Amend that to "indeed even for light coming though a sufficiently small pinhole sufficently far away,"
The wave fronts are spherical, even for a laser or a star, but they can be approximately flat. Even lasers spread - a laser pointed at the moon will be many km wide when it hits the moon which is why it is too dim for the unaided eye to see the flash of retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions. But this can be seen by telescopes and instruments.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
The radius of curvature for star light is measured in lightyears so it is "flatter" than any mere laser. But lasers are brighter and easier for the hobbiest to get their hands on.
The wave fronts are spherical, even for a laser or a star, but they can be approximately flat. Even lasers spread - a laser pointed at the moon will be many km wide when it hits the moon which is why it is too dim for the unaided eye to see the flash of retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions. But this can be seen by telescopes and instruments.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
The radius of curvature for star light is measured in lightyears so it is "flatter" than any mere laser. But lasers are brighter and easier for the hobbiest to get their hands on.
Rpenner...
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Aug 20 2007, 11:21 PM)
Rpenner...
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
Well, not in such terms. (Because you didn't define which concept you were speaking of specifically.) I would however say:
1) The 17th center ether theory where the planets are kept in their places by vortices is ruled out. Newton did this.
2) The 19th century ether theory where a Newtonian solid propagated light as waves is ruled out by the excellently designed Michelson-Morley experiment and the Trouton-Noble experiment.
3) The 19th century ether theory where a Newtonian fluid propagated light and was dragged to greater or lesser extents by dielectrics is ruled out by observations of Stellar Aberration.
4) The Lorentzian theory where the stationary, Newtonian solid ether coexists with FitzGerald length contraction is ruled out by the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and by Faraday's Unipolar induction, using a moving magnet, which seems to tell us only relative, not absolute motion is important in electromagnetism.
So if someone wants to try to revive the term "ether" all these Newtonian and intuitional physical meanings have to be completely thrown out. It's much if I wanted to describe a flavor as "puce" but not compare it to the flavor of any pale purple food. Because all these previous notions which went under the name ether/aether have been trashed by confrontation with experiment, anyone who wants to raise these previous definitions as a viable theory is a crank.
However, some people want to continue to use the word in some specialized sense. This, I feel is unwise. If I going to get people's love and respect, I will not name my new organization the "National A-to-Z Institute," (NAZI). It's just stupid to take an old, discredited name and try to redefine it into a new useful purpose. It's wiser to start with a new name. Say, the "American Institute Educating European Everyones," (AIEEE).
Much better.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
Also Newton's Principia
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
Well, not in such terms. (Because you didn't define which concept you were speaking of specifically.) I would however say:
1) The 17th center ether theory where the planets are kept in their places by vortices is ruled out. Newton did this.
2) The 19th century ether theory where a Newtonian solid propagated light as waves is ruled out by the excellently designed Michelson-Morley experiment and the Trouton-Noble experiment.
3) The 19th century ether theory where a Newtonian fluid propagated light and was dragged to greater or lesser extents by dielectrics is ruled out by observations of Stellar Aberration.
4) The Lorentzian theory where the stationary, Newtonian solid ether coexists with FitzGerald length contraction is ruled out by the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and by Faraday's Unipolar induction, using a moving magnet, which seems to tell us only relative, not absolute motion is important in electromagnetism.
So if someone wants to try to revive the term "ether" all these Newtonian and intuitional physical meanings have to be completely thrown out. It's much if I wanted to describe a flavor as "puce" but not compare it to the flavor of any pale purple food. Because all these previous notions which went under the name ether/aether have been trashed by confrontation with experiment, anyone who wants to raise these previous definitions as a viable theory is a crank.
However, some people want to continue to use the word in some specialized sense. This, I feel is unwise. If I going to get people's love and respect, I will not name my new organization the "National A-to-Z Institute," (NAZI). It's just stupid to take an old, discredited name and try to redefine it into a new useful purpose. It's wiser to start with a new name. Say, the "American Institute Educating European Everyones," (AIEEE).
Much better.http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
Also Newton's Principia
My Aether assumptions would be as follows:
1. The spontaneous creation of virtual pairs from vacuum energy, as possibly demonstrated by the casimir effect, gives evidence for a background structure to 'spacetime' that gives the virtual particles their 'definition'.
2. These virtual pairs would seem to align with basic string theory concepts, as each end of the string would represent a point particle of opposing charge.
3. This 'background' naturally vibrates at 'c', allowing the translation of 'light' (not heavy) electromagnetic energy at this velocity.
4. Because the structure of this background and its means for creating virtual pairs includes a natural duality (north-south, positive-negative), it gives back Maxwell's original intent behind his equations and field line descriptions with or without Heaviside's reinterpretation.
5. The presence of 'heavy' electromagnetic energy (matter) deforms the vibrations of the virtual background that surrounds it, giving rise to an additional spin that propagates outwards from a point-like source in an inverse square relationship and provides for a net attraction between heavy energies by interaction of spins between virtual pairs. (Monopole effect) This additional spin is what gives rise to gravity.
Those are just a few of the assumptions I'd be thinking of in regards to modern aether theory...
I believe that spintronics, a very new field, should be able to provide the necessary insights and means for falsification in determining whether or not gravity is a product of this 'virtual spin.' However, I've yet to devise an experiment.
Can you think of a better name than Aether?
Or would it be possible to eliminate the stigma that has been attached by a somewhat biased scientific community?
1. The spontaneous creation of virtual pairs from vacuum energy, as possibly demonstrated by the casimir effect, gives evidence for a background structure to 'spacetime' that gives the virtual particles their 'definition'.
2. These virtual pairs would seem to align with basic string theory concepts, as each end of the string would represent a point particle of opposing charge.
3. This 'background' naturally vibrates at 'c', allowing the translation of 'light' (not heavy) electromagnetic energy at this velocity.
4. Because the structure of this background and its means for creating virtual pairs includes a natural duality (north-south, positive-negative), it gives back Maxwell's original intent behind his equations and field line descriptions with or without Heaviside's reinterpretation.
5. The presence of 'heavy' electromagnetic energy (matter) deforms the vibrations of the virtual background that surrounds it, giving rise to an additional spin that propagates outwards from a point-like source in an inverse square relationship and provides for a net attraction between heavy energies by interaction of spins between virtual pairs. (Monopole effect) This additional spin is what gives rise to gravity.
Those are just a few of the assumptions I'd be thinking of in regards to modern aether theory...
I believe that spintronics, a very new field, should be able to provide the necessary insights and means for falsification in determining whether or not gravity is a product of this 'virtual spin.' However, I've yet to devise an experiment.
Can you think of a better name than Aether?
Or would it be possible to eliminate the stigma that has been attached by a somewhat biased scientific community?
Gentleman/ladies, et al
To support rpenner , I have been this type of work for (wow I feel old) but with the new technology we have and experiment's that have been done dealing with space.
1. Frame dragging no calculation were necessary to adjust for (aether) & this test from NASA. Frame dragging is one of the last frontiers in relativity. More familiar and already proven are the conversion of mass into energy (as seen in atomic bombs and stars) and back, the Lorentz transformations that make objects near the speed of light grow thinner and heavier and stretch time, and the warping of space by gravity (as seen when light is bent by a massive object).
