Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 166 of 268 (539343)
12-15-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Iblis
12-14-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
No, Iblis, you are not wrong. Nor are you wrong in assessing that not everyone in this discussion will have the same understanding of the argument as you. That is shown to be eminently so in some cases on this forum.
And yes, I had already decided not to ’take the bait’ dangled by those in this forum who are interested only in being obstructive/destructive — although it suits my Welsh temperament to relish responding in kind. Any such attacks in future I intend to ignore (Moderators please note).
There is, however, the fact that some people are simply infuriated by any sggestion that there may be omething they don't already know. I mean, it’s not as though we have an academic Examinations Board here, charged with being completely dispassionate and objective, is it? Very far from it, it seems. These forums are still diagnostic; they aren’t yet fully tried and tested. There is still, for instance, too much opening for infiltration of sheer daftness and general stupidity that you wouldn’t get in a staff-student seminar, for instance. There are also psychological problems to be considered, some connected with the freedom anonymity gives, dissonance reduction and so on, all of which militates in one way or another against sensible discussion. This makes it implausible to assume that there is some ideal advisable way of dealing with these things. It is still very much a matter of trial and error, I’m afraid.
Also, let’s face it, it has always been standard procedure for revolutionaries to be persecuted in one way or another. And sometimes the clearer the presentation the stronger the opposition. So we mustn’t forget that much of such hostility is only to be expected.
There is also something else with these forums which is that an idea, especially one that is the least bit complex, has to be presented in bits to people who don’t necessarily read all the relevant postings and get the thing together. This means that the idea can’t be presented and assessed as a whole, or Gestalt. It’s as though one were constrained to tell a shaggy dog story in different bits to different audiences in different halls on different occasions. How could the penny ever drop?
In my last posting to you I addressed, to some extent, your question to me about angular momentum in Normal Realism, about how it reconciles quantum instantaneity with light-speed. I hope you find that necessarily abridged explanation helpful.
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Iblis, posted 12-14-2009 10:58 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Admin, posted 12-16-2009 8:57 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 268 (539346)
12-15-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Viv Pope
12-15-2009 5:21 AM


Re: light travels
Yes, of course I can explain it.- and have explained it, many times. Don’t you read the posts?
No, I don't read every post. Where's the post where you explained it? You can link directly to it with the msg tags.


ABE: Oh I found Message 34, those 10 reasons. I'll reply to that seperately. ABE: actually, I change my mind see below*

I’m surprised that you can’t see the difference between talking about light-waves in water and light-waves (allegedly) in vacuo.
Well, it was water waves being a demonstration of how light waves propogate.
For instance, what is there to wave in a vacuum?
Huh?
Are you asking about a medium to propogate through, like the aether or something?
Light waves, themselves, are propogating. They don't need something to progate "in".
We’ve all seen the sort of demonstration you describe. For all their vividness, they say nothing of the LOGIC of this argument about light.
Oh, that "logic" stuff you talking about ain't worth a crap. I've seen the LOGIC that evolution is impossible because of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Its retarded to try to use that LOGIC when a simple observation suggests the complete opposite.
Besides, did you not see — or not read — my posting on the ‘Ten Proofs That Light Doesn’t have a Velocity?’
No, I didn't see it. Post number please (with a link preferably).
‘Spamming my paper to you'? What on earth do you mean by that?
We see guys like you here frequently enough. Your type comes on with some ultimately profound, gonna turn physics on its head, claim but they can never hash out there argument into a text box. The best they can do is throw out links to their website or paper. It might as well be the spam that I get in my email.
Why do I have to convince YOU? I don’t see you as the arbiter on this.
You don't, but this is a discussion forum. Its a two way street. We're not here to play with ourselves. And we're not here to have websites thrown at us (its even in the rules).
Now, if you are unable to explain something in a simple text box, then I don't think you understand it well enough to claim it.
There are many others who are familiar with my work who disagree with you completely.
Until they're here discussing with me, I don't really give a shit about them.
So, if my short explanation doesn’t convince you then please don’t contact me further. From your tone I feel that any further discussion with you would be useless.
Don't run away so soon. At least link me to the posts where you've explained something.
And I'm sorry that being called out on your inability to offer a simple explanation of your claim seems useless to you. That, in itself, is exposing though.
I think Percy hit the nail on the head in the other thread: If anyone thinks that you have explained anything, then they should be able to explain it too. But nobody can, and they're all saying you haven't explianed anything :-\

