Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 7:19 PM
368 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle (7 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,870 Year: 21,476/21,208 Month: 1,909/2,326 Week: 364/881 Day: 82/107 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1144 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 211 of 268 (540429)
12-25-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Iblis
12-22-2009 12:07 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
There isn't any information jumping from one end to another. The information is at both ends, and only at both ends. There aren't two events, in different places, happening at one time. There is only one event, happening once. Until we see this whole event, however far away the farthest part of it is, we don't know about it.

An excellent description.

Perhaps you would now like to explain to Viv how he has completely failed to understand what we are talking about


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 12:07 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-25-2009 9:15 AM cavediver has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 212 of 268 (540437)
12-25-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by cavediver
12-25-2009 2:40 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
Now *I'm* confused.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2009 2:40 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by AZPaul3, posted 12-25-2009 2:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 214 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2009 6:04 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 213 of 268 (540490)
12-25-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-25-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
No you're not. You just think you are,

One quantum event, just spread, from our perspective, over a few dozen light years in extent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-25-2009 9:15 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1144 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 214 of 268 (540510)
12-25-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-25-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
Now *I'm* confused.

Iblis was a bit colloquial with his phrasing... let me tighten it up a bit in the hope of reducing the confusion...

Iblis writes:

There isn't any information jumping from one end to another. The information is at both ends, and only at both ends.

Exactly

Iblis writes:

There aren't two events, in different places, happening at one time.

There aren't two events, at space-like separation, that appear *individually* to have something weird going on. The observations made at each receiver are completely random.

Iblis writes:

There is only one event, happening once. Until we see this whole event, however far away the farthest part of it is, we don't know about it.

The only observation (event) which appears weird, is the observation of the correlations between *both* receivers - and this observation (event), wherever it takes place, necessarily requires a signal from each of the two receivers to communicate its respective results.

Once we have seen both outputs, we may *think* that the correlations are due to some FTL signalling, but in no way can we see any evidence of this signalling in the individual observations. Causality is preserved entirely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-25-2009 9:15 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 215 of 268 (540554)
12-26-2009 7:02 AM


AZPaul3 and Cavediver
Got it - thanks!

--Percy


    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 216 of 268 (540793)
12-29-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by AZPaul3
12-25-2009 12:30 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
Dear AZPaul3,
That is a very, VERY good question and I am more than glad to answer it. As a matter of fact, from the way this idea was received from the start, I was prompted, when I later went to university, to study Psychology and Sociology as subsidiaries to my major subject, the Philosophy of Science. What my studies revealed supported my personal experience, namely that the ideal I had entertained of science being disinterested and objective was palpably false. That ideal, as you describe it, is that

“No matter how new or paradigm-shifting, no matter from what venue it should arrive, a powerful viable hypothesis would cause much interest and debate in the physics community.”

That’s exactly what I thought before I entered the fray. Then I was forced to ask myself the question which you have very directly and sincerely asked: “Why has this not happened with Normal Realism? Why has such an explanatory hypothesis with such powerful attributes not been studied by the community of physicists? Are one’s peers telling one and one’s colleagues what they see as the failings of Normal Realism?

What feedback, you ask, am I receiving from my peers? Well, first let me say that my immediate peers, Dr, Anthony Osborne of Keele university and Prof. Alan Winfield of the University of West of England, Bristol (UK) are in complete agreement with the thesis, not least because, together, we all debated each point of development as we went along. Indeed, my protégé, Osborne, has taken it over from me as an official research project at Keele and he is the first author of our latest book. Meanwhile, Winfield, as well having lectured on the subject of Normal Realism at Cambridge, is a main editor of the same book, having written the commendatory foreword for it. Another member of the group was the Telecommunications Engineer, Alan Smart, unfortunately now deceased. He, too was instrumental in the development of Normal Realism, right from the start. Supporters of the thesis were Sir Herman Bondi and Sir Karl Popper, both also deceased. These, to some extent, surely, are my “peers” in this enterprise of mine. Also, the thesis is mentioned in the peer review organ, the Citations Index. Moreover, it was first recommended for publication by Prof. Pierre Noyes of SLAC California. This was in the journal Physics Essays. I trust that answers to some extent your question about one’s ‘peers’. And I apologise if I am just repeating, here, something I posted earlier.

