QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 26 2007, 05:57 AM)
ACT just predicted and indirectly produced two of the most significant advances in the history of solar cell production.
Cheap manufacturing and a 2% increase in efficiency in the already high efficiency gratzel cells.
W00T!
The cranks win the day!
Congratulations. A fresh view on an old subject stigmatized by engineers put in the box by their own competence almost always helps, but few companies manage to get it as far as to change production process.
An achievement, and free sharing of ideas just to make world better. I like it.
Cheap manufacturing and a 2% increase in efficiency in the already high efficiency gratzel cells.
W00T!
The cranks win the day!
Congratulations. A fresh view on an old subject stigmatized by engineers put in the box by their own competence almost always helps, but few companies manage to get it as far as to change production process.
An achievement, and free sharing of ideas just to make world better. I like it.
What's money if you've got a near unlimited supply of cheap energy?
Next step is to tap vacuum for energy.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 25 2007, 06:55 PM)
Aha! Some diagrams (Fifty!) were Neglected! By Levine!
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/i12/p4007_1
Cvitanović, Predrag and Kinoshita, T. "Sixth-order magnetic moment of the electron", Phys. Rev. D 10 4007 - 4031 (1974)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/i12/p4007_1
Cvitanović, Predrag and Kinoshita, T. "Sixth-order magnetic moment of the electron", Phys. Rev. D 10 4007 - 4031 (1974)
QUOTE (Abstract+)
We have evaluated the contribution of 50 Feynman diagrams of three-photon-exchange type to the electron magnetic moment by two independent methods. The results are mutually consistent and are several times more accurate than previously reported calculations. If we combine the analytic result of Levine and Roskies for 10 diagrams and our numerical result for the remaining 40 diagrams, we obtain the best estimate available at present: (0.922±0.024)×(α / π)^3. Including the contribution from the remaining 22 diagrams calculated previously, the complete theoretical prediction for the electron anomaly up to the order α^3 is 1/2 α/π -0.32848(α / π)^2+(1.195±0.026)(α/π)^3, in fair agreement with the latest experimental result.
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
In my opinion it is very big manipulation.
Why I think this?
In 1971 was taken into account only such number (and types) of the diagrams to fit the theoretical result to the experimental result obtained in 1970.
Next was the 1.001159652190 because the experimental result obtained by H. Dehmelt was
1.001159652193
Now, from cited in your post formula, we obtain
1.0011596524+-0.0000000003
The today experimental value (see the 2006 CODATA) is
1.00115965218
Can you see that always the number (and types) of chosen diagrams was to fit the theoretical value to the experimental value? You probably think that always it was by chance? But I am not such naive. Can you see that the Feynman QED (and all other theories based on the perturbation theory) contains the internal mechanism which fits the theoretical results to the experimental data? Can you see that such 'theories' they are the toys, the childish games? And none explanations can change the conviction that such 'theories' are formulated only because scientists cannot solve the basic problems on base of the Newtonian mechanics. It is possible and you can find such theory (i.e. the New QED) on my website - it is at least 100 times (maybe it is about 1000) shorter than the Feynman QED.
Similar manipulation is associated with the Lamb-Retherford shift. First the theoretical result was (1971) 1057.911+-0.012 MHz because the experimental result was (1970) 1057.90+-0.06 MHz.
Today, the experimental result is 1057.864 MHz. So scientists should change the number (and types) of the diagrams to obtain the good value because the theoretical value obtained in 1971 is not consistent with this result.
In my opinion scientists discredit themselves.
So for the prospect of laughing at you, I do indeed hope that time dilation has a different reason than you believe. Man, you will never hear the end of it from me; such is the fallout from your unshakeable acceptance of time dilation.
As relativity has Newtonian mechanics a limit case (for v<<c) , so will the "new theory" have relativity as a limit case. So, the current interpretation of time dilation in the framework of relativity will not be disproven.
So, good luck at hoping to see the "prospect of laughing at you" , you just continue to demonstrate ignorance as to how science works . I do appreciate your continuing contribution to this thread in having us understand the "psyche of the common crank" : unwilling to learn even when help is offered and vengeful.
Because such equations are formulated in my theory so I was able to define the fundamental space. Such space is classical i.e. is described only by the Newtonian KINETICS. From the shapes such space is composed of can be created the larger structures. When energy density of background is close to the mean energy density of some particle then in the description appears the wave function i.e. the QM. It is the reason why I claim that all phenomena can be described by the Newtonian kinetics (not even by the Newtonian dynamics) - it is because whole physics and useful mathematics MUST be derived from the fundamental space i.e. from the speedy/structureless mathematical points!!!!!! And it is in my ultimate theory of structures and spaces which leads to the best results.
Well , try explaining the perihelion of Mercury by the "Newtonian kinetics". Do you think you could do that?
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
In my opinion it is very big manipulation.
Why I think this?
In 1971 was taken into account only such number (and types) of the diagrams to fit the theoretical result to the experimental result obtained in 1970.
Next was the 1.001159652190 because the experimental result obtained by H. Dehmelt was
1.001159652193
Now, from cited in your post formula, we obtain
1.0011596524+-0.0000000003
The today experimental value (see the 2006 CODATA) is
1.00115965218
Can you see that always the number (and types) of chosen diagrams was to fit the theoretical value to the experimental value? You probably think that always it was by chance? But I am not such naive. Can you see that the Feynman QED (and all other theories based on the perturbation theory) contains the internal mechanism which fits the theoretical results to the experimental data? Can you see that such 'theories' they are the toys, the childish games? And none explanations can change the conviction that such 'theories' are formulated only because scientists cannot solve the basic problems on base of the Newtonian mechanics. It is possible and you can find such theory (i.e. the New QED) on my website - it is at least 100 times (maybe it is about 1000) shorter than the Feynman QED.
Similar manipulation is associated with the Lamb-Retherford shift. First the theoretical result was (1971) 1057.911+-0.012 MHz because the experimental result was (1970) 1057.90+-0.06 MHz.
Today, the experimental result is 1057.864 MHz. So scientists should change the number (and types) of the diagrams to obtain the good value because the theoretical value obtained in 1971 is not consistent with this result.
In my opinion scientists discredit themselves.
So basically, what you're saying is that you think that scientests are dishonest because they follow the scientific method - which involves using experimental data to refine or disprove a theory.
Which is exactly what you're talking about - using experimental data to refine theoretical predictions. The whole thing about the diagrams, I sorta see it as "Well, the experiment gives us this value, which we get with these diagrams, so it seems that these diagrams are incorrect or un neccessary." Combined with a bit of "Well, we now know the experimental value for this, so using the experimental value rather then the theoretical value will help us more accurately make predictions of higher order values."
As relativity has Newtonian mechanics a limit case (for v<<c) , so will the "new theory" have relativity as a limit case. So, the current interpretation of time dilation in the framework of relativity will not be disproven.
I am talking about the unshakeable conviction which you have, in time itself actually 'slowing down' for an object which moves with speed. That this slowing down of time, gets slower the faster the object travels.
And I am saying that 'if' this is shown not to be the case; that time actually isn't 'slowing down'. That I would laugh heartily at you for adopting the afore mentioned unshakeable belief in an actual loss of time, rather than academically disassociating yourself from that theory, to prevent such ridicule from ever happening, if said theory about actual loss of time, was shown to be false.
I do appreciate your continuing contribution to this thread in having us understand the "psyche of the common crank" : unwilling to learn even when help is offered and vengeful.
Again, you repeatedly state that I am 'unwilling to learn'. This is yet again an underhand way of saying "Unwilling to accept what Dallas completely (100%) accepts". This could easily be defended against, as my retaining of an open-mind, such that theories should never be 100% accepted, but rather, accepted equally with all other theories, in the spirit of academic disassociation / objectiveness.
It is essentially this objectiveness which you lack, in regards to time dilation. I've no doubt in my mind, that if you knew nobody would criticise you about it, you would say that time dilation (accordingly to relativity) is proven.
It is people such as myself, who keep these fanatics in check.
Again, you repeatedly state that I am 'unwilling to learn'. This is yet again an underhand way of saying "Unwilling to accept what Dallas completely (100%) accepts".
I should have said unwilling and incapable of learning. I gave you a lot of information, why don't you study it for a while? Come back when you have comprehended it. The Ives experiment is a very powerful one, you will need to try to understand it before you can make a meaningful argument.
This could easily be defended against, as my retaining of an open-mind, such that theories should never be 100% accepted, but rather, accepted equally with all other theories,
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation? Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation? Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
in the spirit of academic disassociation / objectiveness.
It is people such as myself, who keep these fanatics in check.
Keep dreaming
Let me know when you have something.
I should have said unwilling and incapable of learning. I gave you a lot of information, why don't you study it for a while? Come back when you have comprehended it. The Ives experiment is a very powerful one, you will need to try to understand it before you can make a meaningful argument.
I said I would, didn't I?
So I do not believe you have the right to accuse me of being 'unwilling to learn' or 'incapable of learning'. The very fact that I literally told you I would investigate the Ives experiment, is contradicting everything you're saying here.
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation?
I don't know every single theory out there. Hell, time dilation isn't even something I'd usually bother talking about! It's just that it keeps rearing it's head in every discussion. Not to mention people keep saying how there is 'proof' of it, when it's still just a theory. It's stuff like that, that really winds me up. Hence why I've been so hard on your case about academic disassociation.
And btw, even though I have a theory which disagrees with it. I can still remain academically disassociated with my theory. I'd never go around saying that it's 'right', or spouting off every post about it ("By AWT", for instance).
Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
I've written threads before, about my own theories. They were rather well received, I thought (Until Zephir hijacks them with AWT discussion). I know that I've done one on black hole matter reprocessing, and I know I've done another, but I can't recall what about (It was so long ago). Plus I'm still working on one (In my mind and on paper) about fundamental matter interconnectivity, as the cause of gravity, as well as a side piece I'm still working on, where I attempt to explain fields/forces as purely particle based. I vaguely remember writing a thread about the big bang/multiverse theory, where I think I submitted some ideas about them.
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
In my opinion it is very big manipulation.
Why I think this?
In 1971 was taken into account only such number (and types) of the diagrams to fit the theoretical result to the experimental result obtained in 1970.
Next was the 1.001159652190 because the experimental result obtained by H. Dehmelt was
1.001159652193
Now, from cited in your post formula, we obtain
1.0011596524+-0.0000000003
The today experimental value (see the 2006 CODATA) is
1.00115965218
Can you see that always the number (and types) of chosen diagrams was to fit the theoretical value to the experimental value? You probably think that always it was by chance? But I am not such naive. Can you see that the Feynman QED (and all other theories based on the perturbation theory) contains the internal mechanism which fits the theoretical results to the experimental data? Can you see that such 'theories' they are the toys, the childish games? And none explanations can change the conviction that such 'theories' are formulated only because scientists cannot solve the basic problems on base of the Newtonian mechanics. It is possible and you can find such theory (i.e. the New QED) on my website - it is at least 100 times (maybe it is about 1000) shorter than the Feynman QED.
Similar manipulation is associated with the Lamb-Retherford shift. First the theoretical result was (1971) 1057.911+-0.012 MHz because the experimental result was (1970) 1057.90+-0.06 MHz.
Today, the experimental result is 1057.864 MHz. So scientists should change the number (and types) of the diagrams to obtain the good value because the theoretical value obtained in 1971 is not consistent with this result.
In my opinion scientists discredit themselves.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 25 2007, 07:06 PM)
Sylwester Kornowski,
This would be very interresting:
This is the kind of curiosity I would like to learn ... if it was supported by some substance.
Thirty year ago I was in the heaven when I read the paper by Wheeler and Feynman about action at distance (the absorber theory). This was totally coherent, very stimulating and thought provoking. And this was supported by substance: their analysis was in-depth and they analysed the most crucial aspects of the idea. Today I think (to my knowledge) this idea has not yet delivered anything useful, but I don't care: I enjoyed, I learned, and it was totally rational. And it was substantiated.
Your idea above could be also interresting, maybe not as much as the absorber theory, but this more a question of taste than anything else.
Where I have a problem: your sentense is a starting point and an end at the same time.
It seems you put this idea here just to flame people a little bit more, just to play with Zephir.
What a pitty.
Lalbatros, I try to be honest in the discussion. Many times I wrote that the Zephir AWT it is not a theory because of lack of any calculations. I also wrote that in my opinion the infinite recursion it is science fiction (i.e. such model cannot describe the real nature) and there is the evidence - i.e. lack of any calculations and results.
But Zephir is right (in my opinion) saying that all possible phenomena can be described on base of the Newtonian mechanics. I do not know why Zephir claims it because of lack of any scientific arguments. My arguments are as follows:
-only quantum mathematics is coherent (there MUST be the smallest volume)
-mathematics which wants to describe the real nature MUST start from the same fundamental space as the physics
-mathematical and physical properties of the fundamental space can be ONLY GUESSED from equations which tie the small and large mathematical and physical elementary structures.
Because such equations are formulated in my theory so I was able to define the fundamental space. Such space is classical i.e. is described only by the Newtonian KINETICS. From the shapes such space is composed of can be created the larger structures. When energy density of background is close to the mean energy density of some particle then in the description appears the wave function i.e. the QM. It is the reason why I claim that all phenomena can be described by the Newtonian kinetics (not even by the Newtonian dynamics) - it is because whole physics and useful mathematics MUST be derived from the fundamental space i.e. from the speedy/structureless mathematical points!!!!!! And it is in my ultimate theory of structures and spaces which leads to the best results.
This would be very interresting:
This is the kind of curiosity I would like to learn ... if it was supported by some substance.
Thirty year ago I was in the heaven when I read the paper by Wheeler and Feynman about action at distance (the absorber theory). This was totally coherent, very stimulating and thought provoking. And this was supported by substance: their analysis was in-depth and they analysed the most crucial aspects of the idea. Today I think (to my knowledge) this idea has not yet delivered anything useful, but I don't care: I enjoyed, I learned, and it was totally rational. And it was substantiated.
Your idea above could be also interresting, maybe not as much as the absorber theory, but this more a question of taste than anything else.
Where I have a problem: your sentense is a starting point and an end at the same time.
It seems you put this idea here just to flame people a little bit more, just to play with Zephir.
What a pitty.
Lalbatros, I try to be honest in the discussion. Many times I wrote that the Zephir AWT it is not a theory because of lack of any calculations. I also wrote that in my opinion the infinite recursion it is science fiction (i.e. such model cannot describe the real nature) and there is the evidence - i.e. lack of any calculations and results.
But Zephir is right (in my opinion) saying that all possible phenomena can be described on base of the Newtonian mechanics. I do not know why Zephir claims it because of lack of any scientific arguments. My arguments are as follows:
-only quantum mathematics is coherent (there MUST be the smallest volume)
-mathematics which wants to describe the real nature MUST start from the same fundamental space as the physics
-mathematical and physical properties of the fundamental space can be ONLY GUESSED from equations which tie the small and large mathematical and physical elementary structures.
Because such equations are formulated in my theory so I was able to define the fundamental space. Such space is classical i.e. is described only by the Newtonian KINETICS. From the shapes such space is composed of can be created the larger structures. When energy density of background is close to the mean energy density of some particle then in the description appears the wave function i.e. the QM. It is the reason why I claim that all phenomena can be described by the Newtonian kinetics (not even by the Newtonian dynamics) - it is because whole physics and useful mathematics MUST be derived from the fundamental space i.e. from the speedy/structureless mathematical points!!!!!! And it is in my ultimate theory of structures and spaces which leads to the best results.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 26 2007, 04:46 AM)
So for the prospect of laughing at you, I do indeed hope that time dilation has a different reason than you believe. Man, you will never hear the end of it from me; such is the fallout from your unshakeable acceptance of time dilation.
As relativity has Newtonian mechanics a limit case (for v<<c) , so will the "new theory" have relativity as a limit case. So, the current interpretation of time dilation in the framework of relativity will not be disproven.
So, good luck at hoping to see the "prospect of laughing at you" , you just continue to demonstrate ignorance as to how science works . I do appreciate your continuing contribution to this thread in having us understand the "psyche of the common crank" : unwilling to learn even when help is offered and vengeful.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 26 2007, 11:27 AM)
Because such equations are formulated in my theory so I was able to define the fundamental space. Such space is classical i.e. is described only by the Newtonian KINETICS. From the shapes such space is composed of can be created the larger structures. When energy density of background is close to the mean energy density of some particle then in the description appears the wave function i.e. the QM. It is the reason why I claim that all phenomena can be described by the Newtonian kinetics (not even by the Newtonian dynamics) - it is because whole physics and useful mathematics MUST be derived from the fundamental space i.e. from the speedy/structureless mathematical points!!!!!! And it is in my ultimate theory of structures and spaces which leads to the best results.
Well , try explaining the perihelion of Mercury by the "Newtonian kinetics". Do you think you could do that?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 25 2007, 03:29 PM)
Definitions:
Fundamental space: Mathematics in a low voice assumes that the mathematical points have size because we cannot build a mathematical plane from size less points even if number of them is infinite. It means that there is the ‘tangent point’ for mathematics and physics – it is the SIZE OF mathematical/physical SMALLEST POINT. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces leads to conclusion that the size of the smallest points is diameter=0.95•10^-64 m (the initial conditions depend on the gravitational constant which is measured with low accuracy – I assume that it is G=6.7•10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2). It is also obvious that without motion we cannot describe the observed nature. So we must assume that the fundamental space it is the ideal very energetic gas composed of the smallest bare points. My theory leads to the linear speed of the smallest point equal to v(linear)=1.2•10^127 m/s. Conservation of the linear speed of the smallest points leads to the conservation laws of spin and energy. From such state of the fundamental space we can derive whole mathematics and physics needed to describe the nature.
Smallest distance is equal to the diameter of the smallest point.
Smallest mathematical/physical circle is built of the smallest points. My theory says that the smallest circle is built of the K=0.79•10^10 smallest points. I call the K the numerical physical constant. In the fundamental space can be created only the smallest/solid/homogeneous/structureless mathematical/physical circles having only the size and linear and spin speeds. They are stable because of the kinetic viscosity.
Gravitational space it is the ideal gas composed of the fundamental speedy bare smallest circles which have only shape and inertial energy - their volume is filled by the eternal primordial/structureless substance. The spin radius is equal to ro(spin)=1.2•10^-55 m. The spin speed is practically equal to the linear speed of the smallest points. It is because the linear speed of the smallest circles (v(linear)= 2.4•10^97 m/s) is much lower than the linear speed of the smallest points. In gravitational space straight trajectories of the smallest circles can have all possible directions (chaos). Fundamental and gravitational spaces fill the infinite and truly empty volume because are composed of the BARE points and circles. It means that there is only one set of physical laws.
Inertial mass of the smallest circles is directly proportional to their volumes. It is equal to 3.8•10^-107 kg.
Gravitational torus is built of the smallest circles. It has the spin radius equal to 0.95•10^-45 m. It has spin and internal helicity (Fig. 1-see on my website) so there are the left- and right-handed gravitational tori. Because of the kinetic viscosity of the smallest circles and because of the internal helicity of the gravitational tori, the gravitational tori transform the chaotic motions of smallest circles onto the divergent field. The divergent trajectories (order) create the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces (chaos) in such way that pressure is lower in places where the number density of the divergent trajectories is higher. It means that there is created ‘niche’ in the fundamental and gravitational spaces. The attractive gravitational force and the gravitational potential energy are associated with the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces.
To describe shape and behavior of the gravitational torus we need 3 coordinates, 2 radii, 1 spin speed which is equal to the linear speed of the smallest circles, 1 helicity angular speed which is equal to the spin angular speed of the smallest circles), and time associated with the linear speed, for the rotation of the spin vector we additionally need 2 angular speeds, i.e. we need the 10 ‘dimensions’ – such is the physical meaning of the 10 dimensional space. Because total spin and helicity of the infinite Universe must be equal to zero so the gravitational tori are created as the torus-antitorus pairs so to describe it we need the 11 ‘dimensions’.
All other particles are built of the gravitational tori.
Gravitational field it is the divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles and points. The trajectories of these shapes are divergent (order) because of the internal helicity. Gravitational field has finite range (about 10^41 m) because of the direct collisions of the divergently moving smallest circles and points with the moving smallest circles and points the gravitational and fundamental spaces are composed of. The divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles dominates because we know that interactions associated with more elementary structures are weaker. It means that describing the gravitation we may neglect the fundamental space.