* I was gonna go point by point to your 10 reasons but I'm not now. I don't see any reason.
I have a direct observation suggesting that light does indeed travel as a propogating wave. All your little logical deductions that light cannot be traveling do not trump my direct observation.
Here's what I had so far:
1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities,
Velocity is defined as "distance over time". You cannot have a "distance over time" that is not a velocity.
which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.
No, it has nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent.
3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.
That's actually kind of funny. That once you put the camera in there to take the picture, then you no longer have a vacuum anymore. Well, if you have an emitter, and then a vaccuum, and then a detector, and the light goes from the emitter to the detector, then it must have traveled through the vacuum.
4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.
Maybe for direct observation, but we can still infer that light is traveling in a vacuum.
5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.
Actually, I'm not going to bother going through all these.
I'm gonna come at this from another angle. And its the same one I came from earlier.
Regardless of all your LOGIC arguments that light cannot be traveling (which what I've read so far are instead saying that we couldn't directly measure the velocity in a vacuum), I have the direct observation of the two slit expirement that shows that light is, in fact, propogating (traveling) waves. So first, we have the simple explanation that does travel.
Now, you can explain why that is wrong. Or can you?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 5:21 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Iblis, posted 12-15-2009 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 176 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 6:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 168 of 268 (539368)
12-15-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 10:13 AM