Anyway, to return to the question of why, if this is such a hotshot theory, it was not immediately embraced by the scientific community. Well, certainly, if you discover some new polymer or some new way of, say, stabilising the plasma in the magnetic bottle at the fusion research laboratory then, yes, fortune will beat a path to your door. However, Science is by no means uniquely free of vested interest, This, of course, is due to the competition for the funding of sometimes very expensive research projects. Now let us imagine that you produce a theory to the effect that there can be no such things as ‘gravitons’ or ‘gravity-waves’ in vacuo. Then what happens to all those funds for producing the costly apparatuses for the detection of these things that are destined to end up as junk left lying around in places like the site around Fermilab? And supposing – perish the thought – that your theory happens to prove that there can be no such thing as the Higgs boson, or ‘God Particle’, then what about the sixty billion dollars that have been spent on producing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN? Moreover, if your theory proved that there js no such thing as ‘dark matter’, then what about the moneys spent on detecting particles of this theoretical substance (WIMPS) at places like the deep-mine laboratory in Boulby, Yorkshire? Do you think that all those people steadily employed in that research, or if they happen to have spent their best years as bona fide lecturers in these things, are likely to study your suggestion and welcome it with open arms? Well, of course not, and in my university studies into the Psychology and Sociology of Science I discovered just how naive I had been to suppose that that such would be the case. (There is a book called ‘Betrayers of the Truth’, written by two sociologists, William Broad and Nicholas Wade, which tells it all.)

This, of course, is why there have been ideas in the past, particularly in Medieval Science, which have been regarded in their day as ‘dangerous’, or ‘heretical’ – dangerous, often more to the presenters of those theories than to the Authorities. As history attests, this goes right back to the time of Socrates who, as is well documented, was executed for his honest philosophical criticisms of the knowledge of his time. And, of course, there was Galileo who was threatened with torture if he did not withdraw his theory of planetary motion, and Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake for that same reason, all for the sake of an idea which was accepted eventually by the science community.

Well, this is precisely what my thesis has been charged with, that is to say, heresy, or a ‘danger’ to the current status quo. Why? Because as soon as I presented to the authorities my simple geometrical version of relativity, produced out of pure curiosity by means of nothing more than a pair of compasses and a ruler, it ran into trouble. A vicar asked to comment upon it, panned it because, as he reported – believe it or not – “it says nothing about the Holy Trinity”. At the local university, having at first authenticated the idea, they later spurned it because, as they were happy to assume, it was proposed by some untutored, in-off-the-street bum claiming, over their heads, to be ‘another Einstein’. And then I was removed from my job for being an embarrassment to my employers, the GPO (General Post Office) Telecommunications section, for hobnobbing with Einstein while in their employ he was satisfied to remain a “menial telephone lineman” instead of using his time seeking promotion.

Here is a piece out of something I wrote for posting to this thread but which I did not send:

“I had to consider the psychological truism that aggression is always a response to threat, real or imagined. So, what else could explain this aggression towards my idea than that it threatened these people in some way. This wasn’t surprising to me, since that is the sort of aggression that this idea of mine has encountered over the almost half century since it first came to the notice of the press in 1964. I mean, if what I was saying was just uninteresting or trivial it would have simply been ignored instead of creating the consternation that it did. Thus was a dead giveaway of the fact that fear, in effect, was the motive behind that aggressive reaction to my proposal of a New Physics based on the ideas of Berkeley, et al. instead of the traditional atomic materialism of Democritus. I mean, what else could it possibly be? This suggestion, backed up by some historical examples. instead of being considered as a real objective possibility, was taken, on their part, as nothing more than a personal slight. This was manifest by so many silly ‘Yah-Boo and ‘Sez you!’ types of answers, as if my aim in citing these examples of fear-reaction was to accuse these people of fear personally…

“…. All this gives me pause, yet again, to reflect on this idea which some authorities have stated to be ‘dangerous’ and ‘immoral’. This means that the issue raised by my alternative idea of light-speed is not so much a logical or scientific issue as a psychological and sociological one. How does one deal with that? Gee, I don’t know. But certainly not on these ‘physics’ forums it seems! My experience on this EvC forum thread simply confirms, yet once again, as previously on the BAUT forum, what a ‘dangerous’ and socially unacceptable idea this one is. Whether the idea is true or not doesn’t come into it.”

So, dear AZPaul3, that js my (highly abridged and condensed) answer to your question. Basically, it is that dispensing with ‘light-velocity’ sets physics on a train of logical implications which it dares not follow for fear of a complete philosophical upheaval of physics on a truly Copernican scale. For instance, just one of these logical implications is to dispense with in vacuo processes altogether, not only of light but also the assumed ‘fields of ‘gravitation’, electrostatics, magnetostatics etc. Even Bondi, who had concurred with my original simple idea of dispensing with ‘light-velocity’, refused to follow its implications that far.