Speed of propagation of the gravitational field is equal to the linear speeds of the smallest circles.
Local time is defined as directly proportional to the ratio of the number of all direct collisions of free smallest circles in some local volume of the gravitational space to the number of the smallest circles in this volume.
Local unit of time it is the mean time between the direct collisions of the free smallest circles the local volume of the gravitational space is composed of. It means that in regions having higher number density of the gravitational tori, the created niche in the gravitational space is deeper (i.e. the mean distance between the free smallest circles is greater) so time is going slower.
Local unit of length it is the local mean distance between the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of.
Inertial, gravitational, rest, and relativistic masses of particles are directly proportional to the number of the gravitational tori (or to the total volume of them). It is the reason why the inertial and gravitational masses have the same value.
hej Sylwester
It is getting better and better
Still:
1)where does the chaotic speedily moving gas come from? Can it be formed from the primordial structureless matter by some process (e.g fast rotation) leading to tearing/quantization/evaporation/phase change?
2) Is the movement of gas truly chaotic in all directions, or are there some preferred directions ( for it to be able to create order we see in nature). I understand tori is a filter, but still- can it really cope with truly chaotic angles of incidence by gas circles.
3) Is the inertial mass of primordial matter ( volume*density) so small really? 10^10 smallest points weigh 10E-107 kg, so 1 point - 10E-97 kg,
What is the density of primordial matter in smallest point? Do You know the thickness of the smallest point?
4) why gravity has range 10E41m? Is it because that is the mean path smallest point (or circle ) can travel without destroying gravitational tori by hitting it in a weak place?
5) the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses escapes me as in Your model inertial mass exists before gravitational, so there are particles (points, circles, tori) where this equivalence is not in force simply because they do not have gravitational mass?
Fundamental space: Mathematics in a low voice assumes that the mathematical points have size because we cannot build a mathematical plane from size less points even if number of them is infinite. It means that there is the ‘tangent point’ for mathematics and physics – it is the SIZE OF mathematical/physical SMALLEST POINT. My ultimate theory of structures and spaces leads to conclusion that the size of the smallest points is diameter=0.95•10^-64 m (the initial conditions depend on the gravitational constant which is measured with low accuracy – I assume that it is G=6.7•10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2). It is also obvious that without motion we cannot describe the observed nature. So we must assume that the fundamental space it is the ideal very energetic gas composed of the smallest bare points. My theory leads to the linear speed of the smallest point equal to v(linear)=1.2•10^127 m/s. Conservation of the linear speed of the smallest points leads to the conservation laws of spin and energy. From such state of the fundamental space we can derive whole mathematics and physics needed to describe the nature.
Smallest distance is equal to the diameter of the smallest point.
Smallest mathematical/physical circle is built of the smallest points. My theory says that the smallest circle is built of the K=0.79•10^10 smallest points. I call the K the numerical physical constant. In the fundamental space can be created only the smallest/solid/homogeneous/structureless mathematical/physical circles having only the size and linear and spin speeds. They are stable because of the kinetic viscosity.
Gravitational space it is the ideal gas composed of the fundamental speedy bare smallest circles which have only shape and inertial energy - their volume is filled by the eternal primordial/structureless substance. The spin radius is equal to ro(spin)=1.2•10^-55 m. The spin speed is practically equal to the linear speed of the smallest points. It is because the linear speed of the smallest circles (v(linear)= 2.4•10^97 m/s) is much lower than the linear speed of the smallest points. In gravitational space straight trajectories of the smallest circles can have all possible directions (chaos). Fundamental and gravitational spaces fill the infinite and truly empty volume because are composed of the BARE points and circles. It means that there is only one set of physical laws.
Inertial mass of the smallest circles is directly proportional to their volumes. It is equal to 3.8•10^-107 kg.
Gravitational torus is built of the smallest circles. It has the spin radius equal to 0.95•10^-45 m. It has spin and internal helicity (Fig. 1-see on my website) so there are the left- and right-handed gravitational tori. Because of the kinetic viscosity of the smallest circles and because of the internal helicity of the gravitational tori, the gravitational tori transform the chaotic motions of smallest circles onto the divergent field. The divergent trajectories (order) create the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces (chaos) in such way that pressure is lower in places where the number density of the divergent trajectories is higher. It means that there is created ‘niche’ in the fundamental and gravitational spaces. The attractive gravitational force and the gravitational potential energy are associated with the gradient of pressure in the fundamental and gravitational spaces.
To describe shape and behavior of the gravitational torus we need 3 coordinates, 2 radii, 1 spin speed which is equal to the linear speed of the smallest circles, 1 helicity angular speed which is equal to the spin angular speed of the smallest circles), and time associated with the linear speed, for the rotation of the spin vector we additionally need 2 angular speeds, i.e. we need the 10 ‘dimensions’ – such is the physical meaning of the 10 dimensional space. Because total spin and helicity of the infinite Universe must be equal to zero so the gravitational tori are created as the torus-antitorus pairs so to describe it we need the 11 ‘dimensions’.
All other particles are built of the gravitational tori.
Gravitational field it is the divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles and points. The trajectories of these shapes are divergent (order) because of the internal helicity. Gravitational field has finite range (about 10^41 m) because of the direct collisions of the divergently moving smallest circles and points with the moving smallest circles and points the gravitational and fundamental spaces are composed of. The divergent field composed of the moving smallest circles dominates because we know that interactions associated with more elementary structures are weaker. It means that describing the gravitation we may neglect the fundamental space.
Speed of propagation of the gravitational field is equal to the linear speeds of the smallest circles.
Local time is defined as directly proportional to the ratio of the number of all direct collisions of free smallest circles in some local volume of the gravitational space to the number of the smallest circles in this volume.
Local unit of time it is the mean time between the direct collisions of the free smallest circles the local volume of the gravitational space is composed of. It means that in regions having higher number density of the gravitational tori, the created niche in the gravitational space is deeper (i.e. the mean distance between the free smallest circles is greater) so time is going slower.
Local unit of length it is the local mean distance between the free smallest circles the gravitational space is composed of.
Inertial, gravitational, rest, and relativistic masses of particles are directly proportional to the number of the gravitational tori (or to the total volume of them). It is the reason why the inertial and gravitational masses have the same value.
hej Sylwester
It is getting better and better
Still:
1)where does the chaotic speedily moving gas come from? Can it be formed from the primordial structureless matter by some process (e.g fast rotation) leading to tearing/quantization/evaporation/phase change?
2) Is the movement of gas truly chaotic in all directions, or are there some preferred directions ( for it to be able to create order we see in nature). I understand tori is a filter, but still- can it really cope with truly chaotic angles of incidence by gas circles.
3) Is the inertial mass of primordial matter ( volume*density) so small really? 10^10 smallest points weigh 10E-107 kg, so 1 point - 10E-97 kg,
What is the density of primordial matter in smallest point? Do You know the thickness of the smallest point?
4) why gravity has range 10E41m? Is it because that is the mean path smallest point (or circle ) can travel without destroying gravitational tori by hitting it in a weak place?
5) the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses escapes me as in Your model inertial mass exists before gravitational, so there are particles (points, circles, tori) where this equivalence is not in force simply because they do not have gravitational mass?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 26 2007, 10:44 PM)
QUOTE
Thus the 2006 result is completely vindicated.
1971 22 diagrams M.J.Levine and J.Wright http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i21/p1351_1
1973 10 diagrams M.J.Levine and R.Roskies http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v30/i16/p772_1 and http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i9/p3171_1 and one more paper by M.J.Levine and R.Roskies and R.Perisho I can't find
1974 40 diagrams P.Cvitanović and T.Kinoshita
Total: 72 diagrams
In my opinion it is very big manipulation.
Why I think this?
In 1971 was taken into account only such number (and types) of the diagrams to fit the theoretical result to the experimental result obtained in 1970.
Next was the 1.001159652190 because the experimental result obtained by H. Dehmelt was
1.001159652193
Now, from cited in your post formula, we obtain
1.0011596524+-0.0000000003
The today experimental value (see the 2006 CODATA) is
1.00115965218
Can you see that always the number (and types) of chosen diagrams was to fit the theoretical value to the experimental value? You probably think that always it was by chance? But I am not such naive. Can you see that the Feynman QED (and all other theories based on the perturbation theory) contains the internal mechanism which fits the theoretical results to the experimental data? Can you see that such 'theories' they are the toys, the childish games? And none explanations can change the conviction that such 'theories' are formulated only because scientists cannot solve the basic problems on base of the Newtonian mechanics. It is possible and you can find such theory (i.e. the New QED) on my website - it is at least 100 times (maybe it is about 1000) shorter than the Feynman QED.
Similar manipulation is associated with the Lamb-Retherford shift. First the theoretical result was (1971) 1057.911+-0.012 MHz because the experimental result was (1970) 1057.90+-0.06 MHz.
Today, the experimental result is 1057.864 MHz. So scientists should change the number (and types) of the diagrams to obtain the good value because the theoretical value obtained in 1971 is not consistent with this result.
In my opinion scientists discredit themselves.
So basically, what you're saying is that you think that scientests are dishonest because they follow the scientific method - which involves using experimental data to refine or disprove a theory.
Which is exactly what you're talking about - using experimental data to refine theoretical predictions. The whole thing about the diagrams, I sorta see it as "Well, the experiment gives us this value, which we get with these diagrams, so it seems that these diagrams are incorrect or un neccessary." Combined with a bit of "Well, we now know the experimental value for this, so using the experimental value rather then the theoretical value will help us more accurately make predictions of higher order values."
The 1971 paper has some very preliminary numbers in it. They are preliminary numbers because to be definite numbers you need to all the diagrams, calculate the numbers from all the diagrams (some of which contain ugly integrals), and keep track of signs when adding up. (Feynman diagrams are not part of QED but part of math. They have an intuitive meaning in QED, but they can be used in other perturbative expansions of integrals we don't know how to do exactly yet. http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-03/msg0015539.html and http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~tony/whatsnew/...1/feynman1.html ) In 1971 they had 22 diagrams in use. In 1973 they invented new ways of calculating the integrals to get more diagrams. In 1974 more diagrams. Later, we had exact calulations for some of these diagrams, not just numerical estimates. QED hasn't changed -- Mankind got better at calculating with it. The mass of the tau lepton is a required paramter also.
rpenner
the strings moving in spacetimes amongs the dimensions,has a induced metric,that are curved spacetimes,that does measure through asymmetries
between the dimensions,from where appear the time dilatation and contraction of the space.
congratulations.
the strings moving in spacetimes amongs the dimensions,has a induced metric,that are curved spacetimes,that does measure through asymmetries
between the dimensions,from where appear the time dilatation and contraction of the space.
congratulations.
QUOTE (Dallas+)
As relativity has Newtonian mechanics a limit case (for v<<c) , so will the "new theory" have relativity as a limit case. So, the current interpretation of time dilation in the framework of relativity will not be disproven.
I am talking about the unshakeable conviction which you have, in time itself actually 'slowing down' for an object which moves with speed. That this slowing down of time, gets slower the faster the object travels.
And I am saying that 'if' this is shown not to be the case; that time actually isn't 'slowing down'. That I would laugh heartily at you for adopting the afore mentioned unshakeable belief in an actual loss of time, rather than academically disassociating yourself from that theory, to prevent such ridicule from ever happening, if said theory about actual loss of time, was shown to be false.
QUOTE (Dallas+)
I do appreciate your continuing contribution to this thread in having us understand the "psyche of the common crank" : unwilling to learn even when help is offered and vengeful.
Again, you repeatedly state that I am 'unwilling to learn'. This is yet again an underhand way of saying "Unwilling to accept what Dallas completely (100%) accepts". This could easily be defended against, as my retaining of an open-mind, such that theories should never be 100% accepted, but rather, accepted equally with all other theories, in the spirit of academic disassociation / objectiveness.
It is essentially this objectiveness which you lack, in regards to time dilation. I've no doubt in my mind, that if you knew nobody would criticise you about it, you would say that time dilation (accordingly to relativity) is proven.
It is people such as myself, who keep these fanatics in check.
Speaking of time diliation...
If there were actually two temporal dimensions... what would that do to the concept?
If there were actually two temporal dimensions... what would that do to the concept?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 27 2007, 02:42 AM)
If there were actually two temporal dimensions... what would that do to the concept?
Why stop at two? Why not have six, or twenty, or fifty? How about a million? How about an infinite number?
Stop the madness plz!
Why stop at two? Why not have six, or twenty, or fifty? How about a million? How about an infinite number?
Stop the madness plz!
Time ends relatively at the event horizon of a black hole while inside proper time continues. Then that ends at the singlarity.
Problem is things move at light speed where time ends. Falling at light speed is a violation of the laws of motion set up by SR.
If one time ends and things fall at light speed because of it at the border of a black hole what then happens inside? If there is more gravity ought falling objects fall even faster?
Problem is things move at light speed where time ends. Falling at light speed is a violation of the laws of motion set up by SR.
If one time ends and things fall at light speed because of it at the border of a black hole what then happens inside? If there is more gravity ought falling objects fall even faster?
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 9 2007, 08:01 PM)
I joined this forum about 9 months ago, after hearing stories from a friend who told me about people with zero knowledge of physics chatting to each other about topics like "chaos", "renormalisation", "black holes", "solitons"... the list went on. Needless to say, curiosity got to me and I eventually registered to see what all the fuss was about. At first I thought most of the people were wind-up merchants, hoping to bait someone like myself and continue to sprout ludicrous things in an attempt to wind me up. After some time though, it became apparent that these people were serious, and that they genuinely felt that there buzzword-laden posts, full of utter nonsense, were actually scientific work that should be taken seriously.
Ever since, I cease to be astounded by the level of delusion that so many people portray here. There seems so much passion about physics, so much enthusiasm about deep theoretical results and yet, such an adamant refusal to take any time out to learn about the subject in hand. And it is this point, more than any other, that baffles me about these people. More often than not, it would seem that these people have an inordinate amount of free time on their hands, so it seems to me that they are in a perfect position to learn all they would like about physics: be it classical, or modern. The reasons I imagine them not doing so are varied, but I shall outline a few:
Becuase you know what Einstein said doesn't make you anybody EULER.
You feel sorry for cranks just so you can have somebody to look down to.
MItch Raemsch
Ever since, I cease to be astounded by the level of delusion that so many people portray here. There seems so much passion about physics, so much enthusiasm about deep theoretical results and yet, such an adamant refusal to take any time out to learn about the subject in hand. And it is this point, more than any other, that baffles me about these people. More often than not, it would seem that these people have an inordinate amount of free time on their hands, so it seems to me that they are in a perfect position to learn all they would like about physics: be it classical, or modern. The reasons I imagine them not doing so are varied, but I shall outline a few:
- Why read the volume 1, when you could simply tell people you've read all the way through to volume 10. You just have to hope they know less than you.
- It seems more like hard work to actually learn a subject, whereas there exist forums like this where you can pretend to know X, Y, Z and there are people willing to: a) not only believe you, but also b) talk about how your "knowledge" applies to their own theory of the universe.
- Having attempted to push through the first few pages of an introductory (i.e chilldrens) text book on basic physics, and found yourself considerably lacking. Rather than be embarrassed about your lack of intellectual capacity, you blame the simplicity of the theory and assume that it's because your acute mind is more suited to the more complex parts of physics.
- You are just pathetic, and you need something to fill your life. Because you don't know any physics, you don't know whether or not your idiotic ramblings contain some great insight (for the record, they don't). So you are able to live in the hope that you are doing something great, which might make you feel better about your sorry existence.
Becuase you know what Einstein said doesn't make you anybody EULER.
You feel sorry for cranks just so you can have somebody to look down to.
MItch Raemsch
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 27 2007, 02:39 AM)
Again, you repeatedly state that I am 'unwilling to learn'. This is yet again an underhand way of saying "Unwilling to accept what Dallas completely (100%) accepts".
I should have said unwilling and incapable of learning. I gave you a lot of information, why don't you study it for a while? Come back when you have comprehended it. The Ives experiment is a very powerful one, you will need to try to understand it before you can make a meaningful argument.
QUOTE
This could easily be defended against, as my retaining of an open-mind, such that theories should never be 100% accepted, but rather, accepted equally with all other theories,
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation? Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
This could easily be defended against, as my retaining of an open-mind, such that theories should never be 100% accepted, but rather, accepted equally with all other theories, |
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation? Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
in the spirit of academic disassociation / objectiveness.
It is people such as myself, who keep these fanatics in check.
Keep dreaming
Let me know when you have something.
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 27 2007, 06:51 AM)
...you repeatedly state that I am 'unwilling to learn'. This is yet again an underhand way of saying "Unwilling to accept what Dallas completely (100%) accepts...
Are you Jehovist or some other sectarian? The science is about understanding, not the belief. Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Everything else is just a demagogy, religion and politics.
Are you Jehovist or some other sectarian? The science is about understanding, not the belief. Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Everything else is just a demagogy, religion and politics.
QUOTE (Dallas+)
I should have said unwilling and incapable of learning. I gave you a lot of information, why don't you study it for a while? Come back when you have comprehended it. The Ives experiment is a very powerful one, you will need to try to understand it before you can make a meaningful argument.
I said I would, didn't I?
So I do not believe you have the right to accuse me of being 'unwilling to learn' or 'incapable of learning'. The very fact that I literally told you I would investigate the Ives experiment, is contradicting everything you're saying here.QUOTE (Dallas+)
...such as? Your pet theory that disagrees with time dilation?
I don't know every single theory out there. Hell, time dilation isn't even something I'd usually bother talking about! It's just that it keeps rearing it's head in every discussion. Not to mention people keep saying how there is 'proof' of it, when it's still just a theory. It's stuff like that, that really winds me up. Hence why I've been so hard on your case about academic disassociation.
And btw, even though I have a theory which disagrees with it. I can still remain academically disassociated with my theory. I'd never go around saying that it's 'right', or spouting off every post about it ("By AWT", for instance).
QUOTE (Dallas+)
Maybe you should open a thread explaining it so we can have a look at it. Why don't you do that? After all, this forum is all about new theories, not about your misunderstandings and misconceptions about old theories. Don't worry about your not knowing any math, give a plain English explanation of your theory.
I've written threads before, about my own theories. They were rather well received, I thought (Until Zephir hijacks them with AWT discussion). I know that I've done one on black hole matter reprocessing, and I know I've done another, but I can't recall what about (It was so long ago). Plus I'm still working on one (In my mind and on paper) about fundamental matter interconnectivity, as the cause of gravity, as well as a side piece I'm still working on, where I attempt to explain fields/forces as purely particle based. I vaguely remember writing a thread about the big bang/multiverse theory, where I think I submitted some ideas about them.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 27 2007, 07:32 AM)
The science is about understanding, not the belief. Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science.
I can explain it actually. When our universe came into existence, values and physical laws were set for this universe. The speed of photons, was one such value.
Our universe is sort of like a game, with a set of rules and values.
Just like in chess there is a rule that a Rook can only move up/down & left/right, and that it can move all the way across the board (movement values) if there is nothing in the way. And then there's more complex stuff like swapping with a king and all that. So yeah, rules/laws and values.
And lastly, science isn't just about understanding. One may understand a theory, but then you have to believe whether the theory is 'more right' than other theories. Then the theories become like their own little religions. Just like how you might have to 'understand' Christianity, before believing it.
I can explain it actually. When our universe came into existence, values and physical laws were set for this universe. The speed of photons, was one such value.
Our universe is sort of like a game, with a set of rules and values.
Just like in chess there is a rule that a Rook can only move up/down & left/right, and that it can move all the way across the board (movement values) if there is nothing in the way. And then there's more complex stuff like swapping with a king and all that. So yeah, rules/laws and values.
And lastly, science isn't just about understanding. One may understand a theory, but then you have to believe whether the theory is 'more right' than other theories. Then the theories become like their own little religions. Just like how you might have to 'understand' Christianity, before believing it.
A ridiculous illusion:
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant, except the euphoric Zephir.
Would that means then than science does not exists yet?
Only Zephir will defend such a ridiculous claim.
A further -less severe- misconception is this one:
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant, except the euphoric Zephir.
Would that means then than science does not exists yet?
Only Zephir will defend such a ridiculous claim.
A further -less severe- misconception is this one:
The science is about understanding (...)
I think science is about discovering facts, relating them together and minimizing the quantity of information necessary to represent our knowledge.
An example in short:
- discovering the mechanical behaviour of many objects (moon, bicycle, ...)