Laws
I've seen the LOGIC that evolution is impossible because of the 1st law of thermodynamics
I expect you mean the second law (increase of entropy). The first law (conservation of energy) is the one used to prove that A-bombs are impossible.
The third (absolute zero) shows a finite limit to decrease in temperature. Heat of the moment, I'm sure, but it gives me an excuse to talk about Laws in science and philosophy, which are subject to a lot more misinterpretation and misunderstanding than even Theories.
Various Laws often tend to be confused with others, both in the same set and in similar groupings. This usually isn't a problem for sane people, as they tend to be the same principles, and correlaries thereof, applied to different fields and conditions.
For example Newton's third law of motion, "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction", which gives us rocketry
Newton writes:
LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other ... If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies
Newton's laws of motion - Wikipedia
is functionally equivalent to the first law of magic, "as above so below", attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, which gives us relativity ...
Newton translation writes:
1. Tis true without lying, certain most true.
2. That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing.
3. And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.
Emerald Tablet - Wikipedia
In all these cases, we are pointing at conservation / symmetry and applying it to apparent asymmetries in nature on the principle that all such appearances must balance out somewhere.
This relates to the difference between an equation and a function, and the Boolean representation of logic. All proper equations, like 2+2=4, must be balanced. The difference between the two sides, in other words, must be 0, producing a Boolean value of 1, or True. For a function, however, such as A=A+1, to be effective, it must be imbalanced. The two sides must be unequal, a positive (or negative) difference, producing a value of 0, or False.
Thus all equations, or Laws, are true or balanced, and show symmetry. All functions or Theories point at something that is unbalanced or shows asymmetry, and describe how this state is balanced out over time and space to be true. The second law of thermodynamics vs the theory of evolution is an excellent example of this process in action: On the one hand, entropy always increases, overall. On the other hand, on earth we have artifacts like life and stupidity, which seem to increase their energy-levels in ever-more-complex ways over time.
Obviously, energy must be being added to the system from some outside source. As it happens, this source is the sun, the energy comes in the form of light, and it seems to make the trip extremely quickly. It never travels "through a vacuum" however, as there is no such thing. The area between the sun and the earth is occupied by diffuse hydrogen. The area between atoms, molecules, and particles is occupied by fields, forces, waveforms, or "virtual particles" of some kind.
If there ever were a real vacuum, that is if the hydrogen molecules acquired a distance and velocity such as to no longer have any effect on one another, for example in the Big Freeze scenario; then the space between them, being unmediated and resolving to genuine flatness, would become a genuine zero-pressure vacuum and innumerable such "virtual particles" would come swarming out of it into reality, competing to see which field could supersede one another in the first 10^-43 second of the new spacetime, and presumably resolving thereafterward into an immeasurably large, not quite flat, widely dispersed, thingamajig
. . .
Stoop not down, therefore, unto the Darkly-Splendid World; wherein continually lieth a faithless Depth, and Hades wrapped in clouds, delighting in unintellible images, precipitous, winding, a black ever-rolling Abyss; ever espousing a Body unluminous, formless and void.
-- Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 169 of 268 (539380)
12-15-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by cavediver
12-14-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
To Cavediver.
I can’t see any mileage for either of us in this. Yes, the discussion is — or at least should be — about the logical, physical and philosophical consequences of the neo-Machian shift in interpretation of light, from ‘light-in-space to ‘space-in-light’. but you are obviously going to contest every word, stop and comma.
The best I can do in these circumstances is to send you, here, a posting I constructed earlier in response to what you said about your role as a ‘mainline physicist. I’m not sure why I didn’t send it. Anyway, here it is, for your information — and possibly others who, like you, remain suspicious of me and my motives.
Dear Cavediver,
I don't think that a sudden lurch forward in scientific understanding is an occasion for despair. Yes, sure, there are all sorts of claimants to be the ‘next Einstein’. Just as sure, however, is that, some day — and it will have to be soon — some individual or group has to make the necessary breakthrough, and it would be a shame to miss it on account of mere cynicism — as it is said, to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just think: Einstein made such a breakthrough, showing that it can be done. But that was over a century ago. How would you rate the chances of Einstein being the last thinker on earth ever to do something like that?
Anyway, ‘handsome is as handsome does’. I have examined many such claims, and those which aren’t obviously ‘barking mad’ I have studied and analysed in the proper scientific way. Some of my ideas have been taken from such proposals, and I have been careful to accord precedence to their authors in accordance with academic propriety. As it just happens, I have not, so far, found anything that measures up to what is claimed. One finds theories that are logically incoherent, or else, if coherent, reach nonsensical conclusions (reductio ad absurdum). I have seen theories that are internally inconsistent or contradictory ones which go so far then leap the logical track. To examine these theories is my expertise as a Logician and Philosopher of Science. This is what I do. And, of course, I subject my own ideas to that same scrutiny and analysis. Indeed, I regard myself as my own strictest critic.
In a conference, someone said to me, cynically: Viv, you’d be very happy, wouldn’t you, if tomorrow everyone accepted your theory. Yes, I replied, unles someone were to convince me that it was fundamentally wrong. In that case, I’d drop it straightaway, like a hot brick and be the first to announce its falure. This is like the philosopher Wittgenstein who, finding he was radically wrong, announced to his followers that he was now the first non-Wittgensteinian. There was also Alfred Ayer who did much the same — in answer to a question from the auditorium in the middle of his giving a public lecture. (I mention these things only to illustrate to the cynics in this forum that honesty does exist — among philosophers, at any rate. )
Now, as I said, having applied that analytic method diligently over half a century, I have so far not found anything that measures up to its claims to be the next Einstein-like breakthrough, On second thoughts, that is not strictly true. When, in my twenties, I first realised how much easier it was to understand relativity without the ‘speed of light’ I became disconcerted, if not traumatised, to think of the world I was familiar with without thinking of light shooting around in it all over the place. It is not too much to say that it ’turned my mind upside down’. Then an astronomer friend of my father’s, learning of the fix I was in, advised me to study Berkeley. This I did, and found, to my amazement, a whole new, logically consistent way of understanding the world without having to think of light as having a speed in space — in effect separating me from the world by 3.3 nanoseconds for every metre which, I learned, was called the ‘veil of perception’. In due time, of course, I found some faults in Berkeley’s theory which, as I discovered, others had spotted before me and already put right, and then I found, in turn, faults in what those others were saying, which Ernst Mach had put right. Then, discerning some shortcomings in Mach — he died before reaching logical fulfilment of his method — I decided to follow in his tracks and put right those shortcomings myself. In that way I developed a whole new approach to physics along neo-Machian (neo-Berkeleyan or phenomenalist) lines which gave me an entirely new insight into nature which solved all those paradoxes in physics and philosophy which had plagued me earlier. Having taken up the baton that Mach had, in effect, handed me and run it so much further, I decided that since it seemed that no-one else was doing it, I might have to be the one to take it to the finish line — or at least, if it wasn’t to be me then I’d hand it on to someone who, perhaps, was. Looking for someone to take up that baton without fumbling it is what drives me to join in discussions such as this. on this particular forum — and in other places, of course, internationally.
However, in the main I have found that too many of these forums just provide opportunities by being incognito, for some people to act in ways they wouldn’t dare to otherwise, and in other cases, simply to be obstructive to radically new ideas of the very sort which these forums were designed to encourage and promote.