2. The satellites that have been sent for exploration of the universe again no adjustments were made for this fictitious substance (aether).
The WMAP, Hubble, etc. when receiving data the same as above no need for recalculation for aether.
There is more, but I guess less is best. wink.gif
ciao_
yquantum
rpenner, like your signature at the bottom.
To support rpenner , I have been this type of work for (wow I feel old) but with the new technology we have and experiment's that have been done dealing with space.
1. Frame dragging no calculation were necessary to adjust for (aether) & this test from NASA. Frame dragging is one of the last frontiers in relativity. More familiar and already proven are the conversion of mass into energy (as seen in atomic bombs and stars) and back, the Lorentz transformations that make objects near the speed of light grow thinner and heavier and stretch time, and the warping of space by gravity (as seen when light is bent by a massive object).
2. The satellites that have been sent for exploration of the universe again no adjustments were made for this fictitious substance (aether).
The WMAP, Hubble, etc. when receiving data the same as above no need for recalculation for aether.
There is more, but I guess less is best. wink.gif
ciao_
yquantum
rpenner, like your signature at the bottom.
Hi Rpenner, Yquantum,
There is no question about the validity of relativity, and to be honest, I can only follow SR and not GR, the maths is simply too complicated for me. Never the less, relativity's validity is called into question quite regularly here on this forum.
Perhaps a simpler better understanding as to why it is valid can be brought about by considering it as simply as a measure of the universe from a differential perspective. We all know that differential measurements quantities are simply more accurate than single ended ones. No matter what you decide to measure.
Highly accurate electronic measuring equipment owe their measurement accuracy to auto zero or differential techniques, I know it well and of course I am aware that this being a single coordinate axis measurement where as relativity deals with four, a little more complex, granted.
Cheers all
Darren
There is no question about the validity of relativity, and to be honest, I can only follow SR and not GR, the maths is simply too complicated for me. Never the less, relativity's validity is called into question quite regularly here on this forum.
Perhaps a simpler better understanding as to why it is valid can be brought about by considering it as simply as a measure of the universe from a differential perspective. We all know that differential measurements quantities are simply more accurate than single ended ones. No matter what you decide to measure.
Highly accurate electronic measuring equipment owe their measurement accuracy to auto zero or differential techniques, I know it well and of course I am aware that this being a single coordinate axis measurement where as relativity deals with four, a little more complex, granted.
Cheers all
Darren
If it is those old ideas that rpenner lists, then yes, aether is yesterdays news, a theory long discredited. If it is more as Solid State Universe is describing, then hmmmm....maybe. What he describes sounds way too complicated for me to evaluate in detail; but if it is some mysterious and hidden energy which does not interfere with known established experiments or relativity, perhaps they will find it one day even if years hence when better instruments are invented. Perhaps this is why I am on the fence when people talk aether. I have to really listen closely to exactly what is meant (which can be hard when it comes to technical jargon).
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Aug 21 2007, 03:55 AM)
If it is those old ideas that rpenner lists, then yes, aether is yesterdays news, a theory long discredited. If it is more as Solid State Universe is describing, then hmmmm....maybe. What he describes sounds way too complicated for me to evaluate in detail; but if it is some mysterious and hidden energy which does not interfere with known established experiments or relativity, perhaps they will find it one day even if years hence when better instruments are invented. Perhaps this is why I am on the fence when people talk aether. I have to really listen closely to exactly what is meant (which can be hard when it comes to technical jargon).
Hi Empress,
Many here question relativity's validity time and time again, Rpenner then expresses realms of maths to show that it is indeed correct. But thats not the issue, what people can't get there head around is what drops out of relativity, i.e., E=mc2, time dilation etc, but this is indeed a consequence of measuring the universe differentially which GR experts will agree, differential measurements simply yields higher accuracy than any other method.
I can go one step further, to increase the stability of any system( e.g. the universe) then quantise it, just like nature does and I assure you, stability is increased.
Cheers
Darren
Hi Empress,
Many here question relativity's validity time and time again, Rpenner then expresses realms of maths to show that it is indeed correct. But thats not the issue, what people can't get there head around is what drops out of relativity, i.e., E=mc2, time dilation etc, but this is indeed a consequence of measuring the universe differentially which GR experts will agree, differential measurements simply yields higher accuracy than any other method.
I can go one step further, to increase the stability of any system( e.g. the universe) then quantise it, just like nature does and I assure you, stability is increased.
Cheers
Darren
Darren, Empress
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations. Problem is, Mach's principle gives no insight to the mechanism at work.
This is an example of why we have off beat theories. Math is so fluid, you can arrive at the same answer by many methods.
E=MC2, time dilation, etc., can all be shown without recourse to relativity at all, causing some to dispute it.
Quantization of space is not always the best way to go, and does not always lead to stable solutions.
Quantum mechanics needs a double hand-full for "corrections" to make the math match observation for electron orbits. Yet Mach's principle gives a very accurate prediction of electron orbits, no corrections needed, and no quantization of space used in the simple calculations.
Every mathematical method has its strong and weak points.
Which is why I seldom make absolute statements. QM is very good at some things, not so at others. This is why I stress that intuitive models are needed. They help us decide which is the best method to use in a given situation and the proper course to pursue.
Charles.
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations. Problem is, Mach's principle gives no insight to the mechanism at work.
This is an example of why we have off beat theories. Math is so fluid, you can arrive at the same answer by many methods.
E=MC2, time dilation, etc., can all be shown without recourse to relativity at all, causing some to dispute it.
Quantization of space is not always the best way to go, and does not always lead to stable solutions.
Quantum mechanics needs a double hand-full for "corrections" to make the math match observation for electron orbits. Yet Mach's principle gives a very accurate prediction of electron orbits, no corrections needed, and no quantization of space used in the simple calculations.
Every mathematical method has its strong and weak points.
Which is why I seldom make absolute statements. QM is very good at some things, not so at others. This is why I stress that intuitive models are needed. They help us decide which is the best method to use in a given situation and the proper course to pursue.
Charles.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Darren, Empress
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations. Problem is, Mach's principle gives no insight to the mechanism at work.
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations. Problem is, Mach's principle gives no insight to the mechanism at work.
As soon as you talk about "mechanism at work" you have left the realm of physics. Newton's 3 laws of motion have no mechanism, Newton's Universal Gravitation has no mechanism, Maxwell eventually divorced the equations which bear his name from any mechanism, Schrodinger's equation is not connected to any mechanism, neither Special nor General Relativity have statements about any mechanism, and Quantum Field Theory also has no mechanism. What all of these physics theories do have are assumptions about the principles -- the symmetries -- that keep the universe we live in being a predictable place and assume that we can trust those principles in a wide variety of situations. This is called generalization. Experiment served to test how well these principles do. Newton was very good for small pressures and small velocities and human-sized objects. GR and QFT do at least as well in this range and much better in specific realms where Newton fails utterly. There is no mechanism in sight.
From these fundamental principles we can build mechanical models of heat and sound and spectra and starshine, but since we have access to the mechanical parts of these items, it is not metaphysical speculation on a mechanism which cannot be reached.
Also, Mach was a philosopher. Not every part of Mach's principle was used in GR.
