|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Speed of Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Please take further discussion of moderation issues to the appropriate thread, Report discussion problems here: No.2. I'll post a response there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Surely you can see that by simply adding one dimension to Pythagoras’ theorem to make it four-dimensional, and deriving the time-dilation directly from it with no reference whatsoever to the ‘light-speed’ postulated in Einstein’s Second Axiom — is pre-Einstein — logically prior If this is derived directly from Pythagoras plus a dimension, can you explain where your concept of "proper time" arrived from? Surely you have time and space, nothing more. Where did this concept of having two times: t, and tR come from? This does not seem particularly pre-Einstein...
By the way, as someone reminds me, how come my highly qualified maths colleagues and science co-authors accept this reasoning of mine without demur? That is, indeed, an interesting question Edited by cavediver, : mixing and
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hoof Hearted Junior Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
I'm still getting my mailbox spammed with notifications that I would prefer not to receive. Can an Admin fix this for me please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3921 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I'm assuming Percy has already done what he was talking about earlier, and it still hasn't stopped. To get yourself some relief, please consider going into your profile and changing the email address stored there to something like quitit@nospam.com until the ownership gets their database back to doing what they tell it to. Don't worry about not being able to get your password, you could always join again and let on who you are, they tend to jump up and merge the id's post haste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
well..
Edited by Bolder-dash, : I have decided to not be involved in this discussion at all, too unsatisfying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Though it is a bit off-topic, is there anyone going around rating all your messages at 1? I see a lot of your messages being rated 1 without any visible reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The first post of Iblis's that I read was really good and I noticed the same thing about his rating too without seein all the low scores. Turns out, most of his messages in the String Theory What is it good for? thread have ratings of 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Turns out, most of his messages in the String Theory What is it good for? thread have ratings of 1. Well, what do you expect if you have the nerve to start a thread like that... he deserves all he gets, and I'll keep... err, I mean, I expect he will keep getting 1s for as long he fails to show string theory some proper respect. Probably But seriously, I think we're all wondering this... who has Iblis REALLY annoyed???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3921 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Right, I'm taking a huge beating in the String thread because I dare to post quotes from minority physicists and ask what the hell they are talking about, my job in that thread. I don't care, cost of doing business.
I probably got the 1 you just saw for being off-topic and/or bypassing moderation a little, I still don't care. I'm not here to get a good rating, I'm here to find out what quantum spin may have to do with gravitation, expansion, and duration. The rest is just cake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3921 days) Posts: 663 Joined:
|
In my last posing to Iblis I talked about argumentum ad hominem Attacks ad hominem and "being nasty to the other guy" are not the same thing. For example, suppose you come up to me and say excitedly "I have discovered that e=mc2 !!!" If I were to say to you "Shut up, your discovery is obviously useless as you are not a real physicist, only a humble patent clerk!" That would be a genuine ad hominem attack. Your occupation or background, or my interpretation of it, has no bearing on the value of your discovery. This is a logic error, which goes beyond a mere violation of good debating style. On the other hand, if I were to say "Shut up, Urkel, you little homo!" This would be a simple ungrounded attack, having nothing to do with the value of your information at all, entirely on your person. No logic involved, though still very bad form. However, if I were to respond with "No you didn't! Einstein did!" Then I would be attacking your claim to discovering the information, rather than the information itself. If you were kind of thin-skinned, you might interpret that as a charge of plagiarism. But a charge of plagiarism is not an ad hominem attack in this case. Finally, if I were to ask "Where did you discover that? In class, or on tv, or in a book, or where?" Then I would be showing insight into your conditional use of the word "discovered" in this particular instance. The only one of these 4 situations that is a genuine ad hominem attack is the first, the one where I disparage your information based on unrelated facts about you. We run into this all the time in this forum. Normally it comes in the form of fundamentalists advancing the claim that because someone is an unbeliever or heretic, none of their insights into scripture or theology (or biology! or physic!) should be given any credence. But it goes the other way too sometimes, the examples I have seen lean toward pushing the idea that having a degree is more convincing than making sense. Simply untrue, either way. Anyway, I'm not seeing these attacks you claim to be experiencing. What I'm seeing is someone asking you questions, that seem hard for you to answer. Maybe it will be easier if I ask one of them.
Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t I'm having trouble understanding what could justify expressing tR as integers. Assuming I followed your derivation correctly, the math we are doing here is essentially a reformulation of the Pythagorean Theorem, which takes the form a2+b2=c2 in modern terms. Yes? But this is the exact equation where we start learning about irrational numbers! If a and b happen to be equal, and are expressed as an integer, then there is no way that c can be expressed as an integer no matter what numbers you use! Exponential roots are where irrational numbers come from! If I change it so that c is an integer, a and b go irrational. It can't be helped, if we are using real right angles. Thankfully, in quantum mechanics we aren't, our angles are bent in a curved spacetime and we have no perfect circles, only very good ellipses. But this takes a lot more work than just poofing it so on the chalkboard, half the people I talk to still think pi is something we really have in the world that is. *shrugs* If you are just using integers here because you already know what you are going for is quantum mechanics, that's not science or education, it's apologetics. If I am missing some important point well, imagine how many other people must be missing it too then, all things considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Right, I'm taking a huge beating in the String thread because I dare to post quotes from minority physicists and ask what the hell they are talking about, my job in that thread maybe, if Lubos Motl was skulking around... despite your concilliatory tone, you have really pissed someone off - we just don't know who!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
I've checked your profile and it is now set to not send email notifications out. If you are still getting them, let us know so the problem can be fixed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Iblis,
Again, I agree with much of what you say. I’m glad that you don’t see anything in my argument about dimensions that is confusing or unsatisfactory. 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? So there is no contradicting whatsoever in saying that the quantum light-interactions are instantaneous, while the delayed time, s/c of the light beam applies to statistical numbers of these instantaneous quantum interactions in accdance with the statistical Secnd Law of Thermodynamics. As I’ve already explained, a natural intuitive model for this is a movie, where objects are instantaneously connected in the photographic stills, while they travel at finite speeds relatively to one another in the running of the film. (Key-in on Google, ‘cinematic model, Pope’) As for the angular momentum connection, again as I have already explained, in Normal Realism all bodies in the universe are instantly paired and balanced in orbital angular momentum relations (forget ‘gravity’), such that their distances apart, are the lengths of their orbital radii, proportional to the amount of their orbital momentum — give or take some minor effects of vector orientation on the distribution of that amount between orbit and spin (Key-in 'Pioneer Anomaly, Pope', on Google). Being reciprocally (i.e., instantly) balanced with one another any change in the motion of any one of the bodies affects, i.e., perturbs, each and every other, so that the whole set of motions is ‘choreographed’, as it were, without involving Newton’s seventeenth-century postulate of an ‘in vacuo gravitational force holding everything together. Why do bodies weigh what they do on earth? Why did Newton’s apple fall? Because bodies on the earth’s surface don’t have enough angular momentum to orbit at that distance from the earth’s centre of mass In falling, Newton’s apple was seeking to orbit at a distance of 289/290ths of the distance below our feet to the earth’ centre? And because the earth’s surface prevents jt from doing that, the object bears down on it with the reactionary force we customarily call its ‘weight’. Gravity’ doesn’t come into it. By the way, what’s all this ‘fee-fo-fi’ stuff? Is it some comment by someone in off the street who has been smoking something? I don’t get jt. Anyway. I hope this explanation of how Lightspeed and quantum instantaneity can live together. Viv Pope
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
To Catholic Scientist,
Yes, of course I can explain it.- and have explained it, many times. Don’t you read the posts? I'll have to be brief on this, since I am now being inundated with questions. I’m surprised that you can’t see the difference between talking about light-waves in water and light-waves (allegedly) in vacuo. For instance, what is there to wave in a vacuum? 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. Besides, did you not see — or not read — my posting on the ‘Ten Proofs That Light Doesn’t have a Velocity?’ ‘Spamming my paper to you'? What on earth do you mean by that? Why do I have to convince YOU? I don’t see you as the arbiter on this. There are many others who are familiar with my work who disagree with you completely. 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. Viv Pope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Why do I have to convince YOU? For one: both cavediver AND Catholic Scientist has proven time and again on this forum to be an extremely knowledgable fellow. Since you subscribed to this forum, you don't get to just say "here, read my blog" and have that be the final say. All of your posts have pretty well been devoid of information, full of name dropping/appeal to authority laden, or you just saying "here, go read this other thing I am claiming to have written.". You have yet to prove anything on this forum. If you wish to not get the responses you are getting from our local knowledgable person on the subject, you would do well to, ya know, prove something.
There are many others who are familiar with my work who disagree with you completely. Who? Prove any of them even know who you are. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : clarification 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024