- discovering the Kepler laws, the Newton's laws, energy conservation, momentum conservation, ...
- relating all these facts together and REDUCING them to the laws of mechanics
Understanding, in science, means "reducing". This is closely related to reductionism.
Understanding occurs when we (often suddenly) are able to use less information to relate facts together.
Understanding represents our progress in organizing our knowledge.
Understanding is organisation of knowledge.
Obviously, all fact cannot be reduced to other fact, there are inevitably ultimate facts.
Therefore, it is also obvious, that science can live without explaining the constancy of c,
specially if there are no new facts, and obviously AWT is not a fact.
Zephir, the king of illusory claims,
believes he was able to reduce the constancy of the speed of light to some mysterious aether foam.
This is a belief of Zephir, since he was never able to prove that despite the many attempts he staged here.
Well , try explaining the perihelion of Mercury by the "Newtonian kinetics". Do you think you could do that?
In my first paper titled Initial Conditions for the Ultimate Theory I explained how the fundamental space (described by the classical kinetics) leads to the Einstein's initial conditions i.e. to the c=const. and to m(inertial)=m(gravitational). It means that my theory proves that the SR and GR are correct i.e. that they describe the real nature - only some interpretations are incorrect, for example the time loops are not in existence. It also means that all phenomena resulting from the relativity can be explained on base of the kinetic theory of ideal gas.
The kinetic theory of ideal gas also leads to the WAVE FUNCTION. It means that all phenomena resulting from the quantum mechanics can be explained on base of this theory.
I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!! In my prior posts, in other threads, I explained why such particles cannot be observed directly.
The nature is classical. The quantum effects arise on higher level of the fundamental/classical space i.e. for particles which are created because of the phase transitions in the classical spaces. Only such particles can disappear in one place and arise in another place (classical objects cannot) – but to do it such particles MUST be sunk in the classical space. It means that particles, for example electrons, can be described by the wave function only if are sunk in the classical space composed of objects moving with speeds MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ‘c’. Then the distant points of the wave function can quickly communicate.
QUOTE
Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science.
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant, except the euphoric Zephir.
Would that means then than science does not exists yet?
Only Zephir will defend such a ridiculous claim.
A further -less severe- misconception is this one:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science. |
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant, except the euphoric Zephir.
Would that means then than science does not exists yet?
Only Zephir will defend such a ridiculous claim.
A further -less severe- misconception is this one:
The science is about understanding (...)
I think science is about discovering facts, relating them together and minimizing the quantity of information necessary to represent our knowledge.
An example in short:
- discovering the mechanical behaviour of many objects (moon, bicycle, ...)
- discovering the Kepler laws, the Newton's laws, energy conservation, momentum conservation, ...
- relating all these facts together and REDUCING them to the laws of mechanics
Understanding, in science, means "reducing". This is closely related to reductionism.
Understanding occurs when we (often suddenly) are able to use less information to relate facts together.
Understanding represents our progress in organizing our knowledge.
Understanding is organisation of knowledge.
Obviously, all fact cannot be reduced to other fact, there are inevitably ultimate facts.
Therefore, it is also obvious, that science can live without explaining the constancy of c,
specially if there are no new facts, and obviously AWT is not a fact.
Zephir, the king of illusory claims,
believes he was able to reduce the constancy of the speed of light to some mysterious aether foam.
This is a belief of Zephir, since he was never able to prove that despite the many attempts he staged here.
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 26 2007, 02:00 PM)
Well , try explaining the perihelion of Mercury by the "Newtonian kinetics". Do you think you could do that?
In my first paper titled Initial Conditions for the Ultimate Theory I explained how the fundamental space (described by the classical kinetics) leads to the Einstein's initial conditions i.e. to the c=const. and to m(inertial)=m(gravitational). It means that my theory proves that the SR and GR are correct i.e. that they describe the real nature - only some interpretations are incorrect, for example the time loops are not in existence. It also means that all phenomena resulting from the relativity can be explained on base of the kinetic theory of ideal gas.
The kinetic theory of ideal gas also leads to the WAVE FUNCTION. It means that all phenomena resulting from the quantum mechanics can be explained on base of this theory.
I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!! In my prior posts, in other threads, I explained why such particles cannot be observed directly.
The nature is classical. The quantum effects arise on higher level of the fundamental/classical space i.e. for particles which are created because of the phase transitions in the classical spaces. Only such particles can disappear in one place and arise in another place (classical objects cannot) – but to do it such particles MUST be sunk in the classical space. It means that particles, for example electrons, can be described by the wave function only if are sunk in the classical space composed of objects moving with speeds MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ‘c’. Then the distant points of the wave function can quickly communicate.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jul 26 2007, 03:23 PM)
hej Sylwester
It is getting better and better
Still:
1)where does the chaotic speedily moving gas come from? Can it be formed from the primordial structureless matter by some process (e.g fast rotation) leading to tearing/quantization/evaporation/phase change?
2) Is the movement of gas truly chaotic in all directions, or are there some preferred directions ( for it to be able to create order we see in nature). I understand tori is a filter, but still- can it really cope with truly chaotic angles of incidence by gas circles.
3) Is the inertial mass of primordial matter ( volume*density) so small really? 10^10 smallest points weigh 10E-107 kg, so 1 point - 10E-97 kg,
What is the density of primordial matter in smallest point? Do You know the thickness of the smallest point?
4) why gravity has range 10E41m? Is it because that is the mean path smallest point (or circle ) can travel without destroying gravitational tori by hitting it in a weak place?
5) the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses escapes me as in Your model inertial mass exists before gravitational, so there are particles (points, circles, tori) where this equivalence is not in force simply because they do not have gravitational mass?
Hej Ivars,
1) For me it is obvious that the structureless substance and the energy MUST be eternal because if not then creation of any universe is impossible. The ideal granulation of this structureless substance must be strictly determined by the energy density of it - interactions between the lumps, in the direct collision, caused by the kinetic viscosity, are weaker when the lumps are smaller because then the curvature of surface is higher. For higher curvature of surface the area of contact, in the direct collisions, is smaller so the force resulting from the kinetic viscosity is also weaker. Similarly are created the granules of sand on a beach - bigger storm creates smaller granules.
2) Creations of the regular tubule and next the gravitational tori from the mathematical circles are possible only in very dense fluctuations of the space composed of the circles. Probability of creation of such fluctuation is very low but the infinite Multiverse is eternal so it is no any problem. The gravitational tori are stable also because of the kinetic viscosity.
3) Size and inertial mass (it is defined by the volume of the structureless substance) of the mathematical points result from the very simple mathematical equations which tie the small and large structures. The inertial mass of the mathematical point is 0.79 . 10^10 smaller than the inertial mass of the mathematical circle. It means that the smallest inertial mass is equal to 4.8 . 10^-117 kg.
4) Gravitational tori are the classical stable elementary structures. They have the internal helicity so they transform the chaotic motions of the circles into the divergent trajectories. The finite range of the gravitational field results from the direct collisions of the moving divergently circles with other FREE circles and from the number density of the all circles.
5) Only mathematical points and circles cannot create the gravitational field because they have not the internal helicity. Only internal helicity causes creation of the divergent gravitational field. We can only say that the points and circles have the BARE GRAVITATIONAL MASS (i.e. without the gravitational field) EQUAL TO THE INERTIAL MASS WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE VOLUME OF THESE SHAPES.
It is getting better and better
Still:
1)where does the chaotic speedily moving gas come from? Can it be formed from the primordial structureless matter by some process (e.g fast rotation) leading to tearing/quantization/evaporation/phase change?
2) Is the movement of gas truly chaotic in all directions, or are there some preferred directions ( for it to be able to create order we see in nature). I understand tori is a filter, but still- can it really cope with truly chaotic angles of incidence by gas circles.
3) Is the inertial mass of primordial matter ( volume*density) so small really? 10^10 smallest points weigh 10E-107 kg, so 1 point - 10E-97 kg,
What is the density of primordial matter in smallest point? Do You know the thickness of the smallest point?
4) why gravity has range 10E41m? Is it because that is the mean path smallest point (or circle ) can travel without destroying gravitational tori by hitting it in a weak place?
5) the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses escapes me as in Your model inertial mass exists before gravitational, so there are particles (points, circles, tori) where this equivalence is not in force simply because they do not have gravitational mass?
Hej Ivars,
1) For me it is obvious that the structureless substance and the energy MUST be eternal because if not then creation of any universe is impossible. The ideal granulation of this structureless substance must be strictly determined by the energy density of it - interactions between the lumps, in the direct collision, caused by the kinetic viscosity, are weaker when the lumps are smaller because then the curvature of surface is higher. For higher curvature of surface the area of contact, in the direct collisions, is smaller so the force resulting from the kinetic viscosity is also weaker. Similarly are created the granules of sand on a beach - bigger storm creates smaller granules.
2) Creations of the regular tubule and next the gravitational tori from the mathematical circles are possible only in very dense fluctuations of the space composed of the circles. Probability of creation of such fluctuation is very low but the infinite Multiverse is eternal so it is no any problem. The gravitational tori are stable also because of the kinetic viscosity.
3) Size and inertial mass (it is defined by the volume of the structureless substance) of the mathematical points result from the very simple mathematical equations which tie the small and large structures. The inertial mass of the mathematical point is 0.79 . 10^10 smaller than the inertial mass of the mathematical circle. It means that the smallest inertial mass is equal to 4.8 . 10^-117 kg.
4) Gravitational tori are the classical stable elementary structures. They have the internal helicity so they transform the chaotic motions of the circles into the divergent trajectories. The finite range of the gravitational field results from the direct collisions of the moving divergently circles with other FREE circles and from the number density of the all circles.
5) Only mathematical points and circles cannot create the gravitational field because they have not the internal helicity. Only internal helicity causes creation of the divergent gravitational field. We can only say that the points and circles have the BARE GRAVITATIONAL MASS (i.e. without the gravitational field) EQUAL TO THE INERTIAL MASS WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE VOLUME OF THESE SHAPES.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2007, 07:22 PM)
So basically, what you're saying is that you think that scientests are dishonest because they follow the scientific method - which involves using experimental data to refine or disprove a theory.
Which is exactly what you're talking about - using experimental data to refine theoretical predictions. The whole thing about the diagrams, I sorta see it as "Well, the experiment gives us this value, which we get with these diagrams, so it seems that these diagrams are incorrect or un neccessary." Combined with a bit of "Well, we now know the experimental value for this, so using the experimental value rather then the theoretical value will help us more accurately make predictions of higher order values."
My ultimate theory of structures and spaces (WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE DARK ENERGY) leads to conclusion that because of the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe we cannot obtain in experiments accuracy higher than +-0.0000000011
It means that higher accuracy in the future experiments is not needed because we will obtain all possible values from following interval
(1.001159651972, 1.001159654178)
It means that all experimental results obtained since 1970 are correct and manipulation of the number (and types) of the diagrams it is childish game because the perturbation theory is NOT COHERENT.
We must change the Feynman QED and it is in my New QED.
Which is exactly what you're talking about - using experimental data to refine theoretical predictions. The whole thing about the diagrams, I sorta see it as "Well, the experiment gives us this value, which we get with these diagrams, so it seems that these diagrams are incorrect or un neccessary." Combined with a bit of "Well, we now know the experimental value for this, so using the experimental value rather then the theoretical value will help us more accurately make predictions of higher order values."
My ultimate theory of structures and spaces (WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE DARK ENERGY) leads to conclusion that because of the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe we cannot obtain in experiments accuracy higher than +-0.0000000011
It means that higher accuracy in the future experiments is not needed because we will obtain all possible values from following interval
(1.001159651972, 1.001159654178)
It means that all experimental results obtained since 1970 are correct and manipulation of the number (and types) of the diagrams it is childish game because the perturbation theory is NOT COHERENT.
We must change the Feynman QED and it is in my New QED.
Bryn Richards,there are reasons physical and mathematics to the universe has
two dimensions to the time,in 5-dimensions SO(3,2)in pseodo-orthogonal and transformations by coordinates through the operator CPT.then is not something
aleathorius.
solid state universe
if there is the two dimensios to the time,the time dilatation can be explained as
complementary of the variable time.then the spacetime are loops.
rpenner
the octonions in it non-commutativity to multiplicartions of its entities,could define
the metric of spacetime,and has as induced metrics,the constancy of speed of light.
and also would explain the 4-dimensional universe given by SR and GRthen the
relativistic effects of time dilatation and contraction of space is vinculated to the
asymmetry,generated by the non-commutativity.
two dimensions to the time,in 5-dimensions SO(3,2)in pseodo-orthogonal and transformations by coordinates through the operator CPT.then is not something
aleathorius.
solid state universe
if there is the two dimensios to the time,the time dilatation can be explained as
complementary of the variable time.then the spacetime are loops.
rpenner
the octonions in it non-commutativity to multiplicartions of its entities,could define
the metric of spacetime,and has as induced metrics,the constancy of speed of light.
and also would explain the 4-dimensional universe given by SR and GRthen the
relativistic effects of time dilatation and contraction of space is vinculated to the
asymmetry,generated by the non-commutativity.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 26 2007, 09:37 PM)
.....The mass of the tau lepton is a required paramter also.
No. My ultimate theory of structures and SPACES leads to conclusion that the bare mass of electron has size not equal to zero. From this size results that the density of the background, close to the surface of the bare non-relativistic electron, is too low to create virtual muons or virtual tau leptons. I also claim that the electroweak theory does not describe the real nature because the density is too low to create the W and Z bosons close to the surface of the bare non-relativistic electron. The correct description of the all interactions you can find in my papers - there are calculated the coupling constants.
No. My ultimate theory of structures and SPACES leads to conclusion that the bare mass of electron has size not equal to zero. From this size results that the density of the background, close to the surface of the bare non-relativistic electron, is too low to create virtual muons or virtual tau leptons. I also claim that the electroweak theory does not describe the real nature because the density is too low to create the W and Z bosons close to the surface of the bare non-relativistic electron. The correct description of the all interactions you can find in my papers - there are calculated the coupling constants.
Thanks mott.
Thats about what I thought.
Thats about what I thought.
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 27 2007, 03:04 AM)
Time ends relatively at the event horizon of a black hole while inside proper time continues. Then that ends at the singlarity.
Problem is things move at light speed where time ends. Falling at light speed is a violation of the laws of motion set up by SR.
If one time ends and things fall at light speed because of it at the border of a black hole what then happens inside? If there is more gravity ought falling objects fall even faster?
The nature has defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. There is the indirect proof - if we assume that the infinite Multiverse is eternal then the singularities had time to 'eat' whole mass/energy. We see that it not happened. Time can stop only in volume which is truly empty - it results from my definition of time and definition of local unit of time. Definition of time is associated with gravitational field and speed - it results from the GR and SR. My theory says that when mass density increases then density of the fundamental spaces, composed of the points and circles, decreases - there is created the niche in these spaces. Local unit of time is defined as mean time between the direct collisions in the niche. It means that local unit of time inside a black hole lasts much, much longer than local unit of time for distant observer. Also unit of distance inside this black hole is much, much longer than for the distant observer (unit of distance is defined as the mean distance between the shapes in the niche). But the ratio unit.of.distance/unit.of.time inside the black hole and in place the distant observer is, has the SAME VALUE - it leads to the Einstein's initial condition c=const. for all observers.
Problem is things move at light speed where time ends. Falling at light speed is a violation of the laws of motion set up by SR.
If one time ends and things fall at light speed because of it at the border of a black hole what then happens inside? If there is more gravity ought falling objects fall even faster?
The nature has defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. There is the indirect proof - if we assume that the infinite Multiverse is eternal then the singularities had time to 'eat' whole mass/energy. We see that it not happened. Time can stop only in volume which is truly empty - it results from my definition of time and definition of local unit of time. Definition of time is associated with gravitational field and speed - it results from the GR and SR. My theory says that when mass density increases then density of the fundamental spaces, composed of the points and circles, decreases - there is created the niche in these spaces. Local unit of time is defined as mean time between the direct collisions in the niche. It means that local unit of time inside a black hole lasts much, much longer than local unit of time for distant observer. Also unit of distance inside this black hole is much, much longer than for the distant observer (unit of distance is defined as the mean distance between the shapes in the niche). But the ratio unit.of.distance/unit.of.time inside the black hole and in place the distant observer is, has the SAME VALUE - it leads to the Einstein's initial condition c=const. for all observers.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 27 2007, 11:08 AM)
Our universe is sort of like a game, with a set of rules and values.
This is just an anthropocentric vision of reality.
We cannot expect, for example the Henry's law describing the partial pressure has even existed before some matter creation. The laws have evolved together with our Universe and they're mostly result of our relation to the gradient driven Newtonian mechanics, the mass/energy spreading in harmonic waves in particular.
This is just an anthropocentric vision of reality.
We cannot expect, for example the Henry's law describing the partial pressure has even existed before some matter creation. The laws have evolved together with our Universe and they're mostly result of our relation to the gradient driven Newtonian mechanics, the mass/energy spreading in harmonic waves in particular.
QUOTE (Sylwester+Jul 27 2007, 11:08 AM)
...the nature has defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density....
The AWT enables to understand such "defensive mechanism" in details. This mechanism follows just from gradient driven mechanics, where every curvature is the source of potential energy density, which is proportional the diffusional gradient.
Every gradient formed by blob with positive or negative has boundaries, while at the center remains relatively flat. When such gradient collapses, the gradient at the center doesn't change so quickly, like the gradient neboundaries. By such way, every density blob will reach the state, where is cannot collapse furthermore, or the blob boundaries would become more dense, then the center of the blob. Such blob will change into undulating wave packet, driven by dynamic equilibrium of the volume and surface mass/energy density.
The AWT enables to understand such "defensive mechanism" in details. This mechanism follows just from gradient driven mechanics, where every curvature is the source of potential energy density, which is proportional the diffusional gradient.
Every gradient formed by blob with positive or negative has boundaries, while at the center remains relatively flat. When such gradient collapses, the gradient at the center doesn't change so quickly, like the gradient neboundaries. By such way, every density blob will reach the state, where is cannot collapse furthermore, or the blob boundaries would become more dense, then the center of the blob. Such blob will change into undulating wave packet, driven by dynamic equilibrium of the volume and surface mass/energy density.
I should add my definition of the Einstein’s spacetime.
In my theory the Einstein's spacetime is defined as the ideal gas composed of the mathematical points and circles having sizes - all points have the same size, also all circles have the same size. Mathematical circle is composed of K=0.79 . 10^10 mathematical points. The Einstein's relative time and relative length are defined in my theory by the mean distances and speeds of the mathematical circles in the niches/fluctuations created in the ideal.gas/spacetime by the masses – the niches are created because the masses have the internal helicities. The mathematical shapes are moving in the ideal.gas/spacetime with speeds much higher than the ‘c’. Higgs bosons, gravitons and gravitational waves are not in existence.
In my theory the Einstein's spacetime is defined as the ideal gas composed of the mathematical points and circles having sizes - all points have the same size, also all circles have the same size. Mathematical circle is composed of K=0.79 . 10^10 mathematical points. The Einstein's relative time and relative length are defined in my theory by the mean distances and speeds of the mathematical circles in the niches/fluctuations created in the ideal.gas/spacetime by the masses – the niches are created because the masses have the internal helicities. The mathematical shapes are moving in the ideal.gas/spacetime with speeds much higher than the ‘c’. Higgs bosons, gravitons and gravitational waves are not in existence.