From these fundamental principles we can build mechanical models of heat and sound and spectra and starshine, but since we have access to the mechanical parts of these items, it is not metaphysical speculation on a mechanism which cannot be reached.
Also, Mach was a philosopher. Not every part of Mach's principle was used in GR.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
This is an example of why we have off beat theories. Math is so fluid, you can arrive at the same answer by many methods.
That's why mathematicians talk about symmetries. Whenever two paths both get you where you want to go, there must be a symmetry at work.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
E=MC2, time dilation, etc., can all be shown without recourse to relativity at all, causing some to dispute it.
Well, time dilation and mass-equivalence can be measured, so disputing them is left to idiots. Any one experiment has a good chance of being "explained away" by some theory. (One example: the Michelson-Morley experiment is predicted correctly to have a null result by either SR, the Newtonian particle theory of light, a dragged ether in the Earth frame, or a fixed, solid immobile Maxwellian ether combined with FitzGerald contraction of length. But other experiments contradict the predictions of the latter three.) There's a 1949 article, I cited recently, that demonstrated the measurements of just three experiments were not reconcilable except without a physical theory that matched (special) relativity to one tenth of a percent.
H.P. Robertson, "Postulate versus Observation in the Special Theory of Relativity" Reviews of Modern Physics 21, 378-382 (1949)
So, if you have an example of showing both E=mc^2 and time dilation without SR, please cite it so I can add it to a list I keep.
H.P. Robertson, "Postulate versus Observation in the Special Theory of Relativity" Reviews of Modern Physics 21, 378-382 (1949)
So, if you have an example of showing both E=mc^2 and time dilation without SR, please cite it so I can add it to a list I keep.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Quantization of space is not always the best way to go, and does not always lead to stable solutions.
This does not seem connected to the rest of you essay.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Quantum mechanics needs a double hand-full for "corrections" to make the math match observation for electron orbits.
It needs corrections because QM is Newtonian in the relation between Energy, mass and momentum. And Newton, we know, is wrong. QFT needs no such corrections, but like GR, is too mathy to introduce at the lower levels. In fact, the use of "corrections" to QM serve an important pedagogical purpose in introducing solving problems by expressing them as perturbation sequences.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Yet Mach's principle gives a very accurate prediction of electron orbits, no corrections needed, and no quantization of space used in the simple calculations.
I have never seen this and am extremely dubious it can be done. Would you produce a source for this claim?
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Every mathematical method has its strong and weak points.
This does not seem connected to the rest of you essay.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Which is why I seldom make absolute statements.
Your "Mach's principle leads to electron orbits" claim is an absolute statement.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
QM is very good at some things, not so at others.
Correct. QM fails when pressure or mass or speed gets very big. Stick with GR or QFT, next time.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
This is why I stress that intuitive models are needed.
It's philosophically unreasonable to suppose the universe must operated along intuitive models. Communism is an intuitive model -- that doesn't make it desirable. Physics (natural philosophy) must be a slave to observation and experiment. Intuition is neither of these.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
They help us decide which is the best method to use in a given situation and the proper course to pursue.
Only if our intuition is omniscient. An it is easy to demonstrate that it is not.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 21 2007, 05:41 PM)
Well, time dilation and mass-equivalence can be measured, so disputing them is left to idiots.
Actually, time-dilation is only a theory about the phenomenon, since scientists cannot rule out that there may be a different reason for why the phenomenon occurs.
Actually, time-dilation is only a theory about the phenomenon, since scientists cannot rule out that there may be a different reason for why the phenomenon occurs.
Time dilation occurs, it's a physical fact. The mechanism which causes it is what you are referring to. Relativity is the one and only viable explaination so far put forth.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 06:14 PM)
8. Actually, time-dilation is only a theory about the phenomenon, since scientists cannot rule out that there may be a different reason for why the phenomenon occurs.
Another one, the stupidities list is growing.
Another one, the stupidities list is growing.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 21 2007, 06:16 PM)
Time dilation occurs, it's a physical fact. The mechanism which causes it is what you are referring to. Relativity is the one and only viable explaination so far put forth.
The phenomenon I speak of, is where atoms and particles become 'less inclined' to vibrate or half-life, when they are in motion. This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
"Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
Let's look at this objectively please.
The phenomenon I speak of, is where atoms and particles become 'less inclined' to vibrate or half-life, when they are in motion. This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
"Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
Let's look at this objectively please.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 06:24 PM)
9.The phenomenon I speak of, is where atoms and particles become 'less inclined' to vibrate or half-life, when they are in motion.
10.This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
11. "Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
12. But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
At this rate your list of errors will soon exceed the one of your idol, True_Relativity.
10.This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
11. "Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
12. But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
At this rate your list of errors will soon exceed the one of your idol, True_Relativity.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 06:24 PM)
The phenomenon I speak of, is where atoms and particles become 'less inclined' to vibrate or half-life, when they are in motion. This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
High speeds with respect to what? Not the center of the Earth, not the sun, not the center of the galaxy, not the CMB. If the observed phenomena was a function of speed with respect to any of these, then since WE are moving relative to these, for motion in some direction we should see the reverse of time dilation. This is not the case.
Observationally, time dilation is a function of the relative velocity between object and observer. This means it cannot be tied to some "speed gauge" on the object itself.
High speeds with respect to what? Not the center of the Earth, not the sun, not the center of the galaxy, not the CMB. If the observed phenomena was a function of speed with respect to any of these, then since WE are moving relative to these, for motion in some direction we should see the reverse of time dilation. This is not the case.
Observationally, time dilation is a function of the relative velocity between object and observer. This means it cannot be tied to some "speed gauge" on the object itself.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 21 2007, 08:11 PM)
If the observed phenomena was a function of speed with respect to any of these, then since WE are moving relative to these, for motion in some direction we should see the reverse of time dilation. This is not the case.
Observationally, time dilation is a function of the relative velocity between object and observer. This means it cannot be tied to some "speed gauge" on the object itself.
I don't see a problem with what I said, in regards to the phenomenon being a direct result of travelling at speed. One may even argue that because the Earth itself is moving, that the atoms/particles on Earth, are less inclined to vibrate or half-life, than particles/atoms which are at rest and not on a moving object (Earth).
Realise that relativity only applies to the Time dilation theory. It need not apply to other theories about the phenomenon.
I know what you're thinking: "Someone travelling at 0.8c will appear to experience less time than someone at rest, but that for the person travelling at 0.8c, they will think that Time is progressing normally, unless they looked at anything relative to them, which is not travelling at 0.8c", that is what Time dilation says.
But in regards to the phenomenon, this is not the case.
The phenomenon merely says that atoms/particles are less inclined to vibrate and half-life, the faster they travel. So for a person travelling at speeds like 0.8c, the atoms and particles which make up their body, will vibrate less and half-life less. It's unknown what kind of effect that would have on the body of the person. I just do not know what kind of effect that less vibration will have on the atoms/particles of the human body.
The fact is, we've never sent anyone at the kinds of speeds required to have some noticeable effect on the inclination to vibrate of atoms and particles which make up their bodies.
We may be adapted to cope with the slow speed (of Earth) and therefore minor reduction in inclination of atoms/particles to vibrate (on Earth), but we just can't say for sure what kind of effect that reduction will have at far greater speeds...
