Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 268 (538376)
12-06-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Viv Pope
12-04-2009 1:20 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
The difference between what we do and what Minkowski did, scientifically speaking, is to show that Einstein’s Second Axiom concerning the ‘constant velocity of light in vacuo’ is both mathematically and conceptually redundant. One might validly argue that this, implicitly, is what Minkowski did, and that may well be true.
First of all, it is explicitly what Minkowski did. He showed that all of relativity followed simply from postulating that we live in a four dimensional world with a certain geometry.
Also I've been reading through your website and what I've seen indicates that you are simply replicating, with a lot more words, some aspects of what Minkowski did in a 58 page report 102 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Viv Pope, posted 12-04-2009 1:20 PM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 12:38 PM Son Goku has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 92 of 268 (538379)
12-06-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 6:00 AM


Re: urgent question
Viv Pope writes:
I’m sorry if I seem to have upset you guys. It was by no means intentional.. Thinking about it, it seems to be due to a mismatch of educational backgrounds. As I have already intimated, apart from my early years in Electronic Engineering, my main education has been on the Arts side of the Educational divide — Philosophy,, in point of fact. But Philosophers and Physicists have always been at odds. As I think I said, in the university I was at, members of the two departments, of Philosophy and Physics, respectively, actually came to blows over their two different approaches to nature. So in my dedicated efforts to unite the two disciplines (my life’s work) it is inevitable that I should upset someone or other. It goes with the territory. (Recall that Socrates was executed for it, and so were other philosophers such as Giordano Bruno.)
I am not upset so much as disappointed. And drawing the parallel between you and scientists of the past who were executed is a bit of a stretch is it not?
Now you say that I should ‘dispense with the philosophical obfuscations’. That’s very sad, because those ‘philosophical obfuscations’ are by no means superficial, to be dispensed with ‘just like that’. For anyone who understands, they are absolutely central to my argument. Let me run that argument by you again and then you can tell me whether or not any of it is ‘obfuscation’.
Like I said this is just one man's opinions from your posts here on EvC. When you first started there was more philosphical bantering which skimmed the subject of relativity and the speed of light but since my post it seems that you and other have gotten more in-depth with answering these questions. Again this is my perception which could very well be wrong. Again, I am doing more reading that writing because many of the questions I would ask have already been asked but will put my pen to the page so to speak when I see areas that still need to be investigated.
I have proved to you that there can be n such thing as light in vacuo — at least, no-one, so far, in this forum or anywhere else (Cavediver notwithstanding) has succeeded in refuting any, far less all of those ten proofs. Now I have known many people who have been upset by the very suggestion that light may not be what they have always thought it to be, that it need not be thought of as something travelling in space but that it can be interpreted as no more than an observational constant. But, like it or not, the fact that c can be interpreted in that alternative way without logical contradiction, is irrefutable. If ignored, it doesn’t simply ‘go away’.
Will go back and reinvestigate those ten proofs as soon as I finish posting.
As for the ‘talking-down’ tone of my arguments, I apologise for that. Doubtless, it’s to my advanced age and world-weariness — a typical ‘Grumpy Old Man'.
LOL, I think we are all guilty of this here and there. My post came off too critical and negative in my view and for that I apologize. This was meant more as advise from several years of experience of being on this forum. It was not meant to be a personal attack but I am afraid that is the way it came off and for that I apologize.
Their concern ought to focus solely on the logic of the argument.
Agreed except that a discussion board is a little bit more fickle and ephemeral than the peer review process. Posts are seen in the moment so to speak and are quickly forgotten. In order to make an impression, just like in a verbal debate, points must be made clearly and distincly. It is a skill all of us have to learn here at EvC.
So, finally, may I say that we should stick to the argument that has developed here over the alternative interpretation of c and its philosophical ramifications. And if you think that is all ‘obfuscation’, then, to quote Oliver Cromwell: ‘In the bowels of Christ, think again!’
This will be my last post on this subject (your posts here on EvC) because I do not want this to go WWIII and produce a battle that draws away from the thread. That was never my intention. I will restrict all my own comments to asking for more clarification on your arguments.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 6:00 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 3:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 93 of 268 (538381)
12-06-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
12-05-2009 2:53 PM