Sylwester
you think that there is a "mathematical size" to the phenomenons of smallest size(
if was mathematical,would be the infinity,but the infinity cannot do part of the
physical systems).then the smaller infinitesimal size,has a discreteness,and therefore the manifolds in that point,is not smooth and neither differentiable.then
concept of limit by the right and left,iwould linked to the microscopic spacetime,where Parity and Reversal time suffer breakdown,but these fractal
curvatures are continues.
the lenght of the planck' scale is beyond that called event horizon,or is outer of it.
mass and energy would be stable configurations in the spacetime, since the smaller infinitesimal particles,that is the small lenght and small time,where an
event can occur,therefore the speed of light in those regions cannot be constant,but yes variable,creating a multi-metric,where the non-compacted and
multiply-connected space,and these regions in the topologic classes in 4-dimensions,aren't smooth,appearing "singularities" and the metric to sphere
embedded in even-dimensions with lorentz metric is only possible with the
topologic characteristic equal 2.
you think that there is a "mathematical size" to the phenomenons of smallest size(
if was mathematical,would be the infinity,but the infinity cannot do part of the
physical systems).then the smaller infinitesimal size,has a discreteness,and therefore the manifolds in that point,is not smooth and neither differentiable.then
concept of limit by the right and left,iwould linked to the microscopic spacetime,where Parity and Reversal time suffer breakdown,but these fractal
curvatures are continues.
the lenght of the planck' scale is beyond that called event horizon,or is outer of it.
mass and energy would be stable configurations in the spacetime, since the smaller infinitesimal particles,that is the small lenght and small time,where an
event can occur,therefore the speed of light in those regions cannot be constant,but yes variable,creating a multi-metric,where the non-compacted and
multiply-connected space,and these regions in the topologic classes in 4-dimensions,aren't smooth,appearing "singularities" and the metric to sphere
embedded in even-dimensions with lorentz metric is only possible with the
topologic characteristic equal 2.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 27 2007, 10:07 PM)
My ultimate theory of structures and spaces (WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE DARK ENERGY) leads to conclusion that because of the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe we cannot obtain in experiments accuracy higher than +-0.0000000011
It means that higher accuracy in the future experiments is not needed because we will obtain all possible values from following interval
(1.001159651972, 1.001159654178)
It means that all experimental results obtained since 1970 are correct and manipulation of the number (and types) of the diagrams it is childish game because the perturbation theory is NOT COHERENT.
We must change the Feynman QED and it is in my New QED.
Say it with me.
IT. IS. NOT. A. CONSPIRACY.
If you think it is, I suggest you go and take youre anti psychotics.
Using experimental data to refine and constrain theoretical values is not some form of lying.
Or are you suggesting that Newton lied when he devised his laws of motion?
It means that higher accuracy in the future experiments is not needed because we will obtain all possible values from following interval
(1.001159651972, 1.001159654178)
It means that all experimental results obtained since 1970 are correct and manipulation of the number (and types) of the diagrams it is childish game because the perturbation theory is NOT COHERENT.
We must change the Feynman QED and it is in my New QED.
Say it with me.
IT. IS. NOT. A. CONSPIRACY.
If you think it is, I suggest you go and take youre anti psychotics.
Using experimental data to refine and constrain theoretical values is not some form of lying.
Or are you suggesting that Newton lied when he devised his laws of motion?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 27 2007, 07:32 PM)
Can you explain, why the speed of light is constant, for example? Noo?!? Then it's not science.
I've explained to you several times why the speed of light is constant, time for me to ask you a quesion though Zephir.
Why should the speed of ligh NOT be constant?
I've explained to you several times why the speed of light is constant, time for me to ask you a quesion though Zephir.
Why should the speed of ligh NOT be constant?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 27 2007, 02:48 PM)
...The mathematical shapes are moving in the ideal.gas/spacetime with speeds much higher than the ‘c’. Higgs bosons, gravitons and gravitational waves are not in existence....
The AWT is very common, it doesn't depend on any particular geometry assumed ad-hoc (circles, points, flat rings, donuts, strings, metrons, quantum loops or whatever else).
The AWT is very common, it doesn't depend on any particular geometry assumed ad-hoc (circles, points, flat rings, donuts, strings, metrons, quantum loops or whatever else).
QUOTE (trippy+Jul 27 2007, 02:48 PM)
...Why should the speed of light NOT be constant?....
Such question doesn't explain, why it should be? Why the God couldn't exist, for example?
For example, the gravitational lensing phenomena is based on the variable speed of light.
Such question doesn't explain, why it should be? Why the God couldn't exist, for example?
For example, the gravitational lensing phenomena is based on the variable speed of light.
Hej Sylwester
QUOTE: "I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!! In my prior posts, in other threads, I explained why such particles cannot be observed directly.
The nature is classical. The quantum effects arise on higher level of the fundamental/classical space i.e. for particles which are created because of the phase transitions in the classical spaces. Only such particles can disappear in one place and arise in another place (classical objects cannot) – but to do it such particles MUST be sunk in the classical space. It means that particles, for example electrons, can be described by the wave function only if are sunk in the classical space composed of objects moving with speeds MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ‘c’. Then the distant points of the wave function can quickly communicate."
Yes - yes - and yes - I cannot but agree -
I would advocate that you reconsider the 3D Pixel screen idea again - again- because without that kind of model there will be too many open questions about fundamentals.
1) how do you incorporate the whole informational part in your hypothesis, or put differently - how do you envisage - how do you explain that Nature behaves orderly - that Universe is with high complexity and low entropy - and now I am not asking WHY - I am simply asking HOW
2) how do you explain - envisage that smallest shapes - call them what you like - give them a size that you find appropiate - but how can such particles move around and collide - and in which kind of medium - and what is the steering or controlling factor when such shapes moves arouud - do you think that Nature is haphazard on smallest level - and then everything turns up in ordered structures - is there suchj a thing as smallest shape into existance - that can be be put together with other similar objects and then the rest is a kind of selforganisation.
3) where do you see major differences between yours so-called ideal gas - and mine so called pixel-screen- and then you can ask if the pixel screen is needed - and I say Yes - without such a structure for me it is impossible to account for the informational part and the ordered part.
From the 3D Pixel screen and upwards it is probably likely that everything can be calculated -
like Lalbatros expressed "Science is about minimizing the quantity of information necessary to represent our knowledge."
With the pixel defined by its sixe and by its delay function when expressing wave-structures, I have a feeling that a lot of fundamentals can be calculated.
QUOTE: "I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!! In my prior posts, in other threads, I explained why such particles cannot be observed directly.
The nature is classical. The quantum effects arise on higher level of the fundamental/classical space i.e. for particles which are created because of the phase transitions in the classical spaces. Only such particles can disappear in one place and arise in another place (classical objects cannot) – but to do it such particles MUST be sunk in the classical space. It means that particles, for example electrons, can be described by the wave function only if are sunk in the classical space composed of objects moving with speeds MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ‘c’. Then the distant points of the wave function can quickly communicate."
Yes - yes - and yes - I cannot but agree -
I would advocate that you reconsider the 3D Pixel screen idea again - again- because without that kind of model there will be too many open questions about fundamentals.
1) how do you incorporate the whole informational part in your hypothesis, or put differently - how do you envisage - how do you explain that Nature behaves orderly - that Universe is with high complexity and low entropy - and now I am not asking WHY - I am simply asking HOW
2) how do you explain - envisage that smallest shapes - call them what you like - give them a size that you find appropiate - but how can such particles move around and collide - and in which kind of medium - and what is the steering or controlling factor when such shapes moves arouud - do you think that Nature is haphazard on smallest level - and then everything turns up in ordered structures - is there suchj a thing as smallest shape into existance - that can be be put together with other similar objects and then the rest is a kind of selforganisation.
3) where do you see major differences between yours so-called ideal gas - and mine so called pixel-screen- and then you can ask if the pixel screen is needed - and I say Yes - without such a structure for me it is impossible to account for the informational part and the ordered part.
From the 3D Pixel screen and upwards it is probably likely that everything can be calculated -
like Lalbatros expressed "Science is about minimizing the quantity of information necessary to represent our knowledge."
With the pixel defined by its sixe and by its delay function when expressing wave-structures, I have a feeling that a lot of fundamentals can be calculated.
mott.carl
QUOTE: "Sylwester
you think that there is a "mathematical size" to the phenomenons of smallest size(
if was mathematical,would be the infinity,but the infinity cannot do part of the
physical systems).then the smaller infinitesimal size,has a discreteness,and therefore the manifolds in that point,is not smooth and neither differentiable"
If you consider the 3D Pixel Universe - smallest size (volume) in physical space is the pixel - and the pixel represents the transformation from physi al space and to informational space - and you will see how informational space = pixel matter, is composed of that part of math. world that can be translated - expressed - into physical matter - our Universe. I think that this will solve the problem - continuity - versus discontinuity - or put in other words - how can we transform math. continuity into phys. discontinuity. It is a little more explained in the thread "Particles Have Mass - How?"
QUOTE: "Sylwester
you think that there is a "mathematical size" to the phenomenons of smallest size(
if was mathematical,would be the infinity,but the infinity cannot do part of the
physical systems).then the smaller infinitesimal size,has a discreteness,and therefore the manifolds in that point,is not smooth and neither differentiable"
If you consider the 3D Pixel Universe - smallest size (volume) in physical space is the pixel - and the pixel represents the transformation from physi al space and to informational space - and you will see how informational space = pixel matter, is composed of that part of math. world that can be translated - expressed - into physical matter - our Universe. I think that this will solve the problem - continuity - versus discontinuity - or put in other words - how can we transform math. continuity into phys. discontinuity. It is a little more explained in the thread "Particles Have Mass - How?"
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 27 2007, 03:29 PM)
...I would advocate that you reconsider the 3D Pixel screen idea again - again..
Why, why? It doesn't explain anything, to predict the less.
Why, why? It doesn't explain anything, to predict the less.
Create an imaginary problem, an imaginary theory, and an imaginary solution of the imaginary problem based on this imaginary theory, and you get this real dialogue (just an example):
... and on this basis you could feed a few thousands of posts discussion a mysterious defense mechanism ...
Another example:
- pretends that there is no physics without an explanation to c=constant
- pretends that soap bubbles are a model for this question
- pretend that you solve the problem
This is all much easier that to learn real physics and solve real problems.
Crancks creativity exploits their ignorance of the real world.
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant,
I'll take a stab at it.
The general form of space-time transformation laws can be deduced from simple postulates, as explained here. Basically, because space is the same everywhere and at any time, we have relativity of reference frames. So, why should space be the same everywhere? Because nothingness has no properties left to vary. Any differences from place to place or time to time we attribute to various objects and fields that are laid down on top of this blank canvas. The blank canvas is defined to be uniform. I could go on, but I won't.
This general solution has two forms: Newton's and Special Relativity. When a free parameter K is positive, you have a special velocity that is the same in any inertial reference frame, and velocity-addition rules that make this a limit as well. It doesn't matter what K is, since that is just a scaling factor. The only real difference is when K is zero, that special velocity becomes infinite and we have Newton's universe. The open question is why K is other than exactly zero?
So, there is a special speed that is constant for all observers. Why does light travel at that speed? The Universe has a smallest meaningful scale, and that gives rise to quantization. The wave/particle duality thing falls out from that. What appears to not be compelled is how the wave properties correspond to observable properties, in particular that wavelength is momentum and frequency is energy. But once given those meanings, and that Special Relativity gives us E=mc² + pc (p is momentum), it follows directly that the velocity of any massless object must be equal to c.
In short, the speed of light is constant because of the way energy/momentum relates to the wave function in quantum mechanics.
If K were zero, that would still be the case, but that velocity would be infinite. That might explain why we don't live in a universe where this is the case: every effect would follow its cause instantaneously, and so everything would happen at once. There would be no "time".
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Sylwester @ Jul 27 2007, 11:08 AM) ...the nature has defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density.... The AWT enables to understand such "defensive mechanism" in details. This mechanism follows just from gradient driven mechanics, where every curvature is the source of potential energy density, which is proportional the diffusional gradient. |
... and on this basis you could feed a few thousands of posts discussion a mysterious defense mechanism ...
Another example:
- pretends that there is no physics without an explanation to c=constant
- pretends that soap bubbles are a model for this question
- pretend that you solve the problem
This is all much easier that to learn real physics and solve real problems.
Crancks creativity exploits their ignorance of the real world.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 27 2007, 01:00 PM)
... and on this basis you could feed a few thousands of posts discussion a mysterious defense mechanism ...
...
Crancks creativity exploits their ignorance of the real world.
Having otherwise a respect towards your "scientific attitude", those really are not the arguments, "scientific" the less. You know, Pauli principle or so-called "asymptotic freedom", "cosmic censorship" etc. were very similar stances to that of SK's (at least in its origin).
Main problem, in my opinion, for all here mentioned concepts would be in clear missing of "predictability". In other words, I would expect something qualitatively and no less, quantitatively "new" if even not "epochal". Only such a thing would be strong enough to shake the old paradigm, which btw really has become "sterile".
So many so-called "principles", "models", "theories"... Don't' you see that "physics" itself has become more than "ptolemaic". On the other hand, I like to see all possible ideas, cranky or not, an open field of thoughts and possibilities. Even that fact speaks by itself of the confusion arround.
Diamonds are often among garbage. And the "real world" is sooo relative. By all means.
Regards
...
Crancks creativity exploits their ignorance of the real world.
Having otherwise a respect towards your "scientific attitude", those really are not the arguments, "scientific" the less. You know, Pauli principle or so-called "asymptotic freedom", "cosmic censorship" etc. were very similar stances to that of SK's (at least in its origin).
Main problem, in my opinion, for all here mentioned concepts would be in clear missing of "predictability". In other words, I would expect something qualitatively and no less, quantitatively "new" if even not "epochal". Only such a thing would be strong enough to shake the old paradigm, which btw really has become "sterile".
So many so-called "principles", "models", "theories"... Don't' you see that "physics" itself has become more than "ptolemaic". On the other hand, I like to see all possible ideas, cranky or not, an open field of thoughts and possibilities. Even that fact speaks by itself of the confusion arround.
Diamonds are often among garbage. And the "real world" is sooo relative. By all means.
Regards
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 27 2007, 07:56 AM)
Not to mention people keep saying how there is 'proof' of it, when it's still just a theory. It's stuff like that, that really winds me up. Hence why I've been so hard on your case about academic disassociation.
Are you purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of the word "theory" like evolution-deniers do to spread FUD?
Time dilation and related effects is an observed phenomenon. Pretending it doesn't happen is not constructive.
Any competing theory would need to explain the same phenomenon.
Are you purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of the word "theory" like evolution-deniers do to spread FUD?
Time dilation and related effects is an observed phenomenon. Pretending it doesn't happen is not constructive.
Any competing theory would need to explain the same phenomenon.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 27 2007, 08:10 AM)
Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant,
I'll take a stab at it.
The general form of space-time transformation laws can be deduced from simple postulates, as explained here. Basically, because space is the same everywhere and at any time, we have relativity of reference frames. So, why should space be the same everywhere? Because nothingness has no properties left to vary. Any differences from place to place or time to time we attribute to various objects and fields that are laid down on top of this blank canvas. The blank canvas is defined to be uniform. I could go on, but I won't.
This general solution has two forms: Newton's and Special Relativity. When a free parameter K is positive, you have a special velocity that is the same in any inertial reference frame, and velocity-addition rules that make this a limit as well. It doesn't matter what K is, since that is just a scaling factor. The only real difference is when K is zero, that special velocity becomes infinite and we have Newton's universe. The open question is why K is other than exactly zero?
So, there is a special speed that is constant for all observers. Why does light travel at that speed? The Universe has a smallest meaningful scale, and that gives rise to quantization. The wave/particle duality thing falls out from that. What appears to not be compelled is how the wave properties correspond to observable properties, in particular that wavelength is momentum and frequency is energy. But once given those meanings, and that Special Relativity gives us E=mc² + pc (p is momentum), it follows directly that the velocity of any massless object must be equal to c.
In short, the speed of light is constant because of the way energy/momentum relates to the wave function in quantum mechanics.
If K were zero, that would still be the case, but that velocity would be infinite. That might explain why we don't live in a universe where this is the case: every effect would follow its cause instantaneously, and so everything would happen at once. There would be no "time".
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 27 2007, 03:08 PM)
...I've explained to you several times why the speed of light is constant...
You cannot understand it on the background of any mainstream theory. The relativity theory considers the constant speed of the light as a postulate, i.e. as a an assumption.
I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!!
That could be a symptom that you are suffering from a delusion. So is using large colored text, actually.
Ask instead why you don't understand how they (e.g. everyone else) make it coherent without your mechanism. It should be there in the math, as is your assertion if it exists.
(Adapted from an illustration originally by Okun):
Okun, L.B., 1991, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161, 177 [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 818].
(Subscription required!)
Later in Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
Tests of fundamental physical theories are getting further from the laboratory-scale experiments of Galileo, but the philosophy remains the same: Observe, Guess, Test, Compare, Repeat. Or to sum it up in one word: Learn.
You can't Learn about things which don't exist or which are postulated to exist but leave no experimental traces of themselves. That's why physical claims based on a hypothesis of angels or "The Matrix" or an Aether which mimics the behavior of vacuum are considered metaphysical.
Even if we were to fill in the question mark in Okun's diagram, that would not be the end of fundamental physics -- and certainly not physics in general.
http://www.informationesthetics.org/node/20 (Paypal required to purchase.)
You cannot understand it on the background of any mainstream theory. The relativity theory considers the constant speed of the light as a postulate, i.e. as a an assumption.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 27 2007, 03:08 PM)
...Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant...
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 27 2007, 08:33 AM)
I also do no understand why powerful physicists and mathematicians cannot see that the quantum mechanics is coherent only if the background of the Universe is also composed of shapes and the smallest particles (i.e. having the gravitational mass) moving with speeds much higher than the 'c' - it is such obvious!!!!
That could be a symptom that you are suffering from a delusion. So is using large colored text, actually.
Ask instead why you don't understand how they (e.g. everyone else) make it coherent without your mechanism. It should be there in the math, as is your assertion if it exists.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 27 2007, 05:50 PM)
You cannot understand it on the background of any mainstream theory. The relativity theory considers the constant speed of the light as a postulate, i.e. as a an assumption.
Read the post immediately above the one quoted.
Just because the speed of light was a postulate in the historical derivation of the theory doesn't mean that it is a fundamental postulate. The existence of a speed that is the same in all inertial reference frames can be derived from 4 postulates concerning the symmetry/uniformity of space and time. In the article I linked to, these are:
* Given the transform from frame A to frame B, the transform from B to A is the same but with the sign of the velocity flipped.
* Moving in one direction is the same as moving in another. If you turn everything around, you get the same effects.
* A rod has a constant size in frame A no matter where it is moved. Seen from frame B, the length is still constant (though not required to be the same as it was viewed from A).
* Same idea, but for time. Time intervals that are the same duration when measured in A will also be the same duration when measured in B.
From there, you can rigorously show the existence of a speed that is the same in all such frames. The invariant speed is not itself a postulate, but falls out of the math. Anything that happens to travel at this speed (e.g. photons) will be invariant.
Read the post immediately above the one quoted.
Just because the speed of light was a postulate in the historical derivation of the theory doesn't mean that it is a fundamental postulate. The existence of a speed that is the same in all inertial reference frames can be derived from 4 postulates concerning the symmetry/uniformity of space and time. In the article I linked to, these are:
* Given the transform from frame A to frame B, the transform from B to A is the same but with the sign of the velocity flipped.
* Moving in one direction is the same as moving in another. If you turn everything around, you get the same effects.
* A rod has a constant size in frame A no matter where it is moved. Seen from frame B, the length is still constant (though not required to be the same as it was viewed from A).
* Same idea, but for time. Time intervals that are the same duration when measured in A will also be the same duration when measured in B.
From there, you can rigorously show the existence of a speed that is the same in all such frames. The invariant speed is not itself a postulate, but falls out of the math. Anything that happens to travel at this speed (e.g. photons) will be invariant.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 27 2007, 04:27 PM)
But once given those meanings, and that Special Relativity gives us E=mc² + pc (p is momentum), it follows directly that the velocity of any massless object must be equal to c.
Correction: I was sloppy in putting in the equation. Trying to avoid typing the radical and all the superscripts, I took the square root of both terms, which is incorrect. The correct function is
, but it doesn't matter for the argument since you still get E=pc when m is zero.
Sorry; that's what happens when I try to type and eat at the same time!
Correction: I was sloppy in putting in the equation. Trying to avoid typing the radical and all the superscripts, I took the square root of both terms, which is incorrect. The correct function is
, but it doesn't matter for the argument since you still get E=pc when m is zero.Sorry; that's what happens when I try to type and eat at the same time!
Just a reminder, it's more useful to link to the pre-print server abstract page than the PDF cache. Not everyone wants the PDF and the abstract page also usually cites the journal (if any) where the preprint actually got published.
physics/0302045
The above author makes some good points, most of which have been presented on this forum. (Ironically, it was Pentcho Valev who brought up this topic with the online textbook, and in his misunderstanding he thought it reinforced his argument.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=239233
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=204548
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=186730
Once the Relativist and the Newtonian write down their postulates and stipulate as to which postulates they agree with, the whole question becomes one of experimental science to measure K. With protons, electrons, neutrinos, photons, nuclei, and macroscopic clocks, K is measured to be very close to 1/c² and definitely not zero. It is surprising to the Newtonian, but it is simple experimental science.