And I ask that you consider the above, without going into 'denial mode' simply because it runs contrary to what time dilation theory says.
Observationally, time dilation is a function of the relative velocity between object and observer. This means it cannot be tied to some "speed gauge" on the object itself.
I don't see a problem with what I said, in regards to the phenomenon being a direct result of travelling at speed. One may even argue that because the Earth itself is moving, that the atoms/particles on Earth, are less inclined to vibrate or half-life, than particles/atoms which are at rest and not on a moving object (Earth).
Realise that relativity only applies to the Time dilation theory. It need not apply to other theories about the phenomenon.
I know what you're thinking: "Someone travelling at 0.8c will appear to experience less time than someone at rest, but that for the person travelling at 0.8c, they will think that Time is progressing normally, unless they looked at anything relative to them, which is not travelling at 0.8c", that is what Time dilation says.
But in regards to the phenomenon, this is not the case.
The phenomenon merely says that atoms/particles are less inclined to vibrate and half-life, the faster they travel. So for a person travelling at speeds like 0.8c, the atoms and particles which make up their body, will vibrate less and half-life less. It's unknown what kind of effect that would have on the body of the person. I just do not know what kind of effect that less vibration will have on the atoms/particles of the human body.
The fact is, we've never sent anyone at the kinds of speeds required to have some noticeable effect on the inclination to vibrate of atoms and particles which make up their bodies.
We may be adapted to cope with the slow speed (of Earth) and therefore minor reduction in inclination of atoms/particles to vibrate (on Earth), but we just can't say for sure what kind of effect that reduction will have at far greater speeds...
And I ask that you consider the above, without going into 'denial mode' simply because it runs contrary to what time dilation theory says.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 09:02 PM)
13. One may even argue that because the Earth itself is moving, that the atoms/particles on Earth, are less inclined to vibrate or half-life, than particles/atoms which are at rest and not on a moving object (Earth).
14. Realise that relativity only applies to the Time dilation theory. It need not apply to other theories about the phenomenon.
15. I know what you're thinking: "Someone travelling at 0.8c will appear to experience less time than someone at rest, but that for the person travelling at 0.8c, they will think that Time is progressing normally, unless they looked at anything relative to them, which is not travelling at 0.8c", that is what Time dilation says.
15.The phenomenon merely says that atoms/particles are less inclined to vibrate and half-life, the faster they travel. So for a person travelling at speeds like 0.8c, the atoms and particles which make up their body, will vibrate less and half-life less.
16. It's unknown what kind of effect that would have on the body of the person. I just do not know what kind of effect that less vibration will have on the atoms/particles of the human body.
17. The fact is, we've never sent anyone at the kinds of speeds required to have some noticeable effect on the inclination to vibrate of atoms and particles which make up their bodies.
18. We may be adapted to cope with the slow speed (of Earth) and therefore minor reduction in inclination of atoms/particles to vibrate (on Earth), but we just can't say for sure what kind of effect that reduction will have at far greater speeds...
And I ask that you consider the above, without going into 'denial mode' simply because it runs contrary to what time dilation theory says.
Wow, you are on a roll. Pray continue, it is extremely entertaining
14. Realise that relativity only applies to the Time dilation theory. It need not apply to other theories about the phenomenon.
15. I know what you're thinking: "Someone travelling at 0.8c will appear to experience less time than someone at rest, but that for the person travelling at 0.8c, they will think that Time is progressing normally, unless they looked at anything relative to them, which is not travelling at 0.8c", that is what Time dilation says.
15.The phenomenon merely says that atoms/particles are less inclined to vibrate and half-life, the faster they travel. So for a person travelling at speeds like 0.8c, the atoms and particles which make up their body, will vibrate less and half-life less.
16. It's unknown what kind of effect that would have on the body of the person. I just do not know what kind of effect that less vibration will have on the atoms/particles of the human body.
17. The fact is, we've never sent anyone at the kinds of speeds required to have some noticeable effect on the inclination to vibrate of atoms and particles which make up their bodies.
18. We may be adapted to cope with the slow speed (of Earth) and therefore minor reduction in inclination of atoms/particles to vibrate (on Earth), but we just can't say for sure what kind of effect that reduction will have at far greater speeds...
And I ask that you consider the above, without going into 'denial mode' simply because it runs contrary to what time dilation theory says.
Wow, you are on a roll. Pray continue, it is extremely entertaining
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Aug 20 2007, 11:21 PM)
Rpenner...
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
Anyone who bothers to look it up and repeat the analysis would indeed say so. See The Physics FAQ:
Any proposal which does not agree with existing results has "crank" status. Any proposal which doesn't give real predictions at all but just vague ideas of mechanisms is not a theory, and insisting that it is deserves "crank" status.
Would you say that the aether concept itself has been ruled out entirely and relegated to 'crank' status?
Anyone who bothers to look it up and repeat the analysis would indeed say so. See The Physics FAQ:
QUOTE
The existing experiments put rather strong experimental constraints on any alternative theory. In particular, Zhang showed that these experimental limits essentially require that any theory based upon the existence of an ether be experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and have an ether frame which is unobservable (the only alternative is for a theory to "live in the error bars" of the experiments, which is quite difficult given the high accuracies achieved by many of these experiments).
Any proposal which does not agree with existing results has "crank" status. Any proposal which doesn't give real predictions at all but just vague ideas of mechanisms is not a theory, and insisting that it is deserves "crank" status.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 06:24 PM)
The phenomenon I speak of, is where atoms and particles become 'less inclined' to vibrate or half-life, when they are in motion. This 'reduced inclination to vibrate' is more apparent at high speeds.
"Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
Let's look at this objectively please.
Time dilation is implicit in the Lorentz symmetry of space and time. This symmetry can be deduced logically by taking Galileo's ideas of relative motion and thinking it through. The constant speed of light and the velocity addition rule have been experimentally detected.
So, as we discussed before, which of the 4 postulates concerning the uniformity of space and laws of motion would you refute? Before you propose other mechanisms for processes slowing down, you must eliminate the built-in mechanism which explains the effect completely and entirely!
"Time dilation" is just one theory about why atoms and particles may be less inclined to vibrate, when in motion.
But scientists are unsure whether it truly is the case, and not something else which is causing this reduced inclination to vibrate.
Let's look at this objectively please.
Time dilation is implicit in the Lorentz symmetry of space and time. This symmetry can be deduced logically by taking Galileo's ideas of relative motion and thinking it through. The constant speed of light and the velocity addition rule have been experimentally detected.
So, as we discussed before, which of the 4 postulates concerning the uniformity of space and laws of motion would you refute? Before you propose other mechanisms for processes slowing down, you must eliminate the built-in mechanism which explains the effect completely and entirely!
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Aug 21 2007, 11:45 PM)
Any proposal which does not agree with existing results has "crank" status. Any proposal which doesn't give real predictions at all but just vague ideas of mechanisms is not a theory, and insisting that it is deserves "crank" status.
Yes well, if people relegate an idea to 'crank' status, and it ends up being experimentally verified and accepted by the scientific community; then those who called it a crank idea, will be up for some pretty devastating humiliation. Hell, I'd probably just quit the forum out of shame, if I was such a target of derision.