As for NASA’s Pioneer Anomaly, the solution which Normal Realism suggests for this is to include the spins of bodies, such as their space probes, in the total angular momentum of an orbiting body, which is to question the validity of Newton’s revered ‘gravitational’ mechanics which NASA employs in tracking their space-probes. With that small but radical adjustment to orbit theory, the answer to NASA’s problem is embarrassingly simple, as may be seen by anyone who studies it. (I can supply the details of this simple solution on this forum to anyone who might be interested.)

Viv Pope

PS,
By the way, AZPaul3, Milgrom’s suggestion for varying G is purely ad hoc. He gives no specific reasons for it. Nor does he follow up the logical implications of such changes in G for physics generally – and certainly not for the philosophy of physics. Nor does he link his changes in G with the spin angular momentum of orbiting bodies such as the spinning space-probes and spiral galaxies in the way Normal Realism does. Normal Realism solves both the ‘missing mass’ and the Pioneer anomalies in a single stroke (again to be explained in this forum on request).

PPS,
I trust that the Moderator (Percy) will appreciated that none of this is ’off-topic’, that it all has to do with the issue of the ‘speed of light in space’.

VP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by AZPaul3, posted 12-25-2009 12:30 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 217 of 268 (540829)
12-29-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Admin
12-24-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Welcome Back
Thanks, Percy, and compliments of the season to you - and all. I trust that with some sensible debate I may achieve my original intention of presenting to this forum a clear and well worked-out alternative to the traditional physics that has produced so many insoluble paradoxes, such as - just to name a few - the conflict between relativistic time-delay and quantum instantaneity; the Two-Slit mystery; the Pioneer and missing mass anomalies; the incomprehensible 'Big Bang'and inscrutable, unimaginable 'black holes'.

Viv Pope


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 12-24-2009 2:59 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Viv Pope, posted 12-29-2009 3:09 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 218 of 268 (540862)
12-29-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Viv Pope
12-29-2009 12:05 PM


Re: Welcome Back
To Percy, et al.
As a start in this more positive direction and as a run-up to the New Year, and a subject for sensible debate, let this be my latest contribution to the discussion on the issue of light-speed..

THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP TOWARDS NORMAL REALISM
Following Iblis’ 'Eureka!' realisation that, by the logical law of the Identity of Indiscernibles, the beginning and end of a quantum interaction between distant bodies are one and the same event, the next logical step is to realise that all our knowledge of distant objects, of space and all it contains begins in vision, that is in light-quanta (quantum pixels) as directly seen. In that direct vision lies all the information that apprises us of the existence of objects such as the moon and sun, other planets, stars and galaxies, as well as the distances of these objects from one another and from ourselves This knowledge is supplemented with the information we gain from other objects which are instrumental to our perception, such as spectacles, microscopes, telescopes, voltmeters, ammeters, magnetometers, closed circuit television, and so on – and, of course, other observers with whom we communicate and compare our common experiences of what we call the world.
All the dimensions of this world are therefore basically polar, or point-centred. There are, altogether, four of these basic dimensions, elevation, or up and down angle of sight; azimuth, or horizontal left and right; range, or radial distance and, to complete the dimensional quadruplet, time, or the succession of images at the point, or focus, of intersection of the whole three-dimensional, spherical frame. This frame ‘contracts’, as it were, about the point of observation (human or instrumental) at the constant rate, c, experimentally determined to be 3.3 nanoseconds for every metre of length, the same for all observers regardless of where they are or how they move in relation to one another.

By ‘light’, or ‘vision’, here, is meant, of course, all forms of luminous information from deepest infrared and radio to the farthest ultraviolet and gamma, omitting nothing whatsoever in that spectrum. The logical inference from this is that the World, in all its dimensions of mass, length, time, energy, etc. is, basically, light. In other words, the World is in the light with there being no question of the light being in the world, far less as something travelling in that world in any kind of vacuum between objects. The World is thus (for the phenomenalist) essentially an intercommunicational network, or matrix of polar perspectives in which the ultimate ‘observers’ are the atoms of bodies in direct inter-resonant quantum contacts with one another, with there being no question, at that atomic proper-time level, of there being any distance, as such, between them..Since every body is an object in the spherical frames of any number of observers, the point centres merge, by well-known mathematical procedures, into a Cartesian grid, or rectangular frame of the three-dimensional kind envisaged by geometers such as Euclid and Descartes, and the four-dimensional rectangular kind depicted by Einstein and Minkowski. The essential difference, of course, between the Einstein-Minkowski rectangular frame and the polar frame described by Mach, is that whereas in the view of Einstein and Minkowski the rectangular frame was regarded as primary (a priori) and the polar frame epistemologically secondary, in Mach’s phenomenalist view the polar frame of the observer is primary while the rectangular, or Cartesian frame is secondary and derivative (a posteriori).