The remaining alternate viewpoints that c is not a fundamental physical constant of the universe are not Newtonian viewpoints. Rejecting Einstein does not mean embracing Newton, and it shouldn't mean that. Unlike many human endeavours (c.f. fashion, governments, etc), science is progressive. It cannot retreat to the past.
Likewise if Planck's constant wasn't built into the universe, you need to explain why a ground state of the hydrogen atom exists at a finite mean radius. Neither Newton nor Maxwell will help you.
We don't yet know what shape the "Next theory" of Quantum Relativistic Gravity or some such will be called. Will it be super-symmetric? Will it be stringy? Will it be in terms of discrete space time? Will it involve a Geometry beyond that of smooth manifolds? But from the historical experimental record, we know that in certain limits it will approximate current theories well.
physics/0302045
The above author makes some good points, most of which have been presented on this forum. (Ironically, it was Pentcho Valev who brought up this topic with the online textbook, and in his misunderstanding he thought it reinforced his argument.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=239233
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=204548
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=186730
Once the Relativist and the Newtonian write down their postulates and stipulate as to which postulates they agree with, the whole question becomes one of experimental science to measure K. With protons, electrons, neutrinos, photons, nuclei, and macroscopic clocks, K is measured to be very close to 1/c² and definitely not zero. It is surprising to the Newtonian, but it is simple experimental science.
The remaining alternate viewpoints that c is not a fundamental physical constant of the universe are not Newtonian viewpoints. Rejecting Einstein does not mean embracing Newton, and it shouldn't mean that. Unlike many human endeavours (c.f. fashion, governments, etc), science is progressive. It cannot retreat to the past.
Likewise if Planck's constant wasn't built into the universe, you need to explain why a ground state of the hydrogen atom exists at a finite mean radius. Neither Newton nor Maxwell will help you.
We don't yet know what shape the "Next theory" of Quantum Relativistic Gravity or some such will be called. Will it be super-symmetric? Will it be stringy? Will it be in terms of discrete space time? Will it involve a Geometry beyond that of smooth manifolds? But from the historical experimental record, we know that in certain limits it will approximate current theories well.
CODE
+ The Voyage of Discovery
| GR--------STR
| |\ |\
| | \ | \ 1/c
| | ?=========QFT ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NG-|-------NM | G <--+
| \ | \ | \
| \| \| h
| NQG========QM
+
| Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
| + Finite speed of light (1/c != 0)
| = Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
|
| NM + (G != 0) = Newtonian Gravity (NG)
| NM + (h != 0) = Quantum Mechanics (QM)
|
| STR + h = QM + 1/c = Quantum Field Theory
| STR + G = NG + 1/c = General Relativity
| NG + h = QM + G = Newtonian Quantum Gravity
+
| GR--------STR
| |\ |\
| | \ | \ 1/c
| | ?=========QFT ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NG-|-------NM | G <--+
| \ | \ | \
| \| \| h
| NQG========QM
+
| Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
| + Finite speed of light (1/c != 0)
| = Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
|
| NM + (G != 0) = Newtonian Gravity (NG)
| NM + (h != 0) = Quantum Mechanics (QM)
|
| STR + h = QM + 1/c = Quantum Field Theory
| STR + G = NG + 1/c = General Relativity
| NG + h = QM + G = Newtonian Quantum Gravity
+
(Adapted from an illustration originally by Okun):
Okun, L.B., 1991, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161, 177 [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 818].
(Subscription required!)
Later in Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
Tests of fundamental physical theories are getting further from the laboratory-scale experiments of Galileo, but the philosophy remains the same: Observe, Guess, Test, Compare, Repeat. Or to sum it up in one word: Learn.
You can't Learn about things which don't exist or which are postulated to exist but leave no experimental traces of themselves. That's why physical claims based on a hypothesis of angels or "The Matrix" or an Aether which mimics the behavior of vacuum are considered metaphysical.
Even if we were to fill in the question mark in Okun's diagram, that would not be the end of fundamental physics -- and certainly not physics in general.
http://www.informationesthetics.org/node/20 (Paypal required to purchase.)
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 27 2007, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 27 2007, 03:08 PM)
...I've explained to you several times why the speed of light is constant...
You cannot understand it on the background of any mainstream theory. The relativity theory considers the constant speed of the light as a postulate, i.e. as a an assumption.
Zephir may well think that, but the invariance of c is solely a consequence of assuming Maxwell's equations are correct and that the Principle of Relativity holds. Otherwise, the introduction of c would have no basis.
QUOTE (A. Einstein+ June 1905)
It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
So, Einstein's operational postulates are: The correct laws of physics must be the same for any inertial observer. And Maxwell's Equations correctly describe the Physics of electromagnetism for any observer. (Indeed, Maxwell's equations are used in just this way in the rest of the paper.) So it is a theorem of these postulates that if Maxwell's equations say light moves at a certain speed, then all inertial observers will measure that same speed, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian result.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/hall.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/appendix-SR.pdf
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
So, Einstein's operational postulates are: The correct laws of physics must be the same for any inertial observer. And Maxwell's Equations correctly describe the Physics of electromagnetism for any observer. (Indeed, Maxwell's equations are used in just this way in the rest of the paper.) So it is a theorem of these postulates that if Maxwell's equations say light moves at a certain speed, then all inertial observers will measure that same speed, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian result.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/hall.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/appendix-SR.pdf
QUOTE (Michel Janssen+)
To the relativity postulate Einstein added the light postulate: “light propagates through empty space with a definite velocity which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (Einstein 1905r, 891). That the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source is one of the key features of the electromagnetic theory developed in the second half of the 19th century by such physicists as James Clerk Maxwell (1832–1879) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853 1928). The light postulate is thus indirectly supported by all the evidence amassed during the 19th century for this powerful theory. [Maxwell's Equations]
...
This example offers some insight into why the combination of the two postulates seems to lead to contradictions. The light postulate suggests that light is a wave in some medium. This is how light is pictured in the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz. They saw light as an electromagnetic wave in the ether, a substance thought to fill all of space with no internal motion like a perfectly calm sea filling every nook and cranny of the universe. This is why adherents of this theory expected the relativity principle to break down. An observer in uniform motion through the ether is not equivalent to an observer at rest in the ether. A wave in the ether only moves with the same constant velocity in all directions with respect to the latter. Yet experiment suggested that the relativity principle holds for light as well. The relativity principle is compatible with light consisting of particles moving through empty space. But then the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the source from which the light particles are emitted, which contradicts the light postulate. If we insist on having both the relativity and the light postulate, light, it seems, can neither be a particle nor a wave.
...
What Einstein showed in his 1905 paper is that once we accept his two postulates—as we should given all the empirical evidence backing them up—we have to give up some of our common-sense ideas about space and time. Now it is one thing to concede when confronted with the relentless logic of Einstein’s 1905 paper that our old ideas were indeed nothing but prejudices; it is a completely different matter to get comfortable with the new ideas that Einstein put in their place. Here the 1905 paper is of little help. It does not tell us how to visualize the new relativistic ideas about space and time. Such visualization was provided a few years later by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864–1909). He presented his ideas in a celebrated talk in Cologne in 1908 (Minkowski 1909). Minkowski had been one of Einstein’s math professors in Zurich. He could hardly believe that his former student, whom he had seldom seen in class, had produced such a remarkable theory. Minkowski’s geometrical formulation of special relativity is still standard today. It took Einstein several years to appreciate his teacher’s priceless contribution.
...
This example offers some insight into why the combination of the two postulates seems to lead to contradictions. The light postulate suggests that light is a wave in some medium. This is how light is pictured in the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz. They saw light as an electromagnetic wave in the ether, a substance thought to fill all of space with no internal motion like a perfectly calm sea filling every nook and cranny of the universe. This is why adherents of this theory expected the relativity principle to break down. An observer in uniform motion through the ether is not equivalent to an observer at rest in the ether. A wave in the ether only moves with the same constant velocity in all directions with respect to the latter. Yet experiment suggested that the relativity principle holds for light as well. The relativity principle is compatible with light consisting of particles moving through empty space. But then the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the source from which the light particles are emitted, which contradicts the light postulate. If we insist on having both the relativity and the light postulate, light, it seems, can neither be a particle nor a wave.
...
What Einstein showed in his 1905 paper is that once we accept his two postulates—as we should given all the empirical evidence backing them up—we have to give up some of our common-sense ideas about space and time. Now it is one thing to concede when confronted with the relentless logic of Einstein’s 1905 paper that our old ideas were indeed nothing but prejudices; it is a completely different matter to get comfortable with the new ideas that Einstein put in their place. Here the 1905 paper is of little help. It does not tell us how to visualize the new relativistic ideas about space and time. Such visualization was provided a few years later by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864–1909). He presented his ideas in a celebrated talk in Cologne in 1908 (Minkowski 1909). Minkowski had been one of Einstein’s math professors in Zurich. He could hardly believe that his former student, whom he had seldom seen in class, had produced such a remarkable theory. Minkowski’s geometrical formulation of special relativity is still standard today. It took Einstein several years to appreciate his teacher’s priceless contribution.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 27 2007, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 27 2007, 03:08 PM)
...Nobody can explain why the speed of light is constant...
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
Maxwell's argument for them is ether-based, but the ether hypothesis left no experimental traces.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/pulham.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
Even the Lorentzian ether was not consistent with experiment.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
Minkowski's 1908 formulation of SR as geometry is an explanation, although not necessarily the only one.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/pulham.html
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
Even the Lorentzian ether was not consistent with experiment.
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
Minkowski's 1908 formulation of SR as geometry is an explanation, although not necessarily the only one.
This is just a legend advertised here by Zephir:
As all legends, it contains a small element of truth: I have put the truth in bold in the quote above. The rest of the story is for the childs.
Maxwell's equation is a theory that has been constructed to represent all the facts and knowledge about electromagnetism. It is one of the story of physics that precisely illustrates what I said earlier:
The Maxwell's equations have reduced to a minimum the information needed to analyse an electromagnetic phenomena. Moreover by the magic of mathematical analysis, the Maxwell's theory has been shaped to ensure charge conservation. By doing so the first relativistic theory has been completed and has led to the discovery that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. In a sense we could say that the EM theory "explains" the constancy of c: indeed it relates c to the Faraday's and Ampère's laws made consistent with charge conservation. But only experiment had been finally able that prove the constancy of c and validate Maxwell's theory.
Legends have been sometimes somehow useful, specially to fill some gaps in the understanding of the world. But today, the electromagnetic theory has no use of the legend anymore.
Further, the new legends advertised by Zephir are better called an intellectual fraud than really a legend, even less a theory.
QUOTE
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
As all legends, it contains a small element of truth: I have put the truth in bold in the quote above. The rest of the story is for the childs.
Maxwell's equation is a theory that has been constructed to represent all the facts and knowledge about electromagnetism. It is one of the story of physics that precisely illustrates what I said earlier:
The Maxwell's equations have reduced to a minimum the information needed to analyse an electromagnetic phenomena. Moreover by the magic of mathematical analysis, the Maxwell's theory has been shaped to ensure charge conservation. By doing so the first relativistic theory has been completed and has led to the discovery that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. In a sense we could say that the EM theory "explains" the constancy of c: indeed it relates c to the Faraday's and Ampère's laws made consistent with charge conservation. But only experiment had been finally able that prove the constancy of c and validate Maxwell's theory.
Legends have been sometimes somehow useful, specially to fill some gaps in the understanding of the world. But today, the electromagnetic theory has no use of the legend anymore.
Further, the new legends advertised by Zephir are better called an intellectual fraud than really a legend, even less a theory.
Turya,
I agree totally with your observation.
But the "scientific attitude" cannot be applied at any moment.
Sometimes we have to use intuition and sometimes we have to be practical.
My background in physics is reasonable but nevertheless rather limited.
Despite my limitations I don't need a lot of time and thinking to consider Zephir and Tsolkas as pure cranks.
Doing so, I may be wrong about them for 1 post in 1000. I don't mind.
Practically I can just behave as if they were systematically wrong.
This is obviously the most efficient approach.
Just a practical use of probabilities.
... and I don't expand about my negative experience when discussing with Zephir, his bad faith is so bad that I think he is fooling himself ...
In short, the speed of light is constant because of the way energy/momentum relates to the wave function in quantum mechanics.
You mean there actually is a reason? I was under the impression it was one of those trial and error things like, for instance, a person has a flashlight and is riding forward pretty fast and aiming the light forward. This person's movement does not add any speed to the light like one would normally assume, just change the color perhaps. I just thought that after they tried to do this a few times (in a more sophisticated manner), they concluded that light will never ever go faster.
Apparently word never reached Lucasfilm because Han Solo said as he was boarding the Mellinium Falcon with Luke, "She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself. But we're a little rushed, so if you'll just get on board, we'll get out of here." Han would not be happy to know the true speed limit, but then the empire would be bound by the same limit.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Crancks creativity exploits their ignorance of the real world. Having otherwise a respect towards your "scientific attitude", those really are not the arguments, "scientific" the less. (Turya) |
I agree totally with your observation.
But the "scientific attitude" cannot be applied at any moment.
Sometimes we have to use intuition and sometimes we have to be practical.
My background in physics is reasonable but nevertheless rather limited.
Despite my limitations I don't need a lot of time and thinking to consider Zephir and Tsolkas as pure cranks.
Doing so, I may be wrong about them for 1 post in 1000. I don't mind.
Practically I can just behave as if they were systematically wrong.
This is obviously the most efficient approach.
Just a practical use of probabilities.
... and I don't expand about my negative experience when discussing with Zephir, his bad faith is so bad that I think he is fooling himself ...
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 27 2007, 11:12 PM)
don't need a lot of time and thinking to consider Zephir and Tsolkas as pure cranks
What you think is completely irrelevant here. I'm considering as crank the people, who are claiming different things without justification and you're fulfilling such crank definition very well. If you cannot refute my explanations and to propose more viable alternative explanations, here's not very much remaining space for logical argumentation from your side, just the lies and demagogy.
What you think is completely irrelevant here. I'm considering as crank the people, who are claiming different things without justification and you're fulfilling such crank definition very well. If you cannot refute my explanations and to propose more viable alternative explanations, here's not very much remaining space for logical argumentation from your side, just the lies and demagogy.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 05:50 AM)
You cannot understand it on the background of any mainstream theory. The relativity theory considers the constant speed of the light as a postulate, i.e. as a an assumption.
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
Utter BS.
Here. From first principles:
Experimental evidence tells us that quanta of light consist of an electric field, and a magnetic field.
Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is limited by the ability of a quanta of light to penetrate that vacuum, in much the same way that the speed of a bullet through an object is limited by the bullets ability to penetrate the medium.
As experimental evidence tells us that quanta of light consist of an electric field and a magnetic field, that the ability of a quanta of light to penetrate the vacuum will be limited by the ability of a magentic field and an electric field to penetrate the vacuum.
We know experimentally that the ability of an electric field and a magnetic field to penetrate a given medium is controled by the Permittivity and Permeability of that medium. Therefore, logically, the speed of a quanta of light through the vacuum must be goverened by these two constants.
Experimentally, we know that these two constants are independent of the velocity of an observer, therefore, logically, we would predict that the speed of a quanta of light in a vacuum would be independent of the observer. This is further backed up by the observation that the units that we use to measure the permeability and permittivity of a medium show no dependence upon the velocity of the obersver.
See? Simple.
The constancy of the speed of light explained, from first principles, without involving maxwells wave equations, and the derivation of the speed of light from those, in fact, this is the logic that tells us that such a derivation is possible, and I suppose you could argue that the derivation is the mathmatical version of this explanation.
For example, the Maxwell's Aether theory of light can explain, why the speed of light is constant, at least on formal abstract level. The constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Indeed, the Maxwell's theory is Aether based.
Utter BS.
Here. From first principles:
Experimental evidence tells us that quanta of light consist of an electric field, and a magnetic field.
Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is limited by the ability of a quanta of light to penetrate that vacuum, in much the same way that the speed of a bullet through an object is limited by the bullets ability to penetrate the medium.
As experimental evidence tells us that quanta of light consist of an electric field and a magnetic field, that the ability of a quanta of light to penetrate the vacuum will be limited by the ability of a magentic field and an electric field to penetrate the vacuum.
We know experimentally that the ability of an electric field and a magnetic field to penetrate a given medium is controled by the Permittivity and Permeability of that medium. Therefore, logically, the speed of a quanta of light through the vacuum must be goverened by these two constants.
Experimentally, we know that these two constants are independent of the velocity of an observer, therefore, logically, we would predict that the speed of a quanta of light in a vacuum would be independent of the observer. This is further backed up by the observation that the units that we use to measure the permeability and permittivity of a medium show no dependence upon the velocity of the obersver.
See? Simple.
The constancy of the speed of light explained, from first principles, without involving maxwells wave equations, and the derivation of the speed of light from those, in fact, this is the logic that tells us that such a derivation is possible, and I suppose you could argue that the derivation is the mathmatical version of this explanation.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 12:13 AM)
Such question doesn't explain, why it should be? Why the God couldn't exist, for example?
For example, the gravitational lensing phenomena is based on the variable speed of light.
No, these two questions are very different.
You're asking us to explain (as we have, many times) why the speed of light is constant, if one hypothesis is not true, then the other must be. I'm asking you to justify why you think the speed of light should be inconstant (which you claim that it is for long enough wavelengths anyway).
I'm asking you to justify your assumption that the speed of light is inconstant. I'm asking you to provide experimental evidence that the alternative hypothesis is true.
For example, the gravitational lensing phenomena is based on the variable speed of light.
No, these two questions are very different.
You're asking us to explain (as we have, many times) why the speed of light is constant, if one hypothesis is not true, then the other must be. I'm asking you to justify why you think the speed of light should be inconstant (which you claim that it is for long enough wavelengths anyway).
I'm asking you to justify your assumption that the speed of light is inconstant. I'm asking you to provide experimental evidence that the alternative hypothesis is true.
On a related topic, while we're talking about cranks and crankery, why is it that so many people seem to find it easier to believe in an improbably highly complicated conspiracy theory then a simple 'truth'?
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 27 2007, 04:27 PM)
In short, the speed of light is constant because of the way energy/momentum relates to the wave function in quantum mechanics.
You mean there actually is a reason? I was under the impression it was one of those trial and error things like, for instance, a person has a flashlight and is riding forward pretty fast and aiming the light forward. This person's movement does not add any speed to the light like one would normally assume, just change the color perhaps. I just thought that after they tried to do this a few times (in a more sophisticated manner), they concluded that light will never ever go faster.
Apparently word never reached Lucasfilm because Han Solo said as he was boarding the Mellinium Falcon with Luke, "She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself. But we're a little rushed, so if you'll just get on board, we'll get out of here." Han would not be happy to know the true speed limit, but then the empire would be bound by the same limit.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 28 2007, 03:33 PM)
You mean there actually is a reason? I was under the impression it was one of those trial and error things like, for instance, a person has a flashlight and is riding forward pretty fast and aiming the light forward. This person's movement does not add any speed to the light like one would normally assume, just change the color perhaps. I just thought that after they tried to do this a few times (in a more sophisticated manner), they concluded that light will never ever go faster.
Apparently word never reached Lucasfilm because Han Solo said as he was boarding the Mellinium Falcon with Luke, "She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself. But we're a little rushed, so if you'll just get on board, we'll get out of here." Han would not be happy to know the true speed limit, but then the empire would be bound by the same limit.
Eh, there are a number of purly theoretical ways that it might be possible to bend the rules a little. Letting you do things like get between A and B faster then a ray of light travelling through normal space could, but at no point actually travelling faster then a ray of light does. TRavelling straighter then straight, bending space time, using higher dimensions. Things like that.
Apparently word never reached Lucasfilm because Han Solo said as he was boarding the Mellinium Falcon with Luke, "She'll make point five past light speed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself. But we're a little rushed, so if you'll just get on board, we'll get out of here." Han would not be happy to know the true speed limit, but then the empire would be bound by the same limit.
Eh, there are a number of purly theoretical ways that it might be possible to bend the rules a little. Letting you do things like get between A and B faster then a ray of light travelling through normal space could, but at no point actually travelling faster then a ray of light does. TRavelling straighter then straight, bending space time, using higher dimensions. Things like that.