It's the reason why we have something called 'Objectivity', which people are supposed to practice, when they discuss science.
Yes well, if people relegate an idea to 'crank' status, and it ends up being experimentally verified and accepted by the scientific community; then those who called it a crank idea, will be up for some pretty devastating humiliation. Hell, I'd probably just quit the forum out of shame, if I was such a target of derision.
It's the reason why we have something called 'Objectivity', which people are supposed to practice, when they discuss science.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 11:57 PM)
Hell, I'd probably just quit the forum out of shame, if I was such a target of derision.
Your list is filling up very quickly
Your list is filling up very quickly
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Aug 21 2007, 11:54 PM)
Time dilation is implicit in the Lorentz symmetry of space and time. This symmetry can be deduced logically by taking Galileo's ideas of relative motion and thinking it through. The constant speed of light and the velocity addition rule have been experimentally detected.
So, as we discussed before, which of the 4 postulates concerning the uniformity of space and laws of motion would you refute? Before you propose other mechanisms for processes slowing down, you must eliminate the built-in mechanism which explains the effect completely and entirely!
One may simply argue that space is intangible, given that nobody has proven that space can be deformed. I have given requirements for proving that it can be deformed, by creating a warp of space, to travel from A to B quicker/instantly, or in the form of creating a wormhole. As of yet, nobody has done this. Their excuse? - 'Power requirements'. They say that 'you need to use the total energy that our sun puts out from birth to death, in order to warp space'... or something to that effect. Nice little insulation from criticism, imo
The 'mechanism' which I proposed for processes 'slowing down', is not a 'slowing down' per sé, but merely an increased displacement of internal particles which make up a particle or atom.
If you increase the distance which internal particles have to travel, then you essentially decrease the frequency of the vibration/wave.
So, as we discussed before, which of the 4 postulates concerning the uniformity of space and laws of motion would you refute? Before you propose other mechanisms for processes slowing down, you must eliminate the built-in mechanism which explains the effect completely and entirely!
One may simply argue that space is intangible, given that nobody has proven that space can be deformed. I have given requirements for proving that it can be deformed, by creating a warp of space, to travel from A to B quicker/instantly, or in the form of creating a wormhole. As of yet, nobody has done this. Their excuse? - 'Power requirements'. They say that 'you need to use the total energy that our sun puts out from birth to death, in order to warp space'... or something to that effect. Nice little insulation from criticism, imo
The 'mechanism' which I proposed for processes 'slowing down', is not a 'slowing down' per sé, but merely an increased displacement of internal particles which make up a particle or atom.
If you increase the distance which internal particles have to travel, then you essentially decrease the frequency of the vibration/wave.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 02:09 AM)
One may simply argue that space is intangible, given that nobody has proven that space can be deformed.
That's the definition of geodetic precession. Space around the earth is so deformed by gravity that a gyroscope doesn't point the same direction after you move it in a circle.
0.0018 degrees per year (as predicted) was measured with high accuracy.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/fact_...tshell-0307.pdf
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/aps_p...alk_Everitt.pdf
Pages 20 has the preliminary data analysis at 6.638±0.097 arcseconds per year.
And, Gravity Probe B isn't the first to measure this effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
That's the definition of geodetic precession. Space around the earth is so deformed by gravity that a gyroscope doesn't point the same direction after you move it in a circle.
0.0018 degrees per year (as predicted) was measured with high accuracy.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/fact_...tshell-0307.pdf
QUOTE
Gravity Probe B (GP-
is a NASA physics mission to experimentally investigate Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity—his theory of gravity. GP-B uses four spherical gyroscopes and a telescope, housed in a satellite orbiting 642 km (400 mi) above the Earth, to measure, with unprecedented accuracy, two extraordinary effects predicted by the general theory of relativity: 1) the geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides; and 2) the frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it. GP-B tests these two effects by precisely measuring the precession (displacement) angles of the spin axes of the four gyros over the course of a year and comparing these experimental results with predictions from Einstein’s theory.
...
The predicted geodetic gyro spin axis precession is a tiny angle of 6.6 arcseconds (0.0018 degrees) in the orbital plane of the spacecraft.
is a NASA physics mission to experimentally investigate Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity—his theory of gravity. GP-B uses four spherical gyroscopes and a telescope, housed in a satellite orbiting 642 km (400 mi) above the Earth, to measure, with unprecedented accuracy, two extraordinary effects predicted by the general theory of relativity: 1) the geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides; and 2) the frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it. GP-B tests these two effects by precisely measuring the precession (displacement) angles of the spin axes of the four gyros over the course of a year and comparing these experimental results with predictions from Einstein’s theory....
The predicted geodetic gyro spin axis precession is a tiny angle of 6.6 arcseconds (0.0018 degrees) in the orbital plane of the spacecraft.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/aps_p...alk_Everitt.pdf
Pages 20 has the preliminary data analysis at 6.638±0.097 arcseconds per year.
And, Gravity Probe B isn't the first to measure this effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Darren, Empress
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations.
Hi Aireal,
Actually Aireal, you are way way of target. SR is not described by a differential equation at all. You need to go back and check it's derivations.
Supposing I have an amplifier, this amplifier follows approximately, y=mx+-c
where we have y=output, x=input, m=gain and c=zero offset, right?
Now c, the zero offset, drifts about due to temperature, humidity and other offset error attributes which I cannot control but which contribute error at my amplifiers output. What am I to do?
I place a single pole double throw switch on it's input so that the switch pos1 is measure and flick the switch pos2, the amplifiers input is short. When the switch is short, then you would expect the amplifiers output to be zero, but it isn't it's near zero i.e., +-c ,right?
If now I measure and store the value(X1) then flick the switch(short) and store the value(X2) and then take X1 and subtract X2, i.e., X=X1-X2(vector addition)
By doing this, c the offset is nulled or canceled and my amplifier is now alot more accurate and virtually drift free than before due to differential measurement.
Relativity is differential measure of the universe which compares length,mass and time in relation to moving frames, hence we throw away our absolute rest frame and deal with our new differential measurement technique and all will agree that GR(maths unfortunately beyond me!) yields high accuracy not to mention other useful attributes which drop out of relativity. It is therefore completely futile to argue that it might be wrong or perhaps unfinished.
The underlying concept is differential measurement and it works!.
Quantization of space is not always the best way to go, and does not always lead to stable solutions.
Huh!
, Quantisation of energy, my friend, not space.
My aforementioned amplifier?, I increase its gain and it tends towards instability/oscillation, right?, quantise the energy flowing through it and presto, I can now increase it's gain without instability occurring, up to a point anyhow.
Cheers for now
Darren
You said:
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
30. In response I would argue that theory behind the result 'Z' may be wrong, and that in fact, the experiment is actually measuring 'Y'
31. This is, in essence, what I claim, in regards to so-called 'Time Dilation' experiments, in which 32. I argue that the experiments are not actually measuring 'The loss of Time', but are instead measuring the result of an increase in displacement of internal particles, since they have further to travel, to rebound off their fellow internal particles, in the displacement is in the opposite direction to that of the general motion of the particle as a whole.
Nobody has thus far countered this arguement, hence why I now give it so frequently.