So, my dear Cavediver, may I ask you: in a forum such as this, what is there that a member can do for Mainline Physics that hasn’t already been done, over and over, many, many times — as I’ve said, like chewing on a cud that has long lost all sustenance? Surely, to think about a whole new paradigm of theoretical physics in the direction envisaged by Mach is an adventure, not a disaster! Mainline Physics has had its day, ending with Einstein, more than a century ago. Don’t you think it is now high time to move on?
Viv Pope.
For anyone truly wishing to understand what I am proposing:
Think NON-light-speed, think New Physics, think Mach.
PS,
I’m not sanguine of receiving a decent reply to this posting, although it would be a nice surprise if I did, so as to stop the rattle and ‘get this show on the road!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 12-14-2009 1:00 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 170 of 268 (539381)
12-15-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by cavediver
12-14-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
If you think that is cheating then you don't know your science.
End of conversaton,
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 12-14-2009 1:00 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 171 of 268 (539385)
12-15-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Viv Pope
12-15-2009 3:59 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
There is something I’ve already explained, which is that there is much confusion over this business of ‘spooky action- at-a-distance’ There is simply nothing ‘spooky’ about it. The fact is that in relativity there simply is NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN QUANTUM INSTANTANEITY AND RELATIVISTIC TIME-DELAY. In Relativity, any travelling body has TWO VELOCITIES. One is the distance travelled by the body in the time of the observer of the motion (the relative velocity), and the other is that same distance travelled by the body in the time registered by the body itself (the proper time), both velocities as measured by THE SAME OBSERVER — in a telescope, say. The first of these velocities tends towards an upper limit of c while the other tends towards an upper limit of infinity (instantaneity). So how can it be said that instantaneous and time-delayed action at a distance are contradictory, when they are just complementary aspects of the SAME MOTION?
It is true that at as velocity approaches c, the time experienced on the journey tends to zero, giving rise to an instantaneity of sorts. However, this only works for null-separated events - those events that can be connected by a light ray; e.g. now on earth and 8 minutes time at the Sun. But the EPR experiment is dealing with space-like separated events: e.g., now on Earth, and now at the Sun. Thus Viv's suggestion does not help at all. If it was as trivial as this, one would have thought that Einstein may have realised it
Fortunately, there is no quantum instantaneity to explain in the first place, nor any spooky action at a distance. There is "merely" the existence of quantum variables (something that Einstein did not want to consider) that behave unlike their classical counterparts. As we discovered when we looked at the EPR experiment the other year, considerations of instanteous information exchange only arise when we try to mimic the statistical results of the EPR experiment using classical variables.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 3:59 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 8:37 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 185 by Iblis, posted 12-16-2009 11:46 PM cavediver has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 172 of 268 (539390)
12-15-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Admin
12-14-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Dear Adnmin
Mea culpa. But if I react in the way I do, then I feel, justifiably, that those who attack me (as opposed to fairly and properly questioning the logic of my argument) deserve all they get in return. Should I apologise to this forum for the temperament that nature has given me via my Celtic genes?
There are two confusions, here. One is that in my posting to which you refer, I inadvertently wrote ‘Moderator’ instead of ‘Cavediver’, as I’d intended. So we can forget about your cautionary remarks on that. I was in no way meaning to report discussion problems. I am well capable of handling these myself (Sorry for the mistake!).
The second confusion is not mine. I feel that your caution to me about ‘fighting words’ and so on is misplaced. You should, I think, be cautioning those individuals who are being so blatantly negative and obstructive to shape up to the intentions of the forum, which should be to advance new ideas, democratically, without let or hindrance. You seem to be cautioning people like me whilst allowing, in some cases, moronic inputs from those attempting to be facetious or else just plain ‘bloody-minded’.
Sorry for my own my mistake, at any rate,
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 12-14-2009 1:46 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Admin, posted 12-16-2009 9:16 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 173 of 268 (539393)
12-15-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by cavediver
12-14-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Cavediver,
That is a fair question. The answer is that it comes from both Einstein (1905),and Gilbert Lewis,(1927) who was the first to talk about 'quantum touching' (click this phrase on Google). Einstein knew this but didn't know what to do with it in the way that his mentor, Mach would have done and which Mach's Normal Realist followers actually have done (click 'Neo-Machian Normal Realism' on Gooogle.)
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 12-14-2009 2:35 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 174 of 268 (539448)
12-16-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Iblis
12-14-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Iblis.
You are presuming to give me at my advanced age,, a lesson in diplomacy on behalf of the forum generally, as though you were a consultant to Saatchi and Saatchi.. Suppose I ignore your advice and say I don’t give a damn about diplomacy but only in getting a well-formed rational idea understood and fairly commented upon. Does this give you the ‘clout’ to get me ‘cast out into the outer darkness’ It sounds very Medieval to me.
Anyway your remarks about integers are wide of the mark, especially, since I have already discussed this roundly with my benighted ‘hair-shirt’, Cavediver, Did you not read that? Anyway, I shall repeat for you the nub of that argument.
It is normal procedure in science to construct hypotheses or premises from just guesses, hunches or sheer imagination. Why talk about irrational numbers, such as pi. The fact is that any rational number whatsoever can be expressed as a fraction in which both the numerator and denominator are whole numbers (integers). Such series are known as Diophantine (from Diophantus of Alexandria, 3rd century A.D.). So there is nothing that says I shouldn’t hypothesise a situation involving these integers. For instance, I can legitimately assume that there is a level of physical analysis such that there is a microphysical measure of time, t, all other measures of which are integer multiples, n, of fractions 1/N of t What justifies me in doing that? Absolutely nothing.
So why do it? Because I find that by doing so I get a result, which is that certain algebraic transforms of the relativistic time-equation yield a significant result in terms of frequency. And what is that result? It is that such a transform has the exact shape of the Balmer formula for the sets of series of lines in atomic spectra, whose variables have precisely the dimensions of energy, mass, frequency and so on in all the right places — but no values. yet, of course.
As I described to Cavediver, what is produced in this purely inductive, syllogistic way is an exact ‘identikit’ picture of an empirical situation that is well known to have been discovered by Balmer simply by trial and error, just ‘playing with numbers’ (integers, in fact), albeit later rationalised in terms of electrodynamical theory by Niels Bohr. Now who but a complete fool, presented by an exact identikit picture of someone, would reject it on the grounds of its being "not the right size", that it is either too small or too large to epresent a real life-sized person. Such an objection would obviously be laughed out of court.
So why on earth, when presented with an exact replica of the light spectrum formula, obtained by purely logical means, just reject it out of hand? Surely, it should stir your curiosity to see such an exact ‘identikit’ picture of nature. What kind of mind is it that can immediately just rubbish it — and for what possible reason? It sure beats me!
Besides, if you assume — as well you might , and quite legitimately — that t is basic and irreducible, then what else can multiples of that irreducible unit be, but integers?
For God’s sake, THINK!.
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Iblis, posted 12-14-2009 4:53 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 175 of 268 (539475)
12-16-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by hooah212002
12-15-2009 6:30 AM