You mean wormholes and such? That is the way they did it in the movie "Contact." There is some actual truth in this isn't there? Has anyone ever found a wormhole?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 28 2007, 04:20 AM)
Eh, there are a number of purly theoretical ways that it might be possible to bend the rules a little. Letting you do things like get between A and B faster then a ray of light travelling through normal space could, but at no point actually travelling faster then a ray of light does. TRavelling straighter then straight, bending space time, using higher dimensions. Things like that.
There is a fairly whacky way to view the idea of dissappearing from one location and appearing in another, and that is using Pythagoras's Comma.:-)!
Nature doesn't use Equal Temperament. The difference between the pitch C and B#
is that of a Comma, 80:81. It would take some 650 perfect 5ths to capture an octave of Commas (can't remember for sure at the moment). I followed this logic and found that there exists a natural 144 major scale grid. At this mark one observes that it is in perfect symmetry with mirror number sequences, that define every number into infinity. Breaking the grid down shows that if one can find a location on one side of the mirror, they can also know where they would be on the other side of the mirror. Actually they would have a choice of locations. Build up the relative frequencies required within a chamber, inject and activate the flow of the Comma, go slightly dizzy, try not to pass wind if there's ladies about, mind your head as you start to orbit a different mass, see the stars become streaks of light, use the Mind in order to choose the location, and wipe your feet before you step past the dusty landing.:-)
Once one can find out how to divide space into harmonic ratios, and determine where this planet is on that grid, theoretically it would be possible, or one simply submit the manuscript to hollywood! One thing though, is that if it were true, one wouldn't be actually travelling anywhere into this universe. One would be finding a location in the mirror universe. Or worse still it could become an inverse journey into the quantum world first, before switching destination, re-clothing, re-sexing and re-emerging onto the mirror side. From there, one can plot a similar journey back to this side, but not necessarily this location. To and fro, like a yo-yo, doesn't anything change?
There is a fairly whacky way to view the idea of dissappearing from one location and appearing in another, and that is using Pythagoras's Comma.:-)!
Nature doesn't use Equal Temperament. The difference between the pitch C and B#
is that of a Comma, 80:81. It would take some 650 perfect 5ths to capture an octave of Commas (can't remember for sure at the moment). I followed this logic and found that there exists a natural 144 major scale grid. At this mark one observes that it is in perfect symmetry with mirror number sequences, that define every number into infinity. Breaking the grid down shows that if one can find a location on one side of the mirror, they can also know where they would be on the other side of the mirror. Actually they would have a choice of locations. Build up the relative frequencies required within a chamber, inject and activate the flow of the Comma, go slightly dizzy, try not to pass wind if there's ladies about, mind your head as you start to orbit a different mass, see the stars become streaks of light, use the Mind in order to choose the location, and wipe your feet before you step past the dusty landing.:-)
Once one can find out how to divide space into harmonic ratios, and determine where this planet is on that grid, theoretically it would be possible, or one simply submit the manuscript to hollywood! One thing though, is that if it were true, one wouldn't be actually travelling anywhere into this universe. One would be finding a location in the mirror universe. Or worse still it could become an inverse journey into the quantum world first, before switching destination, re-clothing, re-sexing and re-emerging onto the mirror side. From there, one can plot a similar journey back to this side, but not necessarily this location. To and fro, like a yo-yo, doesn't anything change?
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 28 2007, 05:16 PM)
There is a fairly whacky way to view the idea of dissappearing from one location and appearing in another, and that is using Pythagoras's Comma.:-)!
Nature doesn't use Equal Temperament. The difference between the pitch C and B#
is that of a Comma, 80:81. It would take some 650 perfect 5ths to capture an octave of Commas (can't remember for sure at the moment). I followed this logic and found that there exists a natural 144 major scale grid. At this mark one observes that it is in perfect symmetry with mirror number sequences, that define every number into infinity. Breaking the grid down shows that if one can find a location on one side of the mirror, they can also know where they would be on the other side of the mirror. Actually they would have a choice of locations. Build up the relative frequencies required within a chamber, inject and activate the flow of the Comma, go slightly dizzy, try not to pass wind if there's ladies about, mind your head as you start to orbit a different mass, see the stars become streaks of light, use the Mind in order to choose the location, and wipe your feet before you step past the dusty landing.:-)
Once one can find out how to divide space into harmonic ratios, and determine where this planet is on that grid, theoretically it would be possible, or one simply submit the manuscript to hollywood! One thing though, is that if it were true, one wouldn't be actually travelling anywhere into this universe. One would be finding a location in the mirror universe. Or worse still it could become an inverse journey into the quantum world first, before switching destination, re-clothing, re-sexing and re-emerging onto the mirror side. From there, one can plot a similar journey back to this side, but not necessarily this location. To and fro, like a yo-yo, doesn't anything change?
What are you on about?
Nature doesn't use Equal Temperament. The difference between the pitch C and B#
is that of a Comma, 80:81. It would take some 650 perfect 5ths to capture an octave of Commas (can't remember for sure at the moment). I followed this logic and found that there exists a natural 144 major scale grid. At this mark one observes that it is in perfect symmetry with mirror number sequences, that define every number into infinity. Breaking the grid down shows that if one can find a location on one side of the mirror, they can also know where they would be on the other side of the mirror. Actually they would have a choice of locations. Build up the relative frequencies required within a chamber, inject and activate the flow of the Comma, go slightly dizzy, try not to pass wind if there's ladies about, mind your head as you start to orbit a different mass, see the stars become streaks of light, use the Mind in order to choose the location, and wipe your feet before you step past the dusty landing.:-)
Once one can find out how to divide space into harmonic ratios, and determine where this planet is on that grid, theoretically it would be possible, or one simply submit the manuscript to hollywood! One thing though, is that if it were true, one wouldn't be actually travelling anywhere into this universe. One would be finding a location in the mirror universe. Or worse still it could become an inverse journey into the quantum world first, before switching destination, re-clothing, re-sexing and re-emerging onto the mirror side. From there, one can plot a similar journey back to this side, but not necessarily this location. To and fro, like a yo-yo, doesn't anything change?
What are you on about?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 28 2007, 05:26 AM)
What are you on about?
Are you really interested?
Are you really interested?
Zephir,
You have been refuted many many times and yourself and your supporter have never been able to put something substantial on the table.
You don't have a theory, you have a topic for a post competition, nothing more.
QUOTE
I'm considering as crank the people, who are claiming different things without justification and you're fulfilling such crank definition very well. If you cannot refute my explanations and to propose more viable alternative explanations, ...
You have been refuted many many times and yourself and your supporter have never been able to put something substantial on the table.
You don't have a theory, you have a topic for a post competition, nothing more.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 28 2007, 09:35 AM)
You have been refuted many many times and yourself
The repeating of such sentences like mantra is not refusal of anything, just religious rogation.
The repeating of such sentences like mantra is not refusal of anything, just religious rogation.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 08:22 PM)
The repeating of such sentences like mantra is not refusal of anything, just religious rogation.
And yet...
It's true, even within this thread.
And yet...
It's true, even within this thread.
Zephir,
Mirroring my criticism proves nothing more than your lack of arguments:
I think that I have posted less than 300 posts for debating with you.
Many of these posts have offered you opportunities to discuss honestly one of your claims.
Anybody can check your post history and evaluate the quality of your proofs: these are close to religious invocation of AWT.
If you want to convince a physicist of the contrary, just reactivate my thread "Claim: Awt Explains Invariance Light Speed, to be discussed" and provide the requested proof.
Do you remember my picture showing your claim was wrong:
and how you pretended the contrary because "the speed of capillary wave is also a universal constant" and with this picture which proves nothing:
So, not only you repeated yourself much more in your 8000+, but you practised bad faith to an exceptional extend. Therefore, I now estimate I have the right to be very short when evaluating your claims as long as you do not substantiate them honestly. In other words: AWT is pure BS.
Mirroring my criticism proves nothing more than your lack of arguments:
QUOTE
The repeating of such sentences like mantra is not refusal of anything, just religious rogation.
I think that I have posted less than 300 posts for debating with you.
Many of these posts have offered you opportunities to discuss honestly one of your claims.
Anybody can check your post history and evaluate the quality of your proofs: these are close to religious invocation of AWT.
If you want to convince a physicist of the contrary, just reactivate my thread "Claim: Awt Explains Invariance Light Speed, to be discussed" and provide the requested proof.
Do you remember my picture showing your claim was wrong:
and how you pretended the contrary because "the speed of capillary wave is also a universal constant" and with this picture which proves nothing:
So, not only you repeated yourself much more in your 8000+, but you practised bad faith to an exceptional extend. Therefore, I now estimate I have the right to be very short when evaluating your claims as long as you do not substantiate them honestly. In other words: AWT is pure BS.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 28 2007, 03:27 PM)
.. "the speed of capillary wave is also a universal constant" and with this picture which proves nothing...
This picture demonstrates the spreading of capillary waves at the water surface and the fact, the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed, but it appears exactly equal the capillary wave speed. By another way, it demonstrates fact, the speed of capillary wave serves as an "universal constant" here.
You just practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend, when commenting the above picture... In another words, it's pure BS, that the AWT is pure BS.
This picture demonstrates the spreading of capillary waves at the water surface and the fact, the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed, but it appears exactly equal the capillary wave speed. By another way, it demonstrates fact, the speed of capillary wave serves as an "universal constant" here.
You just practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend, when commenting the above picture...
In another words, it's pure BS, that the AWT is pure BS.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 27 2007, 03:32 PM)
Are you purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of the word "theory" like evolution-deniers do to spread FUD?
Time dilation and related effects is an observed phenomenon. Pretending it doesn't happen is not constructive.
Any competing theory would need to explain the same phenomenon.
No, there is experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not experimental evidence, that time itself is slowing down. Like I've mentioned before, stop jumping to conclusions.
And when I speak about 'theory', I speak about it from the explanations given by the dictionary - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
So yes, here's a theory, just thought about it on the spot. How about accelerating or moving a particle at speeds closing to c, causes increased stability in the half-life of the particle, through some process related to the inner workings of how half-lives actually transform a particle (or atom).
Time dilation and related effects is an observed phenomenon. Pretending it doesn't happen is not constructive.
Any competing theory would need to explain the same phenomenon.
No, there is experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not experimental evidence, that time itself is slowing down. Like I've mentioned before, stop jumping to conclusions.
And when I speak about 'theory', I speak about it from the explanations given by the dictionary - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
So yes, here's a theory, just thought about it on the spot. How about accelerating or moving a particle at speeds closing to c, causes increased stability in the half-life of the particle, through some process related to the inner workings of how half-lives actually transform a particle (or atom).
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 28 2007, 06:02 PM)
...there is experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not experimental evidence, that time itself is slowing down...
Time dilatation was demonstrated by Hafele-Keating , Ives-Stilwell, Pound-Rebka, Trouton-Rankine experiments and many others. Even the GPS takes account into it.
Physicists have zero scientific integrity, The physics canon is immutable
Time dilatation was demonstrated by Hafele-Keating , Ives-Stilwell, Pound-Rebka, Trouton-Rankine experiments and many others. Even the GPS takes account into it.
Physicists have zero scientific integrity, The physics canon is immutable
Poor Zephir:
This has absolutely nothing to do with the invariance of the speed of light.
An observer measuring the motion of a wavefront will observe different results depending on its relative velocity.
Convincing yourself is your drug but not your proof.
QUOTE
This picture demonstrates the spreading of capillary waves at the water surface and the fact, the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed, but it appears exactly equal the capillary wave speed.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the invariance of the speed of light.
An observer measuring the motion of a wavefront will observe different results depending on its relative velocity.
Convincing yourself is your drug but not your proof.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 28 2007, 07:56 PM)
An observer measuring the motion of a wavefront will observe different results depending on its relative velocity.
OK, but how, if the underwater motion cannot be detected just by using of capillary waves and the another reference frame/waves aren't available here?
OK, but how, if the underwater motion cannot be detected just by using of capillary waves and the another reference frame/waves aren't available here?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 04:16 PM)
Time dilatation was demonstrated by Hafele-Keating , Ives-Stilwell, Pound-Rebka, Trouton-Rankine experiments and many others. Even the GPS takes account into it.
No, time dilation wasn't demonstrated. What was demonstrated, was that either there were less half-lives in a given time, due to particles being accelerated or being in motion, perhaps causing a stabilising effect. Whilst in atomic clocks which deal with frequencies per second, such as the caesium clocks; what is demonstrated in these cases, is simply that acceleration/motion seems to cause a reduction in vibrational frequency, perhaps explainable by how acceleration/motion affects the inner-workings of the particle(s) or atoms, making them less 'inclined' to vibrate.
Time dilation though, is merely a theory which attempts to explain the above effects.
No, time dilation wasn't demonstrated. What was demonstrated, was that either there were less half-lives in a given time, due to particles being accelerated or being in motion, perhaps causing a stabilising effect. Whilst in atomic clocks which deal with frequencies per second, such as the caesium clocks; what is demonstrated in these cases, is simply that acceleration/motion seems to cause a reduction in vibrational frequency, perhaps explainable by how acceleration/motion affects the inner-workings of the particle(s) or atoms, making them less 'inclined' to vibrate.
Time dilation though, is merely a theory which attempts to explain the above effects.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 28 2007, 08:43 PM)
No, time dilation wasn't demonstrated. What was demonstrated, was that either there were less half-lives in a given time, due to particles being accelerated or being in motion, perhaps causing a stabilizing effect. Whilst in atomic clocks which deal with frequencies per second, such as the cesium clocks; what is demonstrated in these cases, is simply that acceleration/motion seems to cause a reduction in vibrational frequency, perhaps explainable by how acceleration/motion affects the inner-workings of the particle(s) or atoms, making them less 'inclined' to vibrate.
At first, the contemporary physics distinguishes many time definitions, so formally speaking, the "time" as such doesn't exist at all, just the pace of clocks. These clocks can be based on different phenomena: particle half-life, light speed in laser resonantor and so on. In most these cases was proven the violation of the pace of these processes. The rest is just semantic babbling, until u prove, such difference between pace of processes and time speed definition will lead to some new experimentally testable predictions.
By AWT nothing really exists, just differently named less or more regular Aether gradients. By such way, the time definitions can exist as many, as the number of these gradients. Due the laws of geometry, these gradients aren't chaotic, but they're arranged mutually into phase interfaces, because this is the way, how to see most of these gradients at the same moment. The ratio of frequency of gradients forming this phase interface to the frequency of gradients, which are spreading along it is what the radiative time in physic usually means.
At first, the contemporary physics distinguishes many time definitions, so formally speaking, the "time" as such doesn't exist at all, just the pace of clocks. These clocks can be based on different phenomena: particle half-life, light speed in laser resonantor and so on. In most these cases was proven the violation of the pace of these processes. The rest is just semantic babbling, until u prove, such difference between pace of processes and time speed definition will lead to some new experimentally testable predictions.
By AWT nothing really exists, just differently named less or more regular Aether gradients. By such way, the time definitions can exist as many, as the number of these gradients. Due the laws of geometry, these gradients aren't chaotic, but they're arranged mutually into phase interfaces, because this is the way, how to see most of these gradients at the same moment. The ratio of frequency of gradients forming this phase interface to the frequency of gradients, which are spreading along it is what the radiative time in physic usually means.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 05:48 PM)
At first, the contemporary physics distinguishes many time definitions, so formally speaking, the "time" as such doesn't exist at all, just the pace of clocks. These clocks can be based on different phenomena: particle half-life, light speed in laser resonantor and so on. In most these cases was proven the violation of the pace of these processes. The rest is just semantic babbling, until u prove, such difference between pace of processes and time speed definition will lead to some new experimentally testable predictions.
Just the pace of clocks, you say. Well, that is vastly different from what I am hearing, such that people actually believe time 'itself' is slowing down for objects moving at speed, as if someone in a spacecraft travelling at 0.8c, would lose 0.4s of every second rather than those at rest who do not. When actually, someone travelling at 0.8c may not experience any time loss at all, whilst the pace of these clocks (travelling along with the person at 0.8c) may be reduced.
I mean, we have the technology to make a spaceship fly that fast, over a long enough period of time, the g-forces could be within adequate limits so that a person could survive the transition to it.
Just the pace of clocks, you say. Well, that is vastly different from what I am hearing, such that people actually believe time 'itself' is slowing down for objects moving at speed, as if someone in a spacecraft travelling at 0.8c, would lose 0.4s of every second rather than those at rest who do not. When actually, someone travelling at 0.8c may not experience any time loss at all, whilst the pace of these clocks (travelling along with the person at 0.8c) may be reduced.
I mean, we have the technology to make a spaceship fly that fast, over a long enough period of time, the g-forces could be within adequate limits so that a person could survive the transition to it.
Zephir reinventing our world:
He doesn't want to drop his claim, then he drops reality for an imaginary world.
And then he will say that mainstream physics lost grip on reality!
QUOTE
OK, but how, if the underwater motion cannot be detected just by using of capillary waves and the another reference frame/waves aren't available here?
He doesn't want to drop his claim, then he drops reality for an imaginary world.
And then he will say that mainstream physics lost grip on reality!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 28 2007, 09:29 PM)
that is vastly different from what I am hearing, such that people actually believe time 'itself' is slowing down for objects moving at speed
It's not at all, until you show us some example, where such conceptual difference leads to the observable difference. In general, time is what we can measure by clocks. Maybe you can measure the time by different, cryptic way, like the druids in the ancient era, but I doubt it...
It's not at all, until you show us some example, where such conceptual difference leads to the observable difference. In general, time is what we can measure by clocks. Maybe you can measure the time by different, cryptic way, like the druids in the ancient era, but I doubt it...
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 28 2007, 09:29 PM)
he drops reality for an imaginary world
At the case of constant speed of light explanation by the wave spreading at water surface I'm just explaining the one observable reality by the another one. No abstract math or imaginary concepts are involved here. On the contrary, it's just you, who is apparently believing, the relativity world is different world, then the water surface. But from correspondence principle follows, we cannot have a two conceptually different realities: every reality should follow logically from the another one. So that the contemporary physics has no pardon from me, until it will not explain the quantum/relativity postulates by Newtonian mechanics and vice-versa.
At the case of constant speed of light explanation by the wave spreading at water surface I'm just explaining the one observable reality by the another one. No abstract math or imaginary concepts are involved here. On the contrary, it's just you, who is apparently believing, the relativity world is different world, then the water surface. But from correspondence principle follows, we cannot have a two conceptually different realities: every reality should follow logically from the another one. So that the contemporary physics has no pardon from me, until it will not explain the quantum/relativity postulates by Newtonian mechanics and vice-versa.
Zephir, Brynn Richards.
The point you're both missing is that Time dialation (and like wise mas sinflation and length contraction) are consequences of the speed of light being constant, nothing more, nothing less.
It's not actually that complicated (At least, I don't think it is).
Moving observer A measures the speed of light.
The Logic I elaborated on eariler tells us that Moving observer A measures the speed of light to be the same as stationary observer B.
And trhough consideration of things like the paths the light takes, we find that as a consequence of the constancy of c, both observers come to the conclusions that the other observers rulers a shorter, and clocks are running slow.
Brynn: Your suppositions do not account for the Ives-Stilwell experiement which measured a blue shift but your mechanism suggests it should have measured a red shift.
Also, your supposition adds un-observed complexity into the world by suggesting that relative velocity affects physical process in a way that would seem to lead to changes in physical properties and chemistry. Something which there is absolutely no experimental evidence to back up.
The point you're both missing is that Time dialation (and like wise mas sinflation and length contraction) are consequences of the speed of light being constant, nothing more, nothing less.
It's not actually that complicated (At least, I don't think it is).
Moving observer A measures the speed of light.
The Logic I elaborated on eariler tells us that Moving observer A measures the speed of light to be the same as stationary observer B.
And trhough consideration of things like the paths the light takes, we find that as a consequence of the constancy of c, both observers come to the conclusions that the other observers rulers a shorter, and clocks are running slow.
Brynn: Your suppositions do not account for the Ives-Stilwell experiement which measured a blue shift but your mechanism suggests it should have measured a red shift.
Also, your supposition adds un-observed complexity into the world by suggesting that relative velocity affects physical process in a way that would seem to lead to changes in physical properties and chemistry. Something which there is absolutely no experimental evidence to back up.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 12:04 AM)
...Time dialation (and like wise mas sinflation and length contraction) are consequences of the speed of light being constant...
Of course not, the consequences are much more deeper. The SR cannot be explained fully without GR and the GR doesn't use the constant speed postulate at all. What about particles and phenomena, which doesn't depend on the light spreading at all (like the neutrinos)?
Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
Mechanical clocks do not measure time directly, nothing we have measures time directly. Almost EVERYTHING we have for measuring the passage of time directly measures some sort of oscillation.
Mechanical clocks do not measure oscillation. They are gears and wheels, which measure/show the time. This is far more direct, than atomic clocks, which first have to measure oscillations of atoms, and then from that derive how many seconds have past, and how those seconds relate to the time of day wherever the atomic clock may be in the world. Whereas a mechanical clock does not measure anything other than time itself.
What you're suggesting requires replacing one hypothesis that adequately explains a wide range of phenomena with multiple hypotheses that explain individual phenomena.
Just because a theory happens to explain the range of phenomena, does not make it 'right'. There may indeed be other theories out there, which explain the phenomena, and hence, I think the 'safest' bet, is to label them exactly what they are, which is multiple situations with individual phenomena affecting them. Don't just jump to conclusions and slap "Hey, they're all 'so similar', might as well just slap 'time dilation' on them all, without thinking about, or investigating the individual situations with any great depth".
All I'm saying is, let's not jump to conclusions. Let's call a spade a spade, rather than slapping a time dilation bumper sticker over them all at once, and then attacking anyone who dares to criticise.
Replacing :
"Time slows down when you travel faster."
With:
"Atomic oscillations slow down as you travel faster for this reason, Molecular oscillations slow down as you travel faster for that unrelated reason, Mechanical oscillations slow down for another unrelated reason, and chemical reactions slow down or still yet another completely unrelated reason, but by some huge bizzare cosmic coincidence, all of these unrelated reasons just happen to have effects that are precisely strong enough that two observers in different inertial refference frames will observe the speed of light oe be constant, and have the same value."
Ockams razor suggests that you're most likely to be wrong.
By Occam's razor, let's just get rid of Physics altogether! Let's just say "God did it all!", there we go - The simplest solution tends to be the best one, and there's a really simple one for you!
Hence why I just don't care what Occam's razor says. Just like I don't care what Sod's law says, or any other such nonsense.
And none of this addresses the expected blue shift that was observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
I'm still investigating the Ives experiment, having been told about it by Dallas only two days ago. So I'll have to get back to you on that.
Of course not, the consequences are much more deeper. The SR cannot be explained fully without GR and the GR doesn't use the constant speed postulate at all. What about particles and phenomena, which doesn't depend on the light spreading at all (like the neutrinos)?
Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 12:04 AM)
...suggesting that relative velocity affects physical process in a way that would seem to lead to changes in physical properties and chemistry...
For example the quantum mechanics.
For example the quantum mechanics.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 10:46 AM)
Of course not, the consequences are much more deeper. The SR cannot be explained fully without GR and the GR doesn't use the constant speed postulate at all. What about particles and phenomena, which doesn't depend on the light spreading at all (like the neutrinos)?
Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
For example the quantum mechanics.
Yes it does.
Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
For example the quantum mechanics.
Yes it does.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 28 2007, 07:11 PM)
It's not at all, until you show us some example, where such conceptual difference leads to the observable difference. In general, time is what we can measure by clocks. Maybe you can measure the time by different, cryptic way, like the druids in the ancient era, but I doubt it...
Caesium clocks (for instance) do not measure time, they measure the number of times a caesium atom vibrates.
This may then be used to derive the amount of time which has passed, but the caesium clocks themselves, are not for measuring time directly, unlike a mechanical clock.
It's all semantics, yes, I know.
But you are saying that I should call the phenomena of (for instance) caesium atoms vibrating less per second, as "time dilation", when the very theory of time dilation, is merely a derivation from this phenomena of the atoms vibrating less per second. The actual phenomena should be called "Frequency reduction of caesium atoms, when accelerated / at speed", whilst alternatively, in experiments which use half-lives to derive the measurement of time, one would call that phenomena "The extenuation of half-lives, due to acceleration/motion".
Caesium clocks (for instance) do not measure time, they measure the number of times a caesium atom vibrates.
This may then be used to derive the amount of time which has passed, but the caesium clocks themselves, are not for measuring time directly, unlike a mechanical clock.
It's all semantics, yes, I know.
But you are saying that I should call the phenomena of (for instance) caesium atoms vibrating less per second, as "time dilation", when the very theory of time dilation, is merely a derivation from this phenomena of the atoms vibrating less per second. The actual phenomena should be called "Frequency reduction of caesium atoms, when accelerated / at speed", whilst alternatively, in experiments which use half-lives to derive the measurement of time, one would call that phenomena "The extenuation of half-lives, due to acceleration/motion".
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 29 2007, 06:24 PM)
Caesium clocks (for instance) do not measure time, they measure the number of times a caesium atom vibrates.
This may then be used to derive the amount of time which has passed, but the caesium clocks themselves, are not for measuring time directly, unlike a mechanical clock.
It's all semantics, yes, I know.
But you are saying that I should call the phenomena of (for instance) caesium atoms vibrating less per second, as "time dilation", when the very theory of time dilation, is merely a derivation from this phenomena of the atoms vibrating less per second. The actual phenomena should be called "Frequency reduction of caesium atoms, when accelerated / at speed", whilst alternatively, in experiments which use half-lives to derive the measurement of time, one would call that phenomena "The extenuation of half-lives, due to acceleration/motion".
No, you're wrong.
Mechanical clocks do not measure time directly, nothing we have measures time directly. Almost EVERYTHING we have for measuring the passage of time directly measures some sort of oscillation.
Whether it be the number of times a ceasium atom vibrates, a quartz crystal oscillates, a pendulum swings, an ammonia molecule inverts, or how fast a candle burns.
Grandfather clocks use a swinging pendulum to regulate the unwinding of a spring.
Quartz clocks and watches use the piezoelectric properties of quartz to dive an electric step motor through a known number of steps per second, which is then geared down by an appropriate ratio (so that the second hand does 1rpm).
The list goes on.
What you're suggesting requires replacing one hypothesis that adequitely explains a wide range of phenomena with multiple hypotheses that explain individual phenomena.
Replacing :
"Time slows down when you travel faster."
With:
"Atomic oscillations slow down as you travel faster for this reason, Molecular oscillations slow down as you travel faster for that unrelated reason, Mechanical oscillations slow down for another unrelated reason, and chemical reactions slow down or still yet another completely unrelated reason, but by some huge bizzare cosmic coincidence, all of these unrelated reasons just happen to have effects that are precisely strong enough that two observers in different inertial refference frames will observe the speed of light oe be constant, and have the same value."
Ockams razor suggests that you're most likely to be wrong.
And none of this addresses the expected blue shift that was observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
This may then be used to derive the amount of time which has passed, but the caesium clocks themselves, are not for measuring time directly, unlike a mechanical clock.
It's all semantics, yes, I know.
But you are saying that I should call the phenomena of (for instance) caesium atoms vibrating less per second, as "time dilation", when the very theory of time dilation, is merely a derivation from this phenomena of the atoms vibrating less per second. The actual phenomena should be called "Frequency reduction of caesium atoms, when accelerated / at speed", whilst alternatively, in experiments which use half-lives to derive the measurement of time, one would call that phenomena "The extenuation of half-lives, due to acceleration/motion".
No, you're wrong.
Mechanical clocks do not measure time directly, nothing we have measures time directly. Almost EVERYTHING we have for measuring the passage of time directly measures some sort of oscillation.
Whether it be the number of times a ceasium atom vibrates, a quartz crystal oscillates, a pendulum swings, an ammonia molecule inverts, or how fast a candle burns.
Grandfather clocks use a swinging pendulum to regulate the unwinding of a spring.
Quartz clocks and watches use the piezoelectric properties of quartz to dive an electric step motor through a known number of steps per second, which is then geared down by an appropriate ratio (so that the second hand does 1rpm).
The list goes on.
What you're suggesting requires replacing one hypothesis that adequitely explains a wide range of phenomena with multiple hypotheses that explain individual phenomena.
Replacing :
"Time slows down when you travel faster."
With:
"Atomic oscillations slow down as you travel faster for this reason, Molecular oscillations slow down as you travel faster for that unrelated reason, Mechanical oscillations slow down for another unrelated reason, and chemical reactions slow down or still yet another completely unrelated reason, but by some huge bizzare cosmic coincidence, all of these unrelated reasons just happen to have effects that are precisely strong enough that two observers in different inertial refference frames will observe the speed of light oe be constant, and have the same value."
Ockams razor suggests that you're most likely to be wrong.
And none of this addresses the expected blue shift that was observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
mott.carl, Trippy,
Quantum mechanics is classical!
The same claimed Einstein but he was not able to formulate the scientific arguments because he did not know the internal structure of the photons, electrons (the Feynman QED does not describe the real nature), and other elementary particles. It was only his physical intuition. In my opinion there is no one who had or has such great physical intuition as Einstein.
LearmScience,
I will use the large colored text because there is such possibility. I apply this to emphasize the important, in my opinion, sentences. There is difference between you and me: I do not care of the current style of the posts. I try to show the weak points in the particle physics and cosmology using the large colored text. Only if you are able to grasp the weak points in the mainstream theories and to find the correct solutions, you can formulate the coherent ultimate theory.
Lalbatros,
You joined my post with some Zephir's post. In my post is the explanation why c=constant. Have you some questions associated with this Einstein's initial condition?
In my first paper on my website there is also explained why m(inertial)=m(gravitational).
bukh,
Sorry, of course I will answer your questions later.
Quantum mechanics is classical!
The same claimed Einstein but he was not able to formulate the scientific arguments because he did not know the internal structure of the photons, electrons (the Feynman QED does not describe the real nature), and other elementary particles. It was only his physical intuition. In my opinion there is no one who had or has such great physical intuition as Einstein.
LearmScience,
I will use the large colored text because there is such possibility. I apply this to emphasize the important, in my opinion, sentences. There is difference between you and me: I do not care of the current style of the posts. I try to show the weak points in the particle physics and cosmology using the large colored text. Only if you are able to grasp the weak points in the mainstream theories and to find the correct solutions, you can formulate the coherent ultimate theory.
Lalbatros,
You joined my post with some Zephir's post. In my post is the explanation why c=constant. Have you some questions associated with this Einstein's initial condition?
In my first paper on my website there is also explained why m(inertial)=m(gravitational).
bukh,
Sorry, of course I will answer your questions later.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Mechanical clocks do not measure time directly, nothing we have measures time directly. Almost EVERYTHING we have for measuring the passage of time directly measures some sort of oscillation.
Mechanical clocks do not measure oscillation. They are gears and wheels, which measure/show the time. This is far more direct, than atomic clocks, which first have to measure oscillations of atoms, and then from that derive how many seconds have past, and how those seconds relate to the time of day wherever the atomic clock may be in the world. Whereas a mechanical clock does not measure anything other than time itself.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
What you're suggesting requires replacing one hypothesis that adequately explains a wide range of phenomena with multiple hypotheses that explain individual phenomena.
Just because a theory happens to explain the range of phenomena, does not make it 'right'. There may indeed be other theories out there, which explain the phenomena, and hence, I think the 'safest' bet, is to label them exactly what they are, which is multiple situations with individual phenomena affecting them. Don't just jump to conclusions and slap "Hey, they're all 'so similar', might as well just slap 'time dilation' on them all, without thinking about, or investigating the individual situations with any great depth".
All I'm saying is, let's not jump to conclusions. Let's call a spade a spade, rather than slapping a time dilation bumper sticker over them all at once, and then attacking anyone who dares to criticise.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Replacing :
"Time slows down when you travel faster."
With:
"Atomic oscillations slow down as you travel faster for this reason, Molecular oscillations slow down as you travel faster for that unrelated reason, Mechanical oscillations slow down for another unrelated reason, and chemical reactions slow down or still yet another completely unrelated reason, but by some huge bizzare cosmic coincidence, all of these unrelated reasons just happen to have effects that are precisely strong enough that two observers in different inertial refference frames will observe the speed of light oe be constant, and have the same value."
Ockams razor suggests that you're most likely to be wrong.
By Occam's razor, let's just get rid of Physics altogether! Let's just say "God did it all!", there we go - The simplest solution tends to be the best one, and there's a really simple one for you!
Hence why I just don't care what Occam's razor says. Just like I don't care what Sod's law says, or any other such nonsense.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
And none of this addresses the expected blue shift that was observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
I'm still investigating the Ives experiment, having been told about it by Dallas only two days ago. So I'll have to get back to you on that.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 29 2007, 08:39 PM)
Mechanical clocks do not measure oscillation. They are gears and wheels, which measure/show the time. This is far more direct, than atomic clocks, which first have to measure oscillations of atoms, and then from that derive how many seconds have past, and how those seconds relate to the time of day wherever the atomic clock may be in the world. Whereas a mechanical clock does not measure anything other than time itself.
Are you seriously suggesting that pendulums don't swing?
Are you seriously suggesting that pendulums don't swing?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 29 2007, 08:39 PM)
Just because a theory happens to explain the range of phenomena, does not make it 'right'. There may indeed be other theories out there, which explain the phenomena, and hence, I think the 'safest' bet, is to label them exactly what they are, which is multiple situations with individual phenomena affecting them. Don't just jump to conclusions and slap "Hey, they're all 'so similar', might as well just slap 'time dilation' on them all, without thinking about, or investigating the individual situations with any great depth".
All I'm saying is, let's not jump to conclusions. Let's call a spade a spade, rather than slapping a time dilation bumper sticker over them all at once, and then attacking anyone who dares to criticise.
See, this is where you're wrong, people have been trying to disprove relativity for the best part of a century now, but again, and again, the predictions of relativity and time dialation are confirmed to higher and higher levels of precision.
All I'm saying is, let's not jump to conclusions. Let's call a spade a spade, rather than slapping a time dilation bumper sticker over them all at once, and then attacking anyone who dares to criticise.
See, this is where you're wrong, people have been trying to disprove relativity for the best part of a century now, but again, and again, the predictions of relativity and time dialation are confirmed to higher and higher levels of precision.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 29 2007, 08:39 PM)
By Occam's razor, let's just get rid of Physics altogether! Let's just say "God did it all!", there we go - The simplest solution tends to be the best one, and there's a really simple one for you!
Hence why I just don't care what Occam's razor says. Just like I don't care what Sod's law says, or any other such nonsense.
No, because saying that 'god did it' actually complicates the issues, believe it or notm therefore, Occams razor eliminates the possibility.
Hence why I just don't care what Occam's razor says. Just like I don't care what Sod's law says, or any other such nonsense.
No, because saying that 'god did it' actually complicates the issues, believe it or notm therefore, Occams razor eliminates the possibility.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 29 2007, 08:39 PM)
I'm still investigating the Ives experiment, having been told about it by Dallas only two days ago. So I'll have to get back to you on that.
So, basically what you're saying is that you weren't in possesion of all of the facts, but you jumped to conclusions about what scientests were doing and thought anyway? Isn't this just what you were saying that everybody else should avoid doing when they say that Time Dialation produces accurate results and predictions?
There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.
So, basically what you're saying is that you weren't in possesion of all of the facts, but you jumped to conclusions about what scientests were doing and thought anyway? Isn't this just what you were saying that everybody else should avoid doing when they say that Time Dialation produces accurate results and predictions?
There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.
QUOTE (bukh+)
I would advocate that you reconsider the 3D Pixel screen idea again - again- because without that kind of model there will be too many open questions about fundamentals.
1) how do you incorporate the whole informational part in your hypothesis, or put differently - how do you envisage - how do you explain that Nature behaves orderly - that Universe is with high complexity and low entropy - and now I am not asking WHY - I am simply asking HOW
In my theory the simplest information, which can be transformed between distant points of space with speed much higher than the ‘c’, it is the gradient of the gravitational field – i.e. the divergently moving mathematical circles having size not equal to zero.
The complexity of the infinite Multiverse is defined by the phase transitions and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions:
-mathematical points onto mathematical circles because of the kinetic viscosity and speeds of the points – there is only one solution,
-circles onto gravitational tori also because of the kinetic viscosity and speeds of the circles – there is only one solution,
-tori onto neutrinos and photons,
-neutrinos onto core of baryons (plus the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions),
-baryons onto the structures before the big bangs – the last three phase transitions are caused by the narrowing in the streams created in the space because of the internal helicities of listed structures.
Our Universe was created as the loop composed of the biggest neutron stars. Before the big bang the spins of all neutrons were polarized parallel to the LOOP – you can see that total resultant spin associated with the neutrons was equal to zero. The spin polarization caused that just before the big bang the entropy of the Universe was lowest.
1) how do you incorporate the whole informational part in your hypothesis, or put differently - how do you envisage - how do you explain that Nature behaves orderly - that Universe is with high complexity and low entropy - and now I am not asking WHY - I am simply asking HOW
In my theory the simplest information, which can be transformed between distant points of space with speed much higher than the ‘c’, it is the gradient of the gravitational field – i.e. the divergently moving mathematical circles having size not equal to zero.
The complexity of the infinite Multiverse is defined by the phase transitions and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions:
-mathematical points onto mathematical circles because of the kinetic viscosity and speeds of the points – there is only one solution,
-circles onto gravitational tori also because of the kinetic viscosity and speeds of the circles – there is only one solution,
-tori onto neutrinos and photons,
-neutrinos onto core of baryons (plus the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions),
-baryons onto the structures before the big bangs – the last three phase transitions are caused by the narrowing in the streams created in the space because of the internal helicities of listed structures.
Our Universe was created as the loop composed of the biggest neutron stars. Before the big bang the spins of all neutrons were polarized parallel to the LOOP – you can see that total resultant spin associated with the neutrons was equal to zero. The spin polarization caused that just before the big bang the entropy of the Universe was lowest.
QUOTE (bukh+)
2) how do you explain - envisage that smallest shapes - call them what you like - give them a size that you find appropiate - but how can such particles move around and collide - and in which kind of medium - and what is the steering or controlling factor when such shapes moves arouud - do you think that Nature is haphazard on smallest level - and then everything turns up in ordered structures - is there suchj a thing as smallest shape into existance - that can be be put together with other similar objects and then the rest is a kind of selforganisation.
The mathematical points have size 0.95 . 10^-64 m because of the eternal energy density of the infinite Multiverse. The resultant energy density cannot change with time – there can be only the phase transitions (both directions). We know that the sizes of the granules of sand on a beach (analogs to the size of the mathematical points) are defined by their speeds caused by the waves (analog to the eternal energy of the eternal Multiverse). When sizes of the granules decrease then curvature of surface of them increases. It means that with time it is more and more difficult to change the sizes of the granules. At least the time of interactions of the colliding granules is too short to change the size. It means that for strictly determined the energy density, for strictly determined substance (for example for the eternal structureless substance), there is only one solution for the size of the granules/mathematical.points.
There is not more fundamental medium than the ideal gas composed of the mathematical points – more fundamental is only the 0D space i.e. the truly empty volume. We can define the velocities of the mathematical points only in relation to the ideal gas as the whole.
The eternal energy, kinetic viscosity, and the narrowing in the created streams lead to the self-organizing systems.
The mathematical points have size 0.95 . 10^-64 m because of the eternal energy density of the infinite Multiverse. The resultant energy density cannot change with time – there can be only the phase transitions (both directions). We know that the sizes of the granules of sand on a beach (analogs to the size of the mathematical points) are defined by their speeds caused by the waves (analog to the eternal energy of the eternal Multiverse). When sizes of the granules decrease then curvature of surface of them increases. It means that with time it is more and more difficult to change the sizes of the granules. At least the time of interactions of the colliding granules is too short to change the size. It means that for strictly determined the energy density, for strictly determined substance (for example for the eternal structureless substance), there is only one solution for the size of the granules/mathematical.points.
There is not more fundamental medium than the ideal gas composed of the mathematical points – more fundamental is only the 0D space i.e. the truly empty volume. We can define the velocities of the mathematical points only in relation to the ideal gas as the whole.
The eternal energy, kinetic viscosity, and the narrowing in the created streams lead to the self-organizing systems.
QUOTE (bukh+)
3) where do you see major differences between yours so-called ideal gas - and mine so called pixel-screen- and then you can ask if the pixel screen is needed - and I say Yes - without such a structure for me it is impossible to account for the informational part and the ordered part.
The densely packed pixels do not lead to the self-organizing systems. Such 3D pixel screen can create gravitational field only from particles curving space i.e. such gravitational field does not lead to the superposition theorem. Your 3D pixel screen is realized only in the mathematical.points----mathematical.circles transitions. After such transitions the energy density must decrease – if not then relativistic mass cannot increase when we accelerate the particles.