The list keeps growing.....
What you are suggesting is that my theory 'glass never shatters' might be correct, even though it has been observed that glass can shatter.
Could you possibly argue that the observations were actually of glass not shattering? No.
Actually, you could argue that it's a 'mass delusion', and that the glass hasn't actually shattered, and that it's 'all in your mind'.
Tbh though bm, when someone gives a theory, they should always give reasoning behind their theory, like I just did.
It is then up to you, whether or not you believe the reasoning and hence the theory. It always boils down to belief...
If there were internal particles, they would not move in any direction more than all other directions
Yes, there would be a limit to how much they would elastically-displace from their twinned particle, after colliding with it. The limitation on the displacement, would be imposed by the 'bond' which holds the particles together.
Realise that I am not advocating that the maximum distance the particles displace, is any greater. I am advocating that the return-journey (after displacing to the maximum displacement) will be a longer journey, since the twinned-particle is moving away from it's twinned particle, which is trying to catch up with it. In doing so, when it eventually collides, the kinetic energy that will be imparted, will be lessened, because the particle it collides into, is moving in the same direction. Think of two cars crashing into eachother. At rest, car A would crash into car B with full force, but if car B is moving at speed, then car A will impart less kinetic energy than it would have done if car B was at rest. That's basically my arguement for why particles appear to redshift (lose vibrational kinetic energy) when they are in motion. The greater the speed, the greater the redshift, and the greater the length of time required for particle A to impact particle B.
If opposite directions of the movement of internal particles and the movement of the motion of the object resulted in further distance for the internal particle, then internal particles moving in the opposite direction would suffer the opposite effect and would cancel out exactly (obvious by resolving all motion into parallel/perpendicular components if you assume the first sentence of the paragraph is correct.)
Actually, they collision with the twinned internal particle, would not 'cancel out' anything. When hit, particle B would simply be bashed and it would take longer to reach the maximum displacement that the bond allows since the region of maximum displacement moves as the particle/atom as a whole moves. Albeit the return journey, from maximum displacement to impact with particle A, would be quicker since particle A would be moving towards particle B as it came towards it.
However, regardless of the minor gain that the return journey would give, the displacement journey would outweigh the gain and result in a net loss of frequency
It really is quite hard to get your head around. I hope to have pictures finished and a thread fully written, in order to explain it all.
34. Actually, they collision with the twinned internal particle, would not 'cancel out' anything.
35. When hit, particle B would simply be bashed and it would take longer to reach the maximum displacement that the bond allows since the region of maximum displacement moves as the particle/atom as a whole moves.
36. Albeit the return journey, from maximum displacement to impact with particle A, would be quicker since particle A would be moving towards particle B as it came towards it.
37. However, regardless of the minor gain that the return journey would give, the displacement journey would outweigh the gain and result in a net loss of frequency
It really is quite hard to get your head around. I hope to have pictures finished and a thread fully written, in order to explain it all.
more of the same
Darren, for the most part, you are correct. However, simple equations based on Mach's Principle give very accurate results without the tedious calculations of differential equations.
Hi Aireal,
Actually Aireal, you are way way of target. SR is not described by a differential equation at all. You need to go back and check it's derivations.
Supposing I have an amplifier, this amplifier follows approximately, y=mx+-c
where we have y=output, x=input, m=gain and c=zero offset, right?
Now c, the zero offset, drifts about due to temperature, humidity and other offset error attributes which I cannot control but which contribute error at my amplifiers output. What am I to do?
I place a single pole double throw switch on it's input so that the switch pos1 is measure and flick the switch pos2, the amplifiers input is short. When the switch is short, then you would expect the amplifiers output to be zero, but it isn't it's near zero i.e., +-c ,right?
If now I measure and store the value(X1) then flick the switch(short) and store the value(X2) and then take X1 and subtract X2, i.e., X=X1-X2(vector addition)
By doing this, c the offset is nulled or canceled and my amplifier is now alot more accurate and virtually drift free than before due to differential measurement.
Relativity is differential measure of the universe which compares length,mass and time in relation to moving frames, hence we throw away our absolute rest frame and deal with our new differential measurement technique and all will agree that GR(maths unfortunately beyond me!) yields high accuracy not to mention other useful attributes which drop out of relativity. It is therefore completely futile to argue that it might be wrong or perhaps unfinished.
The underlying concept is differential measurement and it works!.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 21 2007, 12:45 PM)
Quantization of space is not always the best way to go, and does not always lead to stable solutions.
Huh!
, Quantisation of energy, my friend, not space.My aforementioned amplifier?, I increase its gain and it tends towards instability/oscillation, right?, quantise the energy flowing through it and presto, I can now increase it's gain without instability occurring, up to a point anyhow.
Cheers for now
Darren
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 22 2007, 04:54 AM)
That's the definition of geodetic precession. Space around the earth is so deformed by gravity that a gyroscope doesn't point the same direction after you move it in a circle.
0.0018 degrees per year (as predicted) was measured with high accuracy.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/fact_...tshell-0307.pdf
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/aps_p...alk_Everitt.pdf
Pages 20 has the preliminary data analysis at 6.638±0.097 arcseconds per year.
And, Gravity Probe B isn't the first to measure this effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
Sorry rpenner, but that experiment is not proof of the existence of space-time. It's only proof that gyroscopes are offset slightly, when in orbit around the planet, just like how GPS satellites are offset slightly, when in orbit.
The thing is, they're measuring an offset due to gravitational attraction (which they theorise is a warping of space-time) when in actual fact it may be that the gravitational attraction still exists and still offsets the gyroscopes, but gravitationally in the form of a 'matter > matter' interaction, with the exchange of particles, whether they are gravitons or whatever.
0.0018 degrees per year (as predicted) was measured with high accuracy.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/fact_...tshell-0307.pdf
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/aps_p...alk_Everitt.pdf
Pages 20 has the preliminary data analysis at 6.638±0.097 arcseconds per year.
And, Gravity Probe B isn't the first to measure this effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
Sorry rpenner, but that experiment is not proof of the existence of space-time. It's only proof that gyroscopes are offset slightly, when in orbit around the planet, just like how GPS satellites are offset slightly, when in orbit.
The thing is, they're measuring an offset due to gravitational attraction (which they theorise is a warping of space-time) when in actual fact it may be that the gravitational attraction still exists and still offsets the gyroscopes, but gravitationally in the form of a 'matter > matter' interaction, with the exchange of particles, whether they are gravitons or whatever.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 12:04 PM)
20. Sorry rpenner, but that experiment is not proof of the existence of space-time.
21. It's only proof that gyroscopes are offset slightly, when in orbit around the planet, just like how GPS satellites are offset slightly, when in orbit.
22. The thing is, they're measuring an offset due to gravitational attraction (which they theorise is a warping of space-time)
23. when in actual fact it may be that the gravitational attraction still exists and still offsets the gyroscopes,
but gravitationally in the form of a 'matter > matter' interaction, with the exchange of particles, whether they are gravitons or whatever.
The "Bryn list of hilarious physics" is still growing
21. It's only proof that gyroscopes are offset slightly, when in orbit around the planet, just like how GPS satellites are offset slightly, when in orbit.