Here, then, at the turn of the millennium, with the all-attested failure of our traditional commonsense view of the World we have two very different paradigms of physics to choose from as the way forward that is best fitted to recover our lost understanding of physical reality. One is the traditional paradigm from Galileo to Einstein, quaintly called Realism (Fundamentalist Realism) and the other is called Normal Realism, or Commonsense Realism advanced in the Phenomenalist tradition of the ‘English Empiricists’ from Berkeley to Mach. The choice is very clear insofar as the two paradigms are largely incommensurable, all they have in common being the actual physical phenomena on which, ultimately, all forms of physics whatsoever are founded. This being the case, there are three distinguishing criteria for selection: i) the comparative predictive power of the two paradigms, ii) their comparative conceptual efficiency according to the criterion known as Ockham’s Razor and, iii) the least misuse, or jargonising of ordinary language (pace Wittgenstein, et al.). Studies over the last half-century have revealed that the Normal Realist paradigm of physics serves as the fittest for purpose according to those three criteria, which is what members of this forum were asked, logically and objectively to consider.

Viv Pope


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Viv Pope, posted 12-29-2009 12:05 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2009 3:42 PM Viv Pope has responded
 Message 220 by Iblis, posted 12-29-2009 4:19 PM Viv Pope has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1144 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 219 of 268 (540864)
12-29-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Viv Pope
12-29-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Welcome Back
The choice is very clear insofar as the two paradigms are largely incommensurable, all they have in common being the actual physical phenomena on which, ultimately, all forms of physics whatsoever are founded. This being the case, there are three distinguishing criteria for selection: i) the comparative predictive power of the two paradigms...

So can you show us some predictions calculated under Normal Realism, along with the basis of these calculations, and the associated observations confirming these predictions?

You have mentioned the Pioneer Anomaly. Can you show any calculations based upon your spin/angular momentum concepts that give a predictive value to what we should see?

For what you call Realism, I have already offered up the prediction of the g-factor, and to that I add the prediction of the rate of speed-up of orbit of binary pulsars based upon their quadrupole emission of gravitational radiation (gravity waves).

ii) their comparative conceptual efficiency according to the criterion known as Ockham’s Razor

There is little point in discussing Ockham's Razor in the view of comparing two competing theories until their predictive merits have been analysed and considered sufficiently equivalent. My theory that Goddidit last thursday in exactly the way we see will always win the Ockham's Razor test, but is doomed to failure when it comes to predictive capability.

iii) the least misuse, or jargonising of ordinary language

{must resist, must resist}

Let's just repeat as above that let's compare predictive merits before we even go here...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Viv Pope, posted 12-29-2009 3:09 PM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 3:13 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1396 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 220 of 268 (540867)
12-29-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Viv Pope
12-29-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Welcome Back
You, may be giving me more credit than I am due. What I managed to finally get was something about a series of experiments cavediver had linked me to, and why even the statistical anomalies used to demonstrate "quantum leaps" cannot be used to communicate or otherwise break causality.

I still don't understand what this has to do with c. In a previous message I believe you indicated that one end of such a quantum event would be separated from the other by a minimum time interval. That doesn't appear to be what the math that predicts the quantum events says, nor what the experiments that confirm the math say. But no one appears to have done these tricks at a great enough distance to be really sure.

So perhaps that would be a good place to start up again. Why do you think quantum leaps take place limited by c, rather than "instantaneously" as the math seems to imply. By this I mean, they are predicted to take place, for example, one end on the earth and the other at the sun, at say 3 pm period full stop, rather than from 3 to 3:08:20ish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Viv Pope, posted 12-29-2009 3:09 PM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 6:30 AM Iblis has responded

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 221 of 268 (540927)
12-30-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Iblis
12-29-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Welcome Back
To Iblis
I'm surprised, to say the least, that that you say:

'I believe you indicated that one end of such a quantum event would be separated from the other by a minimum time interval.'