The densely packed pixels do not lead to the self-organizing systems. Such 3D pixel screen can create gravitational field only from particles curving space i.e. such gravitational field does not lead to the superposition theorem. Your 3D pixel screen is realized only in the mathematical.points----mathematical.circles transitions. After such transitions the energy density must decrease – if not then relativistic mass cannot increase when we accelerate the particles.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 11:56 AM)
...people have been trying to disprove relativity for the best part of a century now, but again, and again, the predictions of relativity and time dilation are confirmed to higher and higher levels of precision...
The AWT is trying to generalize the relativity theory, not to refute it. By AWT the relativity is more general, the even Einstein was able to realize. The AWT doesn't expect/predict the violation of relativity predictions and time dilation in the scope of conditions, where the existing experiments were carried out. It predicts the violation of Lorentz symmetry for microwaves and radiowaves.
The AWT is trying to generalize the relativity theory, not to refute it. By AWT the relativity is more general, the even Einstein was able to realize. The AWT doesn't expect/predict the violation of relativity predictions and time dilation in the scope of conditions, where the existing experiments were carried out. It predicts the violation of Lorentz symmetry for microwaves and radiowaves.
that's really a good one:
I read it twice and could not believe what I read:
I read it twice and could not believe what I read:
the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed
Yes, I read that and I still can't believe it:
QUOTE
This picture demonstrates the spreading of capillary waves at the water surface and the fact, the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed, but it appears exactly equal the capillary wave speed. By another way, it demonstrates fact, the speed of capillary wave serves as an "universal constant" here.
You just practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend, when commenting the above picture... In another words, it's pure BS, that the AWT is pure BS.
You just practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend, when commenting the above picture...
In another words, it's pure BS, that the AWT is pure BS. I read it twice and could not believe what I read:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This picture demonstrates the spreading of capillary waves at the water surface and the fact, the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed, but it appears exactly equal the capillary wave speed. By another way, it demonstrates fact, the speed of capillary wave serves as an "universal constant" here. You just practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend, when commenting the above picture... In another words, it's pure BS, that the AWT is pure BS. |
I read it twice and could not believe what I read:
the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed
Yes, I read that and I still can't believe it:
QUOTE
the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed
I still can't believe this has been writen here:
And that was written by a guy criticizing physicists for their logic,
a guy who preffer to replace logic by analogies between picture (I mean animated gifs).
Actually I am very happy "having practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend" ... specially when such stupidities are involved.
QUOTE
the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed
And that was written by a guy criticizing physicists for their logic,
a guy who preffer to replace logic by analogies between picture (I mean animated gifs).
Actually I am very happy "having practiced bad understanding ability to an exceptional extend" ... specially when such stupidities are involved.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 29 2007, 12:54 PM)
the speed of object observed by these waves doesn't depend on the actual object speed
It doesn't, if the object moves by the speed, exceeding the speed of the surface wave spreading, like at the case of observations mediated by the limited speed of light in vacuum. Bellow such speed limit the dependence between actual speed of object motion and its perceived speed is classical. The animation above explains the formation of relativistic Doppler effect at the case, when the object is moving by nearly luminal speed. Bellow such limit the relativistic Doppler effect appears similar to the classical one (on the right part of left picture bellow, you should click to see it at the original resolution).
It doesn't, if the object moves by the speed, exceeding the speed of the surface wave spreading, like at the case of observations mediated by the limited speed of light in vacuum. Bellow such speed limit the dependence between actual speed of object motion and its perceived speed is classical. The animation above explains the formation of relativistic Doppler effect at the case, when the object is moving by nearly luminal speed. Bellow such limit the relativistic Doppler effect appears similar to the classical one (on the right part of left picture bellow, you should click to see it at the original resolution).
Zephir is spreading stupidities at supraluminal speed.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 29 2007, 01:02 PM)
Zephir is spreading stupidities at supraluminal speed.
This is an "argument" of typical crank: "the opponent is wrong, simply because I'm saying so". The true is, you've nothing to say anymore.
So you're deserving a negative in your feedback for continuation in non-scientific way of discussion, based on the religion, not the causal logic.
The Aether Wave theory doesn't exclude the motion by superluminal speed at all, it just says, due the inertial vorticity of environment such motion will become so curved, it will appear like the luminal speed. The very same mechanism prohibits to spread by surface waves by higher speed, then the speed of surface waves. Of source, the particles inside of foam cups can move faster, but you cannot observe them by using of surface water waves, because such motion is realized in heavily curved directions, uhm, dimensions.
And this is what the whole Aether theory is about: about explanation of the relativistic phenomena by these very classical ones.
This is an "argument" of typical crank: "the opponent is wrong, simply because I'm saying so". The true is, you've nothing to say anymore.
So you're deserving a negative in your feedback for continuation in non-scientific way of discussion, based on the religion, not the causal logic.
The Aether Wave theory doesn't exclude the motion by superluminal speed at all, it just says, due the inertial vorticity of environment such motion will become so curved, it will appear like the luminal speed. The very same mechanism prohibits to spread by surface waves by higher speed, then the speed of surface waves. Of source, the particles inside of foam cups can move faster, but you cannot observe them by using of surface water waves, because such motion is realized in heavily curved directions, uhm, dimensions.
And this is what the whole Aether theory is about: about explanation of the relativistic phenomena by these very classical ones.
Yes that's right Zephir:
I have nothing to say anymore because it is useless to try to explain you anything.
Your favorite sport is bad faith in this forum, unless you are really stupid.
If you want to prove that the speed of "the car does not depend on the speed the car", I can't say anything more indeed.
If you want to believe that I am a crank, I can't say more indeed, and I don't care.
It is good enough for me to be able to parrot correct physics.
It is much preferable and useful than discussing BS.
QUOTE
The true is, you've nothing to say anymore.
I have nothing to say anymore because it is useless to try to explain you anything.
Your favorite sport is bad faith in this forum, unless you are really stupid.
If you want to prove that the speed of "the car does not depend on the speed the car", I can't say anything more indeed.
If you want to believe that I am a crank, I can't say more indeed, and I don't care.
It is good enough for me to be able to parrot correct physics.
It is much preferable and useful than discussing BS.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 29 2007, 01:34 PM)
...If you want to prove that the speed of "the car does not depend on the speed the car", I can't say anything more indeed....
This is exactly, what will happen, if the car or particle at the water surface will start to move by superluminal speed, thus gaining its energy and momentum. We can see the car obtaining the relativistic mass, but not increasing in speed. This is simply because the particles simply will start to dance in turbulent vacuum at place. But the surface light wave cannot follow such motion by principle. No wave of limited speed can mediate the information spreading by higher speed, then the speed of this wave. This is bare fact, which doesn't depend on some relativity postulates at all, this is quite universal rule.
Why the people are so angry, if somebody will propose another way of explanation? You should be happy instead, because you're understanding the same phenomena by multiple, i.e. more robust way. You should understand, all these discussion about tachyons and non-constant speed of light are just a matter of different observer perspective, they can be easily accepted, if the people have sufficient insight into situation. Of course, the outer observer perspective is not so common, because we are always part of phenomena, but for example the gravitational lensing demonstrates, the constant speed of light in vacuum can manifest itself by the exactly opposite way! The main purpose of AWT is to learn the people the pluralistic, more objective and conciliatory philosophy. At the very end it can learn the people to become less religious and aggressive creatures.
This is exactly, what will happen, if the car or particle at the water surface will start to move by superluminal speed, thus gaining its energy and momentum.
...
So once v = 1.2 c , v is not v anymore ... according to Zephir.
Just like when I run over the speed limit with my car ...
Formal maths maybe old fashion and dumb,
but I preffer to be called a parrot than to argue with a jackass.
On the contrary, people like and wait for new insight, but they hate delusion and bad faith.
Delusion is a lack of intelligence.
Bad faith is an insult to intelligence.
Zephir, I gave you many opportunities to discuss some definite points with precision, particularly your claim about the constantcy of c.
Yous systematically blurred any discussion by any means and pretended (uniliterally) you made the proof while you actually accumulated more unreasonable claims.
You may be, Zephir, an automated formal answering answering machine, but I'm human and I have emotions, and I can say that you are playing with my nerves.
Maybe you consider that being able to answer with a post is making a proof.
But most probably you are here playing with the nerves of some people for an unknown reason. Maybe your academic delusion? If this is the case, I was not responsible for your failure and I am right to tell you what I feel: you are a science-nihilist.
This is exactly, what will happen, if the car or particle at the water surface will start to move by superluminal speed, thus gaining its energy and momentum. We can see the car obtaining the relativistic mass, but not increasing in speed. This is simply because the particles simply will start to dance in turbulent vacuum at place. But the surface light wave cannot follow such motion by principle. No wave of limited speed can mediate the information spreading by higher speed, then the speed of this wave. This is bare fact, which doesn't depend on some relativity postulates at all, this is quite universal rule.
Why the people are so angry, if somebody will propose another way of explanation? You should be happy instead, because you're understanding the same phenomena by multiple, i.e. more robust way. You should understand, all these discussion about tachyons and non-constant speed of light are just a matter of different observer perspective, they can be easily accepted, if the people have sufficient insight into situation. Of course, the outer observer perspective is not so common, because we are always part of phenomena, but for example the gravitational lensing demonstrates, the constant speed of light in vacuum can manifest itself by the exactly opposite way! The main purpose of AWT is to learn the people the pluralistic, more objective and conciliatory philosophy. At the very end it can learn the people to become less religious and aggressive creatures.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 29 2007, 01:34 PM)
...Your favorite sport is bad faith in this forum, unless you are really stupid....
Interesting, one could said, I highly appreciate this forum, because I've sent some 8000+ posts in it...
Interesting, one could said, I highly appreciate this forum, because I've sent some 8000+ posts in it...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 09:53 PM)
The AWT is trying to generalize the relativity theory, not to refute it. By AWT the relativity is more general, the even Einstein was able to realize. The AWT doesn't expect/predict the violation of relativity predictions and time dilation in the scope of conditions, where the existing experiments were carried out. It predicts the violation of Lorentz symmetry for microwaves and radiowaves.
Therefore, it predicts violation of Relativity.
It also predicts an unaccounted for asymmetry that has not been observed.
Therefore, it is WRONG.
Therefore, it predicts violation of Relativity.
It also predicts an unaccounted for asymmetry that has not been observed.
Therefore, it is WRONG.
And so, once again, because he has been shown to be wrong, and practicing bad science, Bryn starts handing out negative feedbacks, this is the ultimate display of the demagogy that Zephir keeps saying that mainstream physicists are guilty of.
Funny isn't it that it comes from a self confessed crank.
Bryn, I gave you the neg for some of the really bad science you've been espousing in our discussion, and what do you do? Prove.. Was it Learn Science? Right by handing out vengance.
Way to prove everybody wrong.
Funny isn't it that it comes from a self confessed crank.
Bryn, I gave you the neg for some of the really bad science you've been espousing in our discussion, and what do you do? Prove.. Was it Learn Science? Right by handing out vengance.
Way to prove everybody wrong.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 10:41 AM)
QUOTE
(Lalbatros @ Jul 29 2007, 01:34 PM)
...If you want to prove that the speed of "the car does not depend on the speed the car", I can't say anything more indeed....
...If you want to prove that the speed of "the car does not depend on the speed the car", I can't say anything more indeed....
This is exactly, what will happen, if the car or particle at the water surface will start to move by superluminal speed, thus gaining its energy and momentum.
...
So once v = 1.2 c , v is not v anymore ... according to Zephir.
Just like when I run over the speed limit with my car ...
Formal maths maybe old fashion and dumb,
but I preffer to be called a parrot than to argue with a jackass.
QUOTE
Why the people are so angry, if somebody will propose another way of explanation?
On the contrary, people like and wait for new insight, but they hate delusion and bad faith.
Delusion is a lack of intelligence.
Bad faith is an insult to intelligence.
Zephir, I gave you many opportunities to discuss some definite points with precision, particularly your claim about the constantcy of c.
Yous systematically blurred any discussion by any means and pretended (uniliterally) you made the proof while you actually accumulated more unreasonable claims.
You may be, Zephir, an automated formal answering answering machine, but I'm human and I have emotions, and I can say that you are playing with my nerves.
Maybe you consider that being able to answer with a post is making a proof.
But most probably you are here playing with the nerves of some people for an unknown reason. Maybe your academic delusion? If this is the case, I was not responsible for your failure and I am right to tell you what I feel: you are a science-nihilist.
On more example of the bad faith tactics from Zephir.
Just look this very recent post.
You will see there a very nice picture taken from nature.
You will see that this picture doesn't illustrate any argument from this post.
Why then did Zephir include this picture there?
Easy: keeping up appearances.
Zephir and AWT are all about keeping up the appearances of science while Zephir actually is totally incompetent in science.
This could be more too: a small trick in an attempt at an intellectual fraud.
Bad luck for Zephir: people are not as stupid as he is.
Just look this very recent post.
You will see there a very nice picture taken from nature.
You will see that this picture doesn't illustrate any argument from this post.
Why then did Zephir include this picture there?
Easy: keeping up appearances.
Zephir and AWT are all about keeping up the appearances of science while Zephir actually is totally incompetent in science.
This could be more too: a small trick in an attempt at an intellectual fraud.
Bad luck for Zephir: people are not as stupid as he is.
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jul 29 2007, 04:02 PM)
Why then did Zephir include this picture there?
This nice picture illustrates the paradox of relativity theory: it uses the constant speed of light in vacuum postulate to demonstrate, the light speed in vacuum isn't constant at all...
So, where is the problem by now? You even cannot prove the automated formal answering machine wrong!
This nice picture illustrates the paradox of relativity theory: it uses the constant speed of light in vacuum postulate to demonstrate, the light speed in vacuum isn't constant at all...
So, where is the problem by now? You even cannot prove the automated formal answering machine wrong!
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 04:02 PM)
Therefore, it predicts violation of Relativity. It also predicts an unaccounted for asymmetry that has not been observed.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 01:35 PM)
This nice picture illustrates the paradox of relativity theory: it uses the constant speed of light in vacuum postulate to demonstrate, the light speed in vacuum isn't constant at all...
So, where is the problem by now?
Could it be that you simply don't understand what the "nice picture" is demonstrating?
The violation of Lorentz symmetry for microwaves was already observed in COBE/WMAP and another experiments (1, 2, 3).
Hmmm, no. It is simply that professor Hartwig Thim wrote a lot of antirelativistic papers in his old age. This is a common problem when Alzheimer kicks in. The "nice pictures" that you show above demonstrated the effects of relativistic Doppler effect, a well known effect (apparently not known by you and Hartwig after all )
So, where is the problem by now?
Could it be that you simply don't understand what the "nice picture" is demonstrating?
QUOTE
The violation of Lorentz symmetry for microwaves was already observed in COBE/WMAP and another experiments (1, 2, 3).
Hmmm, no. It is simply that professor Hartwig Thim wrote a lot of antirelativistic papers in his old age. This is a common problem when Alzheimer kicks in. The "nice pictures" that you show above demonstrated the effects of relativistic Doppler effect, a well known effect (apparently not known by you and Hartwig after all )
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 29 2007, 04:46 PM)
Could it be that you simply don't understand what the "nice picture" is demonstrating?
I don't think so. Here's a lotta similar pictures on the web. They're all demonstrating clearly, how radically the speed of light in vacuum can change at the presence of massive objects.
I don't think so. Here's a lotta similar pictures on the web. They're all demonstrating clearly, how radically the speed of light in vacuum can change at the presence of massive objects.
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 29 2007, 04:46 PM)
...The "nice pictures" that you show above demonstrated the effects of relativistic Doppler effect...
Just a simple question: Why we can observe the relativistic Doppler effect on microwave background of Universe, but not on the light of distant stars in visible part of spectrum?
Just a simple question: Why we can observe the relativistic Doppler effect on microwave background of Universe, but not on the light of distant stars in visible part of spectrum?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 02:15 PM)
I don't think so. Here's a lotta similar pictures on the web.
Pictures don't make physics (unless is AWT pseudo-physics)
Just a simple question: Why we can observe the relativistic Doppler effect on microwave background of Universe, but not on the light of distant stars in visible part of spectrum?
What gave you this bright idea?
Pictures don't make physics (unless is AWT pseudo-physics)
QUOTE
Just a simple question: Why we can observe the relativistic Doppler effect on microwave background of Universe, but not on the light of distant stars in visible part of spectrum?
What gave you this bright idea?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2007, 02:15 PM)
I don't think so. Here's a lotta similar pictures on the web. They're all demonstrating clearly, how radically the speed of light in vacuum can change at the presence of massive objects.
You mean velocity? Not speed. You still haven't figured out the difference?
You mean velocity? Not speed. You still haven't figured out the difference?
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 29 2007, 05:18 PM)
Pictures don't make physics (unless is AWT pseudo-physics)
The above picture comes from Nature web site, the example bellow from Royal Society of New Zealand .. Are u saying, the Nature or RSNZ are spreading the pseudoscience? It would be a breakthrough in our understanding of their role in science...
The above picture comes from Nature web site, the example bellow from Royal Society of New Zealand ..
Are u saying, the Nature or RSNZ are spreading the pseudoscience? It would be a breakthrough in our understanding of their role in science... QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 29 2007, 05:18 PM)
What gave you this bright idea?
Just nothing. Simply the absence of evidence for "relativistic Doppler shift" in visible spectrum of distant stars and galaxies. How is it possible, in the visible light the Universe expands uniformly, while in the microwave light not? From some reason our absolute motion through space can be observed just in microwave spectrum, not by visible light. Can you explain, why is it so?
Just nothing. Simply the absence of evidence for "relativistic Doppler shift" in visible spectrum of distant stars and galaxies. How is it possible, in the visible light the Universe expands uniformly, while in the microwave light not? From some reason our absolute motion through space can be observed just in microwave spectrum, not by visible light. Can you explain, why is it so?
QUOTE (Dallas+Jul 29 2007, 05:18 PM)
...You mean velocity? Not speed. You still haven't figured out the difference..
Nope, the gravitational lensing changes the speed, not just a velocity. It makes the light to spread along a trully longer path, not just in different direction. After all, the curvature of spacetime is about changing of all attributes of light spreading (the group or phase velocities at the same time).
You're apparently mixing the effect of rotation in Lorentz transform from SR with the curvature of space, which is the GR phenomena i.e. you're mixing the different SR and GR phenomena. You should know, the GR doesn't use the constant speed of light postulate, being completelly different theory from SR - so it doesn't prohibit in change of light speed at all. This is the only reason, why it enables the pictures, like the above posted and why the GR doesn't prohibit the Lorentz symmetry violation in Doppler shift of CMB. The postulate of absolute speed of light in SR doesn't permit the existence of some gravitational lensing effects at all!
After all, the lensing phenomena is always connected with the change of light speed, not the velocity. Do you know, what the refraction index in optics means? It means the ratio of speed of light in both environments, not the "velocities".
Neverthelles, while the classical GR perimits the light speed change in gravitational lensing and the Lorentz Symmetry violation for microwaves and so on, it still doesn't explain, why such violation should be observed just in microwave spectrum. You're required to use more deeper/general theory to explain such difference.
Nope, the gravitational lensing changes the speed, not just a velocity. It makes the light to spread along a trully longer path, not just in different direction. After all, the curvature of spacetime is about changing of all attributes of light spreading (the group or phase velocities at the same time).
You're apparently mixing the effect of rotation in Lorentz transform from SR with the curvature of space, which is the GR phenomena i.e. you're mixing the different SR and GR phenomena. You should know, the GR doesn't use the constant speed of light postulate, being completelly different theory from SR - so it doesn't prohibit in change of light speed at all. This is the only reason, why it enables the pictures, like the above posted and why the GR doesn't prohibit the Lorentz symmetry violation in Doppler shift of CMB. The postulate of absolute speed of light in SR doesn't permit the existence of some gravitational lensing effects at all!
After all, the lensing phenomena is always connected with the change of light speed, not the velocity. Do you know, what the refraction index in optics means? It means the ratio of speed of light in both environments, not the "velocities".
Neverthelles, while the classical GR perimits the light speed change in gravitational lensing and the Lorentz Symmetry violation for microwaves and so on, it still doesn't explain, why such violation should be observed just in microwave spectrum. You're required to use more deeper/general theory to explain such difference.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.