Re: light travels
Dear Hooah,
What a dreary and mindless comment!.
Are you so frightened of what I say that you have to close ranks against it? Why do you have to go into a huddle with your friends? Can’t you think on your own?
What you are saying, in effect, is simply that you don’t understand my argument about light-velocity and its logical implications for both physics and philosophy, that it has all gone way over your head. Don’t come this You’re not in my gang bit. Is that what you think this ‘Science’ forum is, just a haven for personal security?
I have met so many people in my time who speak with all the overweening authority of pure ignorance. Please don’t tell me that you are just another one of those. If so, then I hate to think that this may be the standard for your ‘gang’ as a whole! It would certainly explain the amount of sheer negativity and apathy with which my progressive suggestion of a New Physics based on an alternative interpretation of ‘light-velocity’ has so far been met.
Viv Pope.
PS
No proofs, you say. What about the ‘Ten Proofs’ that light does not travel, with which I opened this theme? I have also laid out in detail the logical implications of these proofs. You’re not really ‘getting it together’, are you!
No information? You’ve jut GOT to be kidding!
Who am I? I am just who I am (I don’t hide behind silly pseudonyms). I am Neville Vivian (Viv) Pope, retired college lecturer, one-time telephone engineer, living in Swansea, South Wales, UK.. I am seventy-nine years of age, registered disabled but still active as a Research Associate of Keele University in collaboration with Dr. Anthony Osborne of the Department of Mathematics as well as with my long-time associate, Professor Alan Winfield of UWE, Bristol (These guys, too, are extremely knowledgable"). I write and edit books on Modern Physics, concentrating on Relativity and Quantum Theory, and the philosophical foundations of those theories, My CVs can be read at the click of a button on those websites I have mentioned. I am also aware that this is the second time on this forum that I have given this account, A major part f the problem with communication, here is that you and your ‘gang’ evidently don’t read — far less study — the relevant postings.
VP.
VP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2009 6:30 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by hooah212002, posted 12-16-2009 8:29 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 176 of 268 (539478)
12-16-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 10:13 AM