Re: Traveling Light
Fair enough, Percy, Yes it does take some understanding.
The answer, as I have explained, is that the model for the paradigm I am talking about is an INFORMATIONAL one to replace the traditional MECHANICAL model. The examples I have given are a video scenario and a pointillist painting. In these examples, all the distance — and the action in the case of the video or movie — are projected by the observer from patterns and sequences of screen pixels (or spots of pigment in the painting). Other than relatively to the observer, there are no dimensions of distance or action to talk about. (The same goes, by the way, for these dimensions in standard orthodox Relativity.) In this Informational Model, the ‘pixels’ are the discrete quanta (integer multiples of Planck’s quantum h), and the patterns and sequences of those quantum pixels are what is presented in direct vision (pace Feynman and Wheeler).
Now I don’t think I have to expand on that, since it has already been dealt with on this thread. Suffice it to say, that, just as in the video scenario the pixels have none of the velocity or action characteristics of the screen objects (such as galloping horses, speeding racecars and so on), neither do the quantum pixels in the light from which we project ordinary physical phenomena.
So, enough of that. Now let’s deal with your question of how (in this paradigm) objects influence one another at a distance. The answer Normal Realism gives is that all mass objects are paired and balanced in overall conserved angular momentum relations. The moon, for instance, is paired and balanced with the earth around a common barycentre (centre of balance), and that earth-moon system is paired and balanced in an angular momentum orbit around the sun. The same goes for all the other planets and satellites of the solar system, so that any change in the motion of any one of those bodies immediately affects — i.e., perturbs — some one or all of the others, permutatively.
That is how bodies affect one another at a distance. Now to your Question about spacecraft travelling the moon at various fractions of the speed limit c. Yes, they do travel. And, yes, everything at the lowest level of physical analysis, as per the ‘Video Model’, described above, and since those quanta that make up everything don’t travel, then, as you say, ‘nothing travels anywhere. Right?’ WRONG! If you apply that reasoning to the video Model you can say, without contradiction, that the screen pixels which make up everything in the scenario don’t travel while bodies in that scenario do travel. The same goes for the quantum pixels and the bodies in physical phenomena. The bodies travel, while their ultimate quantum parts don’t, they simply occur.
Do the predictions of this alternative way of thinking differ from those of Standard Relativity? Yes, Percy, very much so, as I think I have already explained. But I will explain it all again, if you think it’s necessary.
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 12-05-2009 2:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 8:41 AM Viv Pope has not replied
 Message 95 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 9:17 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 94 of 268 (538385)
12-06-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Traveling Light
Just to throw something out there. Isn't the present thinking on sub-atomic particles is that without the Higgs field no particle would have mass. And because the Higgs field has no effect on photons that photons have no mass and this is why they can travel at the speed of light from our perspective (or from there perspective they are not moving at all).
Is not spacetime in a way just a framework for comparing particles which would normally be identicle except for the fact that they conform to Pauli's nonexclusion principle as a result of the Higgs field.
Just need some clarification of this on Viv Pope's end and how it fits into his proposal of the nonlocality of spacetime itself.
I am just a layman asking questions.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 8:13 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 95 of 268 (538388)
12-06-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Traveling Light
Viv Pope writes:
The bodies travel, while their ultimate quantum parts don’t, they simply occur.
I am not understanding what is actually doing the traveling. The 'bodies', in this case a spacecraft, is made up of quantum parts and therefore how can it 'travel' if in essense nothing is doing the 'traveling'? Do you mean that these quantum 'particles' pop into and out of existance along the path that the spacecraft is traveling? If so how do these quantum particles know to pop into and out of existance along the path? Or am I totally off mark here. This is very confusing.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 8:13 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 96 of 268 (538389)
12-06-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
12-05-2009 3:01 PM


Re: The funny thing is...
My dear Cavediver,
Yes that's more like it. I, too have been surprised that the seeming lack of knowledge, on this forum, of the long well-known fact that anything travelling at the (theoretical) speed c has no endurance, hence that the emission and 'absorption of the quantum are one and the same event. Another reductio ad absurdum of the 'photon' concept is that if it is a particle with any rest mass at all, no matter how tiny, then at that photon’s alleged ‘speed c’ its mass becomes infinite, which is ridiculous, whereas if it has no rest-mass at all, then, to call it a ‘particle’ is equally ridiculous. (Let that be my ‘eleventh’ proof that light doesn’t travel.)
It amazes me that since all this is, as you say, historically cut-and-dried. people still go around talking glibly about ‘photons’ in university classes and seminars — and even in standard Physics textbooks — with as much gall as the medieval priests used to swan around teaching about angels and cherubim.
The fact, however, that all this stuff is, as you say, already known’ doesn’t make my work redundant, as you will surely see in due course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2009 3:01 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 9:31 AM Viv Pope has replied
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2009 11:30 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 97 of 268 (538390)
12-06-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 9:19 AM