That is not what I say at all. What I do say is that it is a common mistake to assume that a relatively moving body has just one ‘velocity’ whereas, in fact it has two. The one is the distance the body travels in the time of the observer and the other is that same distance travelled by the body in the time registered by the body itself – as read in its spectrograph, say. The one tends to an upper limit of c as the other tends towards a limit of infinity – for the same body in the same motion. Failing to differentiate between these two ‘velocities’ is what creates the notorious, so-called EPR conflict between Einstein and Bohr over ‘finite speed c’ and quantum ’instantaneity’, This is rather astounding, since both Einstein and Bohr knew that Einstein’s relativistic time-formula gives both finite-speed c and proper-time instantaneity. As it is said, ‘Great men may have great faults’. Failing to realise that these ‘Greats’ are/were just men like ourselves is what most inhibits progress in all walks of life.

In the aircraft industry, for instance, it has been found that many plane-crashes have been caused by the younger co-pilots tending to obey the instructions of their ‘superiors’ even when they knew, in themselves, that these instructions were wrong. As I see it, this inhibiting factor, of over-veneration for the ‘more experienced’ members of this forum is holding truly independent thinking and judgement in thrall. Typical of this syndrome is the case of the wartime Spitfire-ace who became senior pilot of a commercial passenger ‘plane. In an emergency, he crashed the ‘plane’ because, with his seniority, he overrode the advice of his younger, more up-to-date-trained colleagues which, if followed, would have saved the ‘plane.

Need I say more!

Viv Pope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Iblis, posted 12-29-2009 4:19 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 12-30-2009 6:58 AM Viv Pope has responded
 Message 223 by Admin, posted 12-30-2009 7:02 AM Viv Pope has responded
 Message 224 by Iblis, posted 12-30-2009 3:10 PM Viv Pope has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1144 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 222 of 268 (540935)
12-30-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Viv Pope
12-30-2009 6:30 AM


Re: Welcome Back
The one is the distance the body travels in the time of the observer and the other is that same distance travelled by the body in the time registered by the body itself – as read in its spectrograph, say. The one tends to an upper limit of c as the other tends towards a limit of infinity – for the same body in the same motion.

This is certainly true.

Failing to differentiate between these two ‘velocities’ is what creates the notorious, so-called EPR conflict between Einstein and Bohr over ‘finite speed c’ and quantum ’instantaneity’

And this is a very common misconception amongst both layman and numerous young students over the years. This "instantanteous" "velocity" is exactly what a photon experiences, yet we know full well that the photon connects two events that are "null" separated, i.e. 1 light year away, 1 year ago, or for the Earth and Sun, 8 light minutes away, and 8 minutes ago.

This obviously does not help in any way with the two recorders of the EPR experiment, which are recording events that are potentially light years away from each other, but within the same range of time.

Furthermore, as I explained both above and in the previous EPR thread, no communication is necessary between two receivers anyway to create the EPR results - only qunatum variables. So here Viv is using the wrong explanation to solve a problem that does not exist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 6:30 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Viv Pope, posted 12-31-2009 1:22 AM cavediver has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 223 of 268 (540936)
12-30-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Viv Pope
12-30-2009 6:30 AM


Re: Welcome Back
Hi Viv,

If you would like to discuss how opinions and attitudes are influenced by senior or authority figures then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 6:30 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Viv Pope, posted 12-31-2009 2:00 AM Admin has responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1396 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 224 of 268 (541006)
12-30-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Viv Pope
12-30-2009 6:30 AM


c & t
it is a common mistake to assume that a relatively moving body has just one ‘velocity’ whereas, in fact it has two.

Let's review this and see if we can distinguish the substance from the semantics.

In the propagation of light from the sun, from the viewpoint of the light, its proper time, it passes from one point to the other without duration; whereas from the viewpoint of the observer, this process takes 8 minutes and change.

On the other hand, in a quantum event as classically described, there is information moving from one place to another, or a relationship between the two places which exists and then collapses, which is a linear sequence and therefore must have a duration element; but from the viewpoint of the observer it seems to take no time at all. Proper time and relative duration seem to be reversed in this instance.