22. The thing is, they're measuring an offset due to gravitational attraction (which they theorise is a warping of space-time)
23. when in actual fact it may be that the gravitational attraction still exists and still offsets the gyroscopes,
but gravitationally in the form of a 'matter > matter' interaction, with the exchange of particles, whether they are gravitons or whatever.
The "Bryn list of hilarious physics" is still growing
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 21 2007, 11:57 PM)
Yes well, if people relegate an idea to 'crank' status, and it ends up being experimentally verified and accepted by the scientific community; then those who called it a crank idea, will be up for some pretty devastating humiliation. Hell, I'd probably just quit the forum out of shame, if I was such a target of derision.
It's the reason why we have something called 'Objectivity', which people are supposed to practice, when they discuss science.
Can you breathe underwater? How do you know if you haven't tried? Just because some other people have allegedly been unable to is not proof, right?
"Objective" does not mean "ignore the evidence and suspend all logic."
How? It already is contradicted by experiment (per the first reason given) or it is not a theory but just a vague idea (per the second reason) that makes no predictions.
It's the reason why we have something called 'Objectivity', which people are supposed to practice, when they discuss science.
Can you breathe underwater? How do you know if you haven't tried? Just because some other people have allegedly been unable to is not proof, right?
"Objective" does not mean "ignore the evidence and suspend all logic."
How? It already is contradicted by experiment (per the first reason given) or it is not a theory but just a vague idea (per the second reason) that makes no predictions.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 02:09 AM)
One may simply argue that space is intangible, given that nobody has proven that space can be deformed. I have given requirements for proving that it can be deformed, by creating a warp of space, to travel from A to B quicker/instantly, or in the form of creating a wormhole. As of yet, nobody has done this. Their excuse? - 'Power requirements'. They say that 'you need to use the total energy that our sun puts out from birth to death, in order to warp space'... or something to that effect. Nice little insulation from criticism, imo
The 'mechanism' which I proposed for processes 'slowing down', is not a 'slowing down' per sé, but merely an increased displacement of internal particles which make up a particle or atom.
If you increase the distance which internal particles have to travel, then you essentially decrease the frequency of the vibration/wave.
I'm not saying anything about deforming space. That's another story, and it has been directly observed.
The point is, we observe that an object moving at velocity will show every process to be slowed down. You are proposing that this is due to unknown mechanisms that slow each kind of process.
However, the slowdown is already explained by the effect of relative velocity through spacetime per Lorentz symmetry, which is demanded by assuming 4 postulates of uniformity of space and time. There is no additional effect to explain, unless you first get rid of the time dilation. In order to do that, you need to throw out one or more of the postulates.
So, which of the 4 postulates would you disagree with?
As a reminder, the paper is here, but you can find several discussions of it on this message board.
The 'mechanism' which I proposed for processes 'slowing down', is not a 'slowing down' per sé, but merely an increased displacement of internal particles which make up a particle or atom.
If you increase the distance which internal particles have to travel, then you essentially decrease the frequency of the vibration/wave.
I'm not saying anything about deforming space. That's another story, and it has been directly observed.
The point is, we observe that an object moving at velocity will show every process to be slowed down. You are proposing that this is due to unknown mechanisms that slow each kind of process.
However, the slowdown is already explained by the effect of relative velocity through spacetime per Lorentz symmetry, which is demanded by assuming 4 postulates of uniformity of space and time. There is no additional effect to explain, unless you first get rid of the time dilation. In order to do that, you need to throw out one or more of the postulates.
So, which of the 4 postulates would you disagree with?
As a reminder, the paper is here, but you can find several discussions of it on this message board.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Aug 22 2007, 07:05 PM)
How? It already is contradicted by experiment (per the first reason given) or it is not a theory but just a vague idea (per the second reason) that makes no predictions.
Just because a theory contradicts experiment, does not automatically mean that the theory is wrong. You have to accept that, before this discussion can advance.
Just because a theory contradicts experiment, does not automatically mean that the theory is wrong. You have to accept that, before this discussion can advance.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 07:21 PM)
29. Just because a theory contradicts experiment, does not automatically mean that the theory is wrong. You have to accept that, before this discussion can advance.
That means that the experiment falsifies the particular theory. Assuming that the experimenters are honest, in mainstream science, this means that the theory is ...false.
That means that the experiment falsifies the particular theory. Assuming that the experimenters are honest, in mainstream science, this means that the theory is ...false.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 07:21 PM)
Just because a theory contradicts experiment, does not automatically mean that the theory is wrong. You have to accept that, before this discussion can advance.
You MUST be taking the p***???
What's the point of a theory if it doesn't reflect reality???
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
That's just ridiculous!!!
You MUST be taking the p***???
What's the point of a theory if it doesn't reflect reality???
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
That's just ridiculous!!!
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 22 2007, 07:37 PM)
You MUST be taking the p***???
What's the point of a theory if it doesn't reflect reality???
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
That's just ridiculous!!!
For instance...
"Is matter infinitely divisible?" Since absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence, experiment cannot answer this question. Thus, theories may be created about the divisibility of matter, despite the fact that no experiment has been able to measure the mass of photons.
You said:
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
In response I would argue that theory behind the result 'Z' may be wrong, and that in fact, the experiment is actually measuring 'Y'
This is, in essence, what I claim, in regards to so-called 'Time Dilation' experiments, in which I argue that the experiments are not actually measuring 'The loss of Time', but are instead measuring the result of an increase in displacement of internal particles, since they have further to travel, to rebound off their fellow internal particles, because the displacement of the internal particle, is in the opposite direction to that of the general motion of the particle/atom as a whole.
Nobody has thus far countered this arguement, hence why I now give it so frequently.
What's the point of a theory if it doesn't reflect reality???
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
That's just ridiculous!!!
For instance...
"Is matter infinitely divisible?" Since absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence, experiment cannot answer this question. Thus, theories may be created about the divisibility of matter, despite the fact that no experiment has been able to measure the mass of photons.
You said:
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
In response I would argue that theory behind the result 'Z' may be wrong, and that in fact, the experiment is actually measuring 'Y'
This is, in essence, what I claim, in regards to so-called 'Time Dilation' experiments, in which I argue that the experiments are not actually measuring 'The loss of Time', but are instead measuring the result of an increase in displacement of internal particles, since they have further to travel, to rebound off their fellow internal particles, because the displacement of the internal particle, is in the opposite direction to that of the general motion of the particle/atom as a whole.
Nobody has thus far countered this arguement, hence why I now give it so frequently.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 07:50 PM)
You said:
Bryn: "I theorise that X will cause Y"
(X is observed to cause Z, not Y)
Bryn: "My theory could still be right"
30. In response I would argue that theory behind the result 'Z' may be wrong, and that in fact, the experiment is actually measuring 'Y'
31. This is, in essence, what I claim, in regards to so-called 'Time Dilation' experiments, in which 32. I argue that the experiments are not actually measuring 'The loss of Time', but are instead measuring the result of an increase in displacement of internal particles, since they have further to travel, to rebound off their fellow internal particles, in the displacement is in the opposite direction to that of the general motion of the particle as a whole.
Nobody has thus far countered this arguement, hence why I now give it so frequently.
The list keeps growing.....