Re: The funny thing is...
whereas if it has no rest-mass at all, then, to call it a ‘particle’ is equally ridiculous.
I think calling a photon much less any other sub-atomic particle a 'particle' is just a stand-in hyperbole. Scientists and educated lay readers understand that sub-atomic particles are not really physical point-like 'particles' in the strictist use of the word but are more accurately wavefunctions of spacetime itself induced by the Higgs electroweak field.
My question though is why are photons immune from the Higgs field?
Still trying to understand this stuff.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 9:19 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Viv Pope, posted 12-07-2009 5:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 98 of 268 (538393)
12-06-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
12-06-2009 6:25 AM


Re: urgent question
No, Cave-Diver, as I have already explained, the fact that a thesis A works satisfactorily — even excellently — doesn't logically imply that no other theses can work equally well or even better. Nor is it necessary that what may be called ‘electrons’, ‘protons’, ‘neutrons’ and so on in the one theory will mean the same in some other theory. This is rather obvious, surely.
So I don’t have to answer this question of yours in the way you might require, which would be like me insisting that questions asked of an Englishman must be responded to in Welsh. (You may know that there are concepts in each one of these languages which have no direct parallel in the other.)
Now what is so different about the paradigm I am talking about is that what is called an ‘electron’ in our standard traditional language has no meaning in mine. For instance, what takes the place of an ‘electron’ in the Normal Realist paradigm is simply a mass (of 9.1093897 10-31 kg) in which the traditional static ‘charge’ in coulombs is replaced by a spin angular momentum of half bar-h, or h/4pi. In other words, the spin of the mass ascribed by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck replaces the traditional concept of ‘charge’.
Nor is that the only difference, as those who read journals like Galilean Electrodynamics, Physics Essays, and so on — to say nothing of our commissioned books and papers — will already know.
So, in short, to answer your question in your traditional physics-speak would be like trying to whistle with flour in my mouth. Best not to try it, eh?
Thanks for your comment,
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2009 6:25 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 268 (538395)
12-06-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 9:19 AM


Re: The funny thing is...
whereas if it has no rest-mass at all, then, to call it a ‘particle’ is equally ridiculous.
Why should being massless mean that something is not a particle? Are you also suggesting that gluons do not exist?
I also have to ask - if photons do not exist, then what causes electron positron pair creation, and how is energy conserved? As seen here:
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 9:19 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Viv Pope, posted 12-07-2009 8:00 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 268 (538396)
12-06-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
12-05-2009 4:33 PM


Re: The funny thing is...
Percy writes:
Of course, it would be better if you or Son Goku were doing this...
Cavediver to Viv writes:
Please explain why QED is wrong in its prediction, whilst managing to predict the electron g-factor correctly to 12 decimal places - a prediction that involves summing over the very process that you are claiming does not exist!
Viv in reply writes:
So I don’t have to answer this question of yours in the way you might require, which would be like me insisting that questions asked of an Englishman must be responded to in Welsh.
See?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 12-05-2009 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 101 of 268 (538397)
12-06-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Son Goku
12-06-2009 7:21 AM


Re: Special Relativity and geometry
Dear Son Goku,
Okay, let me try (again).
The radical difference between my relativity and the standard Minkowski-Einstein one is that it makes no reference whatsoever to ‘light velocity’, as per Einstein’s Second Postulate of Relativity. This means that it dispenses with the whole historical rigmarole of ‘light-waves’, ‘light corpuscles’, ‘fields’ (electrostatic, magnetostatic or gravitational), nuclear (strong, weak, electroweak) or whatever. In other words, it solves what neither Einstein nor Minkowski, Abdus Salam, or whoever have failed to solve, that is, the ‘Unified Field’ problem. This, my uniquely different approach to relativity achieves by dispensing, at a stroke, with ‘fields’ altogether. There is much more, of course, but not in just a single paragraph. All this, by the way, I have already explained in this forum. Don’t you guys study these postings?
Thanks,
Vv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 12-06-2009 7:21 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Son Goku, posted 12-06-2009 12:14 PM Viv Pope has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 102 of 268 (538398)
12-06-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Son Goku
12-06-2009 7:21 AM