Re: light travels
Dear Catholic Scientist,
If you don’t have time to read my stuff, then I have no time to read yours. Fair enough?
I see you wish to abandon logic. That tells it all! It’s enough for me!
Best wishes,
Viv Pope.
PS.
CAN’T you see that you CANNOT argue against logic without USING logic? You guys are really in a mess, aren’t you. I can’t see why you bother!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 9:08 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 177 of 268 (539491)
12-16-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Viv Pope
12-16-2009 5:56 AM


Re: light travels
Tell you what: since your "theory" holds so much weight and so many of your peers find it interesting, it should be worthy to be published in a well renowned journal, yes?
Do it. Then come back and your website spamming will hold a wee bit more weight.
I write and edit books on Modern Physics, concentrating on Relativity and Quantum Theory, and the philosophical foundations of those theories
Really? Where are these books? Do not tell me to go to your website either. They should be able to be found on somewhere like amazon or some such. Otherwise you are just another crackpot crazy old man, to which we all already suspect. That, or a liar/fraudster/spammer (I prefer the latter).

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 5:56 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 178 of 268 (539492)
12-16-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
12-15-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
Cavediver,
We're obviously not speaking the same language. I've explained. ad nauseam, that this alternative, Neo-Machian paradigm I am proposing and the Extant Mainline paradigm you are defending are incommensurable This means that there is no simple one-to-one correlation between concepts in the one paradigm and those in the other, any more than there is a one-to-one correlation between a map of Wales and a map of China. Without this being understood, especially if, like Catholic Scientist, you wish to make the abandonment of logic standard form for this forum, then we might as well all be just yodelling at one another. For instance, what do yon think all my talk about Linguistic Analysis, Scientific Method and so on, was about? So far, I have found no-one on this forum who has the slightest clue about that.
Best wishes.
Viv Pope.
PS (to all)
Is there ANYONE on this forum with the nous and the nerve to understand what I am saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 12-15-2009 2:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2009 8:42 AM Viv Pope has not replied
 Message 181 by Admin, posted 12-16-2009 9:01 AM Viv Pope has not replied

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


Message 179 of 268 (539493)
12-16-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Viv Pope
12-16-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Spin and Perception

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 8:37 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 180 of 268 (539496)
12-16-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Viv Pope
12-15-2009 8:35 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
Viv Pope writes:
There is, however, the fact that some people are simply infuriated by any sggestion that there may be omething they don't already know.
I think many find nothing more infuriating that being accused of disagreeing with you because they are infuriated to discover they don't know everything. Could you please refrain from making these kinds of characterizations, or any kinds of characterizations at all about your partners in discussion? They are not the topic, and it distracts a great deal from the topic of discussion.
Also, please stop answering queries by referring people to where they can find the answer. If you've truly already provided the information in this thread then just link to it, e.g., [msg=-166]. If the answer lies elsewhere on the web then please answer the question and provide links as supporting references.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 8:35 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Viv Pope, posted 12-19-2009 11:08 AM Admin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024