QUOTE (Dallas+Aug 22 2007, 07:53 PM)
The list keeps growing.....
Your trash talk keeps growing.... ?
Do some Physics, for a change!
Your trash talk keeps growing.... ?
Do some Physics, for a change!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 07:21 PM)
Just because a theory contradicts experiment, does not automatically mean that the theory is wrong. You have to accept that, before this discussion can advance.
This is completely different to your claims of their being a lack of sufficient evidence to prove time dilation.
What you are suggesting is that my theory 'glass never shatters' might be correct, even though it has been observed that glass can shatter.
Could you possibly argue that the observations were actually of glass not shattering? No.
If there were internal particles, they would not move in any direction more than all other directions, otherwise there would be net movement of the particle with no force (not observed). If opposite directions of the movement of internal particles and the movement of the motion of the object resulted in further distance for the internal particle, then internal particles moving in the opposite direction would suffer the opposite effect and would cancel out exactly (obvious by resolving all motion into parallel/perpendicular components if you assume the first sentence of the paragraph is correct.)
Thus your argument is countered, quite easily. Hence are you going to stop using it now? I doubt it.
This is completely different to your claims of their being a lack of sufficient evidence to prove time dilation.
What you are suggesting is that my theory 'glass never shatters' might be correct, even though it has been observed that glass can shatter.
Could you possibly argue that the observations were actually of glass not shattering? No.
QUOTE
This is, in essence, what I claim, in regards to so-called 'Time Dilation' experiments, in which I argue that the experiments are not actually measuring 'The loss of Time', but are instead measuring the result of an increase in displacement of internal particles, since they have further to travel, to rebound off their fellow internal particles, because the displacement of the internal particle, is in the opposite direction to that of the general motion of the particle/atom as a whole.
If there were internal particles, they would not move in any direction more than all other directions, otherwise there would be net movement of the particle with no force (not observed). If opposite directions of the movement of internal particles and the movement of the motion of the object resulted in further distance for the internal particle, then internal particles moving in the opposite direction would suffer the opposite effect and would cancel out exactly (obvious by resolving all motion into parallel/perpendicular components if you assume the first sentence of the paragraph is correct.)
Thus your argument is countered, quite easily. Hence are you going to stop using it now? I doubt it.
QUOTE (bm1957+)
What you are suggesting is that my theory 'glass never shatters' might be correct, even though it has been observed that glass can shatter.
Could you possibly argue that the observations were actually of glass not shattering? No.
Actually, you could argue that it's a 'mass delusion', and that the glass hasn't actually shattered, and that it's 'all in your mind'.
Tbh though bm, when someone gives a theory, they should always give reasoning behind their theory, like I just did.
It is then up to you, whether or not you believe the reasoning and hence the theory. It always boils down to belief...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 08:24 PM)
Actually, you could argue that it's a 'mass delusion', and that the glass hasn't actually shattered, and that it's 'all in your mind'.
Only a loonie would argue that.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...10/ai_n16657858
1) Instance: eyewitnesses
2) Instance: broken glass
3) Instance: blood
4) Instance: dead man
Only a loonie would argue that.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...10/ai_n16657858
1) Instance: eyewitnesses
2) Instance: broken glass
3) Instance: blood
4) Instance: dead man
QUOTE (bm1957+)
If there were internal particles, they would not move in any direction more than all other directions
Yes, there would be a limit to how much they would elastically-displace from their twinned particle, after colliding with it. The limitation on the displacement, would be imposed by the 'bond' which holds the particles together.
Realise that I am not advocating that the maximum distance the particles displace, is any greater. I am advocating that the return-journey (after displacing to the maximum displacement) will be a longer journey, since the twinned-particle is moving away from it's twinned particle, which is trying to catch up with it. In doing so, when it eventually collides, the kinetic energy that will be imparted, will be lessened, because the particle it collides into, is moving in the same direction. Think of two cars crashing into eachother. At rest, car A would crash into car B with full force, but if car B is moving at speed, then car A will impart less kinetic energy than it would have done if car B was at rest. That's basically my arguement for why particles appear to redshift (lose vibrational kinetic energy) when they are in motion. The greater the speed, the greater the redshift, and the greater the length of time required for particle A to impact particle B.
QUOTE (bm1957+)
If opposite directions of the movement of internal particles and the movement of the motion of the object resulted in further distance for the internal particle, then internal particles moving in the opposite direction would suffer the opposite effect and would cancel out exactly (obvious by resolving all motion into parallel/perpendicular components if you assume the first sentence of the paragraph is correct.)
Actually, they collision with the twinned internal particle, would not 'cancel out' anything. When hit, particle B would simply be bashed and it would take longer to reach the maximum displacement that the bond allows since the region of maximum displacement moves as the particle/atom as a whole moves. Albeit the return journey, from maximum displacement to impact with particle A, would be quicker since particle A would be moving towards particle B as it came towards it.
However, regardless of the minor gain that the return journey would give, the displacement journey would outweigh the gain and result in a net loss of frequency
It really is quite hard to get your head around. I hope to have pictures finished and a thread fully written, in order to explain it all.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 22 2007, 08:32 PM)
Only a loonie would argue that.
Yeah, but I was demonstrating the fact that you can have legitimate theories (And yes, regardless of how much we all believe it's loony) which argue things which contradict experiment.
I gave more justification behind such legitimate contradictions, so don't take that single one as my only one.
Yeah, but I was demonstrating the fact that you can have legitimate theories (And yes, regardless of how much we all believe it's loony) which argue things which contradict experiment.
I gave more justification behind such legitimate contradictions, so don't take that single one as my only one.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 08:40 PM)
Yeah, but I was demonstrating the fact that you can have legitimate theories (And yes, regardless of how much we all believe it's loony) which argue things which contradict experiment.
I gave more justification behind such legitimate contradictions, so don't take that single one as my only one.
I have to say I do agree with that statement and your sig line almost says it all.
I gave more justification behind such legitimate contradictions, so don't take that single one as my only one.
I have to say I do agree with that statement and your sig line almost says it all.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 08:36 PM)
However, regardless of the minor gain that the return journey would give, the displacement journey would outweigh the gain and result in a net loss of frequency
Any explanation as to why the process might not be symmetric? Your statement is merely that: "I don't like your argument; I'm still right." - not very convincing.
Any explanation as to why the process might not be symmetric? Your statement is merely that: "I don't like your argument; I'm still right." - not very convincing.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 22 2007, 08:36 PM)
34. Actually, they collision with the twinned internal particle, would not 'cancel out' anything.
35. When hit, particle B would simply be bashed and it would take longer to reach the maximum displacement that the bond allows since the region of maximum displacement moves as the particle/atom as a whole moves.
36. Albeit the return journey, from maximum displacement to impact with particle A, would be quicker since particle A would be moving towards particle B as it came towards it.
37. However, regardless of the minor gain that the return journey would give, the displacement journey would outweigh the gain and result in a net loss of frequency
It really is quite hard to get your head around. I hope to have pictures finished and a thread fully written, in order to explain it all.
more of the same
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 22 2007, 09:17 PM)
Any explanation as to why the process might not be symmetric? Your statement is merely that: "I don't like your argument; I'm still right." - not very convincing.