Re: Special Relativity and geometry
Dear Son Goku,
Okay, let me try (again).
The radical difference between my relativity and the standard Minkowski-Einstein one is that it makes no reference whatsoever to ‘light velocity’, as per Einstein’s Second Postulate of Relativity. This means that it dispenses with the whole historical rigmarole of ‘light-waves’, ‘light corpuscles’, ‘fields’ (electrostatic, magnetostatic or gravitational), nuclear (strong, weak, electroweak) or whatever. In other words, it solves what neither Einstein nor Minkowski, Abdus Salam, or whoever have failed to solve, that is, the ‘Unified Field’ problem. This, my uniquely different approach to relativity achieves by dispensing, at a stroke, with ‘fields’ altogether. There is much more, of course, but not in just a single paragraph. All this, by the way, I have already explained in this forum. Don’t you guys study these postings?
Thanks,
Viv Pope.
Edited by Viv Pope, : No reason given.
Edited by Viv Pope, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 12-06-2009 7:21 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 268 (538400)
12-06-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Special Relativity and geometry
Viv Pope writes:
The radical difference between my relativity and the standard Minkowski-Einstein one is that it makes no reference whatsoever to ‘light velocity’, as per Einstein’s Second Postulate of Relativity. This means that it dispenses with the whole historical rigmarole of ‘light-waves’, ‘light corpuscles’, ‘fields’ (electrostatic, magnetostatic or gravitational), nuclear (strong, weak, electroweak) or whatever.
This, my uniquely different approach to relativity achieves by dispensing, at a stroke, with ‘fields’ altogether.
Well Minkowski has already done all this. His formulation of relativity doesn't need fields, light-waves or light corpuscles either. He described relativity as a consequence of pure geometry, hence what you have done is nothing new.
Further, a reading of your website indicates the same. What is correct on the website isn't new and what is "new" isn't correct. For instance you claim:
Viv Pope on his website writes:
In Einstein's theory the 'special' and 'general' aspects of relativity are separate
which is completely false. Special Relativity is a special case of General Relativity. Minkowski spacetime, which is the geometric way of describing special relativity, becomes just one solution of the equations of general relativity. They are certainly not seperate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 11:43 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Viv Pope, posted 12-08-2009 5:37 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 104 of 268 (538404)
12-06-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Son Goku
12-06-2009 7:32 AM


Re: Moderator On Duty
Dear Son Goku,
Now why on earth would I do that? What a waste of fifty years study that would be!
Your insistence on this, which is tantamount to a charge of plagiarism, is ridiculous. Are you in the habit of regarding anyone presenting something new as necessarily a shyster? Can't you credit someone with some new intelligence and honesty?
Since this suspicion is inhibiting your understanding, you need to dig much deeper and wider into what is being honestly and conscientiously proposed here.
Just for one thing, if, as you say, you read my website (which one?) you either did not read or else you studiously ignored the philosophical implications for a New Physics of this New Approach to relativity, which you will find neither in Minkowski nor Einstein — nor anywhere else, I'll be bound. Surely you read my posting to (the guy whose pseudonym escapes me), answering his charging me with 'philosophical obfuscation'. That answer to him would be my same answer to you.
Thanks,
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Son Goku, posted 12-06-2009 7:32 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Son Goku, posted 12-06-2009 12:56 PM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 268 (538405)
12-06-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
Viv Pope writes:
Now why on earth would I do that? What a waste of fifty years study that would be!
Your insistence on this, which is tantamount to a charge of plagiarism, is ridiculous.
I'm not accusing you of plagarising Minkowski. I just think that maybe what you are proposing isn't that new or incredible. It's just a very wordy rederivation of some of what Minkowski did.
Viv Pope writes:
Are you in the habit of regarding anyone presenting something new as necessarily a shyster? Can't you credit someone with some new intelligence and honesty?
No, I'm okay with new things. In fact what I'm saying is that what you are doing is old. Something accomplished at the turn of the century. Of course that is in the cases where you are correct. Some of what you claim is known to be false.
Just for one thing, if, as you say, you read my website (which one?)
The Web Site of Science-Philosopher Viv Pope, at The Website of Science-Philosopher Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 12:38 PM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024