Why does this happen? Or doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 6:30 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Viv Pope, posted 12-31-2009 8:27 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 225 of 268 (541007)
12-30-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by cavediver
12-29-2009 3:42 PM


Re: Welcome Back
To Cavediver

Re. your message 221:

One sometimes has to set aside an old way of thinking so as clearly to contemplate a new. Nor can one simply throw logic to the winds. For instance, you don’t need great mathematical calculations or ‘experimental data’ but just ordinary ‘grocery-level’ logic and arithmetic to solve the ‘Pioneer’ and ‘Missing Mass’ anomalies. All you have to know is what every housewife knows, which is that when you have a limited quantity of anything, like a pint of milk for instance, the more of it you pour on one dish of cornflakes, the less you have to pour on another. Angular momentum is such a conserved quantity which, in an orbiting body, is the sum of its orbital and spin angular momenta. From this it follows, logically, that the more there is of spin angular momentum the less there has to be of orbital angular momentum, and the less there is of orbital angular momentum, the closer the body orbits to its angular momentum barycentre – the sun, say, in solar orbit.

This is precisely what NASA have found with their spinning space-probes, which is that the orbital trajectories of these probes, in solar orbit, ‘veer anomalously towards the sun’. This is perfectly predictable on grounds of pure logic, and the only thing that a call for ‘mathematics’ and ‘experimental evidence’ does in these cases, is simply to confuse the issue, since the ‘evidence’ is already there in the fact of the so-called ‘anomaly’. (This covers your “associated observations confirming these predictions”.)

The same goes for the so-called ‘missing mass’ anomaly which, from the standpoint of Normal Realism, is due to the fact that, like NASA, the ‘gravitational’ theory that the astrophysicists use to calculate the total mass of all the orbiting bodies in the known universe, such as the spinning planets and stars – and, not least, the prodigiously fast-spinning spiral galaxies – typically neglects the spin angular momenta of these bodies, which is the ‘anomaly’ that these astrophysicists report. If only these people weren’t inhibited by their over-reverence for Newton and his in-vacuo ‘gravitational force’, these anomalies would automatically vanish.

Another logical prediction Normal Realism makes is rather obvious. It is the solution to the chronic ‘EPR paradox’, as explained in my reply to Iblis’ post (see my Message 221).

Then there are my ‘Ten Proofs’ none of which has been validly refuted, any one of which, in itself, is sufficient to refute the conventional notion that c is the ‘velocity of light in space’. This predicts that there will be no valid experimental evidence of the existence of light in vacuo – in effect, that Einstein’s famous Second Law of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo’ is redundant and unempirical.

I have also shown how very simply and easily relativistic time-dilation can be deduced without Einstein’s Second Axiom, which has been confirmed by others, including Bondi and, much more recently, by other scientists, as reported in New Scientist. (circa Nov. 2008)

I have also shown how the Balmer-Rydberg formula for spectral frequencies can be deduced directly from the relativistic time-formula, simply in terms of integer multiples of an irreducible quantum time measure – which, obviously, being irreducible, can be increased only in direct integer multiples of that irreducible time-quantum.

In all of this it has to remembered that there are rational arguments which are purely logical, or non-quantitive, which do not require either mathematical calculation or experimental evidence. Take, for instance, a very simple argument : ‘All unmarried men are bachelors. Fred is an unmarried man, therefore Fred is a bachelor.’ Imagine how inappropriate it would be to demand ‘experimental evidence’ for this, or to produce the ‘calculations’ in support of it and the ‘associated observations confirming these predictions’. Some arguments which are much more extended and complex than this very simple one follow the same logical rules and thereby prove or disprove a case, with no need whatsoever for mathematical or experimental proof, to demand which would be completely absurd.

Normal Realism also predicts that the ‘Higgs boson (the so-called ‘God Particle’) will be found not to exist, and therefore, that the LHC experiment at CERN is bound to fail, as must any experiment to discover ‘photon-photon scattering’, or the existence of ‘gravity-waves’ or’ gravitons’ truly in vacuo. So far, the continued lack of evidence for these things over the past sixty-or-so years supports my predictions that all expectations of these things are just ‘pie in the sky’.

Now I hesitate to suggest this, but it seems appropriate on this thread, according to its heading, the ‘Big Bang’, etc., to append the transcript of an interview I had with a freelance TV producer on this question (to appear).

[TO PERCY: I hope that the length of that appendix doesn’t swamp the system or appear to be in any way ‘off-topic’. It all has to do, basically, with the seminal issue of ‘light-velocity’. So, on second thoughts, perhaps, I should present it on a separate posting. (Watch this space)]

Best seasonal wishes to all,

Viv Pope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2009 3:42 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Viv Pope, posted 12-30-2009 5:32 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017